• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

John Kerry to WEF - We must win to abolish the First Amendment

Two cultural traditions

The tradition of dispute, debate and argumentation born of the Scottish Enlightenment, attributed to Edinburgh

There was another bookish lad in the town, John Collins by name, with whom I was intimately acquainted. We sometimes disputed, and very fond we were of argument, and very desirous of confuting one another, which disputatious turn, by the way, is apt to become a very bad habit, making people often extremely disagreeable in company by the contradiction that is necessary to bring it into practice; and thence, besides souring and spoiling the conversation, is productive of disgusts and, perhaps enmities where you may have occasion for friendship. I had caught it by reading my father’s books of dispute about religion. Persons of good sense I have since observed, seldom fall into it, except lawyers, university men, and men of all sorts that have been bred at Edinborough.

– Benjamin Franklin (Autobiography, volume 1)
Click to expand...

The tradition of unarguable, eternal verities which must not be disputed, born of Thomas Aquinas, attributed to the Jesuits.

The capital theses in the philosophy of St. Thomas are not to be placed in the category of opinions capable of being debated one way or another, but are to be considered as the foundations upon which the whole science of natural and divine things is based; if such principles are once removed or in any way impaired, it must necessarily follow that students of the sacred sciences will ultimately fail to perceive so much as the meaning of the words in which the dogmas of divine revelation are proposed by the magistracy of the Church.
Click to expand...

The first tradition is that of the founders of the US, denizens of coffee houses, taverns and debating societies.

The second tradition is that of the establishment of Europe.

Kerry and Biden, and the WEF are of the second tradition.
 
Kirkhill said:

We must destroy democracy to save it.

FMG.
Click to expand...

"John Kerry to WEF - We must win to abolish the First Amendment"

Can you point out in the posted discussion where Mr. Kerry said "abolish the First Amendment" as you've indicated in the thread title? He did say ". . . if people only go to one source, and the source they go to is sick, and, you know, has an agenda and they're putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence". That is a stance that is not new, nor has it been limited to those that you may categorize as being on the left or of one of the two traditions that you list.

Misinformation* or, more pertinently, disinformation* is a threat. It's highlighted and discussed almost daily on these means. However, being able to counter that threat becomes a regulatory challenge in light of the First Amendment. However, overcoming that challenge does not necessarily require abolishing free speech protections. This, from the Congressional Research Service, discusses the issue.

False Speech and the First Amendment: Constitutional Limits on Regulating Misinformation
Federal and state legislators have expressed interest in regulating online misinformation and disinformation. Such regulatory efforts may implicate the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. The Supreme Court has said the Free Speech Clause protects false speech when viewed as abroad category, but the government may restrict limited subcategories of false speech without violating the First Amendment. For example, defamation, fraud, political advertisements, and broadcast speech are subject to special considerations. This In Focus highlights some relevant constitutional considerations in crafting new regulations of false speech.
Click to expand...

And a discussion of the topic with a Canadian bent.

www.lawfaremedia.org

Is Canadian Law Better Equipped to Handle Disinformation?

Canada does seem to be better off than the U.S. in shielding its electoral system from floods of disinformation. But whether that’s the result of Canada’s different
www.lawfaremedia.org www.lawfaremedia.org


* MDM can be identified as three main forms of informational activity that can cause minor or major harm:
  • misinformation refers to false information that is not intended to cause harm
  • disinformation refers to false information that is intended to manipulate, cause damage and guide people, organizations and countries in the wrong direction
  • malinformation refers to information that stems from the truth but is often exaggerated in a way that misleads and causes potential harm
 
But look, if people only go to one source, and the source they go to is sick, and, you know, has an agenda and they're putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence.

So what we need is to win the ground, win the right to govern, by hopefully winning enough votes that you're free to be able to implement change.
Click to expand...

He has been referencing the First Amendment as a problem that inhibits his ability to govern. He goes on to say that he needs to win to be free to be able to implement change. The inference is that the change needed is the First Amendment.

That position is not without modern day support.


www.aclu.org

ACLU Strongly Supports Legislation To Repeal First Amendment Threats in Campaign Finance Law | American Civil Liberties Union

www.aclu.org
apps.bostonglobe.com

Editing the Constitution | Redo the first two amendments

Neither of the first two amendments is a model of clarity or precision.
apps.bostonglobe.com
www.washingtontimes.com

First Amendment outdated, should be rewritten, majority say

A poll shows that a majority of Americans think the First Amendment is outdated and should be revised.
www.washingtontimes.com www.washingtontimes.com
www.cruz.senate.gov

The Truth about Democrats' Efforts to Repeal the First Amendment | U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas

From The Hill: Erwin Chemerinsky is a passionate liberal and a distinguished scholar and dean. We...
www.cruz.senate.gov www.cruz.senate.gov


....


