Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2021 5:07:38 GMT
I mean fiction mocking/criticizing/undermining the official narrative?
I know the video Plandemic was banned from every site, but I also know "Plague of Corruption," despite unexplainable delays, is still on Amazon.
But that is sold as non-fiction.
|
|
|
|
Post by adrianallan on Sept 15, 2021 15:58:03 GMT
You would think that in a free society, these sorts of books would be allowed.
However, the past year has seen the biggest assault on our freedoms of expression imaginable.
The excuse is always "you are endagering the health of others by spreading these rumours"
I do look forward to what David Icke writes a book dedicated to the "plandemic" as he has done about 911 and various other taboo topics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Retread-Retired-Cameron on Sept 15, 2021 16:51:43 GMT
You would think that in a free society, these sorts of books would be allowed. However, the past year has seen the biggest assault on our freedoms of expression imaginable. The excuse is always "you are endagering the health of others by spreading these rumours" I do look forward to what David Icke writes a book dedicated to the "plandemic" as he has done about 911 and various other taboo topics. Yes, books mocking, criticizing, or undermining official narratives can be written. Yet there is also the reality each individual's freedom of expression has limits. Yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater in the US and watch what happens. Let someone publish a book encouraging sex between adults and young people years short of age of consent and see how long it takes for the book to be shut down. There are many possible examples.
A century ago people with absolutely no medical training [as well as some doctors] decried the smallpox vaccine as needless and a violation of their rights. The reason you don't have smallpox killing lots of people today is because the courts and enough of society determined the individual's right to die unvaccinated does not trump the rights of others to not get infected with a preventable and often deadly disease.
The right to do something comes with an attached responsibility and the potential for consequences. |
|
|
|
Post by adrianallan on Sept 15, 2021 21:32:21 GMT
I agree with everything you are saying
However, the whole Covid issue is more nuanced than we have been led to believe and we need an open and honest debate
For people under the age of 50, the chance of Covid death is no more than that of death through drowning
Weigh this against the risk of taking an new style of "vaccine" based on messenger RNA technology and its unknown long-term side effects.
Being allowed to have a mature and reasoned debate about these sorts of issues would be a good start. But it has been completely shut out of the mainstream media. The result is that people are not being properly informed. It seems like we have been fed irrational propaganda. In the UK now, they will be jabbing 12-year-olds next week. Surely, we can have an open and honest debate about this - but again, the answer is a definitive "no".
|
|
|
|
Post by Retread-Retired-Cameron on Sept 15, 2021 22:32:16 GMT
I agree with everything you are saying However, the whole Covid issue is more nuanced than we have been led to believe and we need an open and honest debate For people under the age of 50, the chance of Covid death is no more than that of death through drowning Weigh this against the risk of taking an new style of "vaccine" based on messenger RNA technology and its unknown long-term side effects. Being allowed to have a mature and reasoned debate about these sorts of issues would be a good start. But it has been completely shut out of the mainstream media. The result is that people are not being properly informed. It seems like we have been fed irrational propaganda. In the UK now, they will be jabbing 12-year-olds next week. Surely, we can have an open and honest debate about this - but again, the answer is a definitive "no". Statistics are so much fun. In the US roughly 4,000 people drown every year, out of a population of some 331,000,000 per the 2020 Census. In 2020 and 2021 [as of 8 September 2021] there have been 652,480 in the US due to COVID-19. Of those deaths 36,392 were people aged 0 years to 49 years, somewhat more than 4,000. In the UK roughly 400 people drown per year, whereas COVID-19 has taken 134,000 lives between 2020 and 2021. Simply put drownings are much lower as a cause of death than COVID-19.
As for mature and reasoned debate about the disease and the vaccines, what are the credentials of the people debating? My oldest brother was an epidemiologist before he retired. The other brother was a research pharmacologist, not sure if he's retired yet. Would you trust what they say versus what someone with no experience in medicine and / or virology has to say?
|
|
|
|
Post by adrianallan on Sept 16, 2021 6:04:58 GMT
To be honest, Cameron, I don't think that is the point. Free speech is free speech, no matter what one's credentials are. In addition, government policies have had a huge human cost. So somebody with no knowledge of medicine could discuss the huge human impact of this. But again, the mainstream media will not allow it.
Moreover, although you might not know it, there are several high ranking physicians who are questioning both the threat of so-called pandemic and the safety of the experimental vaccines. Let's hear what these people have to say. What we are being fed right now is one-sided propaganda and it is incredibly stifling.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronmiller on Sept 16, 2021 15:24:06 GMT
I can just see a book by David "the royal family are really alien lizards" Icke about the pandemic being a real asset.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronmiller on Sept 16, 2021 15:25:56 GMT
I think that too many people seem to forget that in the US, at least, the Constitutional protection of free speech extends only to what the government can do. It does not apply to individuals or corporations. That is, the US government can't restrict what you publish but Facebook or Amazon can.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ken on Sept 16, 2021 15:55:24 GMT
Free Speech.
