Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Two minor corrections in a book is not uncommon and does not invalidate the other 99.99999% of the book. Books are frequently cleaned up in subsequent editions.
The fictional book "2000 Mules" had to be recalled due to threat of a lawsuit against the publisher. The rewritten book removed the names of organizations who had been claimed to be involved in "Ballot trafficking". They could not defend their wild claims in a court doesn't surprise me.
It's about how it was phrased. This looks fishy = okay. They did something illegal = not okay
In order to avoid a possible lawsuit, they changed the wording.
You didn't know this happened over 2 months ago? lol
Maybe the companies that were wronged are waiting to file lawsuits? Seems strange they'd wait this long.
You seem to be in favor of freedom to lie. That's not what freedom of speech was meant for.
Since you seem so enamored by facts, I would like to point out one to you. Fact is, the Supreme Court disagrees with you and ruled a few years ago that the mainstream media had no legal obligation to tell the truth. That under the 1st amendment, freedom of speech was not subject to factual determination, but was sacrosanct. That’s a fact. I don’t necessarily agree with it, but it’s a fact, nonetheless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hesychios
Freedom of speech is all about having and sharing a difference of opinions based ultimately upon the facts. We can share these opinions and together come to some consensus.
Really? Well, that then leads us into the very dicey and contentious world of defining what separates a fact from fiction, or from opinion, or from a belief, for that matter.
I would highly suggest that among any group of people on planet earth, liberals would be the last group to want to have their statements and claims judged on the basis of being factual or truthful, because if that were to occur, the lot of you wouldn’t be safe to move your lips or make a grunting sound.
One example of this rather interesting debate about how unique facts can magically become, shows up quite clearly, and is a fairly modern manifestation, created in the minds of liberals, who insist that there are dozens of genders, rather than the two genders recognized by thousands of years of science and human experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hesychios
If, however, the individual or group or company is actually making up lies which harm others, the harmed party has the freedom and right to seek redress. If they can prove in court the lies have harmed, they can seek compensatory and even punitive damages.
So what do we see here? We see that the publisher is recalling a book to redact it, because they have figured out that the 2000 Mules story relies heavily upon lies.
That kind of exposure would really escalate the damages, far beyond the revenues. No broadcaster could afford it.
No, it’s just another of the countless examples of liberal liars power to censor the truth. That’s all that boils down to.
As George Orwell famously stated, “In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act”.
You seem to be in favor of freedom to lie. That's not what freedom of speech was meant for.
I won't speak to 2,000 mules as I have not watched it, don't know the content. But you have a freedom to lie, unless it's under oath. Just like Fauci, Walensky, Biden, et all repeatedly lie. In the case of Fauci, even under oath.
Freedom of speech is to protect people from expressing their viewpoints, and by necessity we need to protect liars to keep honest people from being falsely accused of lying.
It's about how it was phrased. This looks fishy = okay. They did something illegal = not okay
In order to avoid a possible lawsuit, they changed the wording.
You didn't know this happened over 2 months ago? lol
Maybe the companies that were wronged are waiting to file lawsuits? Seems strange they'd wait this long.
First of all, I disagree, especially given the FACT that illegal election activity has already been admitted to, and in a couple of instances already prosecuted and the perps found guilty in a court of law. So, claiming that there was election fraud is not subject to debate. That is an established fact. The question now revolves around the magnitude and extent of the election fraud, not whether such occurred.
Thatnever happened. The movie failed to show the correlation between even a single so called mule and the same person at multiple dropboxes. In fact, they didn't even anyone at multiple dropboxes at all. Oh they claimed to have such information and/or video that they would release later. But of course they never did.
Your post shows exactly why this kind of anti-American propaganda is so dangerous.
Exactly right.
The guy in GA they showed depositing the most ballots(5?) was identified, investigated and found to be totally legit, in fact.
I won't speak to 2,000 mules as I have not watched it, don't know the content. But you have a freedom to lie, unless it's under oath. Just like Fauci, Walensky, Biden, et all repeatedly lie. In the case of Fauci, even under oath.
Freedom of speech is to protect people from expressing their viewpoints, and by necessity we need to protect liars to keep honest people from being falsely accused of lying.
Precisely. Freedom of speech is there to protect the rights of those to freely express an unpopular opinion, because popular opinion requires no protection.
Applying any standard to such a right immediately destroys the right, based on some qualifying factor, to which rights are immune.
You have a right to breathe … which is not subject to qualification.
Precisely. Freedom of speech is there to protect the rights of those to freely express an unpopular opinion, because popular opinion requires no protection.
Applying any standard to such a right immediately destroys the right, based on some qualifying factor, to which rights are immune.
You have a right to breathe … which is not subject to qualification.
There is this dangerous meme among Democrats that "misinformation" and "disinformation" are not protected by the 1st amendment. I'm not sure how to counter it, but we can see from this thread that many Democrats think it's A-ok to get a book de-platformed because they think it's misinformation/disinformation.
This is the road where we lose our civil liberties. If you go against a "fact" checker, you're prosecuted!
It is interesting that after decades of multiple documented incidents and criminal convictions for voter fraud in Democratic machine run cities like Philadelphia, that we are now being told that in one of the most contentious elections in US history that not only did no fraud occur, but even suggesting that it might have is "a threat to democracy".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