Humbug.
No such thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2021 21:26:47 GMT
I think that too many people seem to forget that in the US, at least, the Constitutional protection of free speech extends only to what the government can do. It does not apply to individuals or corporations. That is, the US government can't restrict what you publish but Facebook or Amazon can. Amazing information, Ron. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2021 21:32:06 GMT
I can just see a book by David "the royal family are really alien lizards" Icke about the pandemic being a real asset. That's when I stopped reading. 😕 |
|
|
|
Post by ronmiller on Sept 18, 2021 15:40:21 GMT
I think that too many people seem to forget that in the US, at least, the Constitutional protection of free speech extends only to what the government can do. It does not apply to individuals or corporations. That is, the US government can't restrict what you publish but Facebook or Amazon can. Amazing information, Ron. Indeed. The Bill of Rights is concerned only with those rights the government can't interfere with. It places no restrictions on individuals. So if, say, a newspaper decides to redact portions of a letter you wrote to the editor they are not violating the First Amendment. Only the government could do that. |
|
|
|
Post by Retread-Retired-Cameron on Sept 18, 2021 17:34:25 GMT
Amazing information, Ron. Indeed. The Bill of Rights is concerned only with those rights the government can't interfere with. It places no restrictions on individuals. So if, say, a newspaper decides to redact portions of a letter you wrote to the editor they are not violating the First Amendment. Only the government could do that. There are certain times when the US government can prohibit publication / dissemination by the individual, usually things like classified information or exploitative images of the underaged. The list is fairly short and violations often lead to correctional times. By that token the government can take action on former military for violating a work-related NDA or a violation of certain parts of the UCMJ.
If a surgeon working on you asks you to shut up so he / she can focus, it's not a violation of your free speech.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2021 9:52:07 GMT
Indeed. The Bill of Rights is concerned only with those rights the government can't interfere with. It places no restrictions on individuals. So if, say, a newspaper decides to redact portions of a letter you wrote to the editor they are not violating the First Amendment. Only the government could do that. There are certain times when the US government can prohibit publication / dissemination by the individual, usually things like classified information or exploitative images of the underaged. The list is fairly short and violations often lead to correctional times. By that token the government can take action on former military for violating a work-related NDA or a violation of certain parts of the UCMJ.
If a surgeon working on you asks you to shut up so he / she can focus, it's not a violation of your free speech.
Interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by thunderguy on Sept 24, 2021 15:08:41 GMT
I think that too many people seem to forget that in the US, at least, the Constitutional protection of free speech extends only to what the government can do. It does not apply to individuals or corporations. That is, the US government can't restrict what you publish but Facebook or Amazon can. That's an excellent assessment Ron, and thanks for pointing that out. For instance, those in education are often required to sign papers when they're hired to the effect the school has some control over what they (teachers, et al) can publicly post. Unfortunately, like TOS, this is often overlooked and the school employees get chastised when they are "out of bounds." This seems not to be the case for colleges; at least the stories I've found the administration usually sides with their professors for their right to speak freely.
Police departments also seem to have policies about what officers are allowed to say publicly, and even if they don't, they may come down on the individual if it doesn't shine pretty lights on their administration.
Non-disclosure agreements are part of many company's hiring policies. Lawsuit settlements often include similar terms. To effect, you are trading your freedom of speech for a job or money.
To borrow from the hack line from Spider-Man (or I think it's Spider-Man, maybe it's just the Mandella effect?) "With great power comes great responsibility." I think among our greatest freedoms is the ability to speak our minds. Words, spoken or printed have incredible power. But I also think we show respect for that freedom by using it wisely. My wife shared with me this concept of speaking or writing... "Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?" That may not cover ALL situations, but I truly think if those of us who share this right would consider those three questions instead of lashing out knee-jerk reactions, we might be a calmer, more civil society.
Off-topic but... An interesting note about how we react to information, is that the majority (IMHO, I can't cite a source) tend to give credence to the first information they hear. I don't think it's a sign of stupidity but rather that empty slot in our brain functions on the "first come first served" principle. I am far from wise, but when my boys were in school, I admonished them that if they were ever in any form of altercation, be the first to speak up, because if they didn't, "the other guy" would be treated as the victim. Perhaps this (if accurate) is why so many are concerned about misinformation. Once "out there" it's hard to pull back.
I close with Mark Twain:
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to talk and remove all doubt."
Or in my words: "Best not to say anything unless you've got something to say."
Or in my wife's words: "I can talk all day as long as I don't have to say anything."
Peace all!
|
|