JOHN KERRY: The dislike of and anguish over social media is just growing and growing. It is part of our problem, particularly in democracies, in terms of building consensus around any issue. It's really hard to govern today. You can't -- the referees we used to have to determine what is a fact and what isn't a fact have kind of been eviscerated, to a certain degree. And people go and self select where they go for their news, for their information. And then you get into a vicious cycle.
Click to expand...

Kerry prefers his information refereed, curated.

I prefer my information raw and unrefined.

He prefers the revealed truth from credentialed experts.

I prefer to rely on the scientific method of hypothesis, antithesis, synthesis and thesis as applied in 7 billion independent laboratories with access to all the available information.

....

Democracy is chaotic. It is slow. It is inefficient.
Dictatorships do move faster.
 
I think you’re reading a lot in between the lines than what was actually said.

I don’t like the guy but he’s saying the truth: in democratic societies with constitutional protections for free speech in this new media environment, it is extremely difficult to combat misinformation. I didn’t read that as some sort of plan to end free speech. Just a real frustration on how to deal with misinformation from bad-faith and/or foreign actors is extremely difficult without infringing on people’s rights.
 
And again we disagree about semantics. You take a sentence " . . . they're putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence . . . " and interpret it as hammering the First Amendment out of existence. I read it as he is discussing "disinformation" and hammering it out of existence.

And that leads back to my question - Can you point out in the posted discussion where Mr. Kerry said "abolish the First Amendment"? You seemingly phrased the topic as a quotation of Mr. Kerry, but he did not say that. You expressed that you prefer your information "raw and unrefined", however you "refereed/curated" Mr. Kerry's position in such a way that I categorize it as "misinformation". Nuance, anyone?
 
Are we going to pretend free speech in the US is a thing? It's wealth gated at best, and if you are a millionaire or a corporation you can stifle the shit out of people with just the threat of legal action for libel. Even if you are speaking the truth you can get bankrupted by defending yourself in civil court by someone with a big legal retainer.

And Free Speech 'crusaders' like Elon Musk is pretty quick to block and kick off journalists and random citizens that disagree with him or call him out for things.

I think civil societies need limits on free speech (like hate speech) but it's a tricky thing to manage in practice. Completely unrestricted free speech only works when both sides are civil, and that just doesn't exist IRL.
 
Some people just can't see what's happening right infront of their faces.

We are, to speak broadly, living in a time which I think will stand out in history as a time of great change. A time when certain people of importance have tried to limit and restrict free speech, and other people of renown have fought to protect it.

In that sense, I think we will look back on this period of history as a true battle of good vs evil - whether it's well intentioned or meant to be measured or not, nobody advocating for the restrictions on free speech will be remembered as the good guys, especially when those same voices are buried neck deep in their own corruption scandals.

...

It's funny how most media articles relating to the WEF and it's members all seem to circle around subversive politics, transhumanism, forcing vaccinations, involuntary vaccinations (slightly different than forced vaccinations), the elimination of people's individual freedoms in terms of home ownership or vehicle ownership, 15 minute cities, pandemic treaties that eliminate a nation's sovereign ability to respond as they see fit (or don't see fit), etc etc.

We hear Klause openly discuss how the WEF spends a small fortune to "penetrate the cabinets" of western governments so they can start to implement the changes his organization wants to see, not what the people of those countries actually want. And we see those same individuals start to implement changes that are clearly not in the interests of the nations that elect them (and seem to have a hard time getting rid of once the jig is up...)

Yet when one points out some things which should be of obvious concern to the masses - not because they are paranoid or trying to hurt anybody, but because they perceive something to be of concern - those advocating for limits to free speech quickly discredit them as being nutjobs & conspiracy theorists


Everything the WEF is about, is about the elimination of our traditional democratic societies and, more broadly speaking, the elimination of the modern human.

If one hasn't read The Fourth Industrial Revolution, I highly highly recommend you do so. It's written by none other than every politician's favorite Nazi overlord himself, Klause Shwab, and discusses 'some' of their ideas of what they want the future to look like...and it isn't exactly a beautiful Star Trek future they envision. (Seems more like A Handmaiden's Tale)

It isn't a coincidence that WEF affiliated politicians have simultaneously made life for farmers and food producers as difficult as they can, implementing carbon taxes on farmers and the stuff farmers need all over the world at roughly the same time.

It isn't a coincidence that internet censorship legislation has suddenly been quietly introduced and implemented all around the world, and independent media organizations don't get government funding yet the media organizations that have been caught lying still get millions in government subsidies.

People who refuse to see they are in a battle and have been for a while now continue to be skeptical at their own peril. In a world of instantaneous communications, high speed travel, entire institutions dedicated to controlling what people see and hear, its important to call out public figures when they make statements insinuating the US First Amendment is a pain in the butt & something they would prefer not exist.

(If the First Amendment didn't exist in its current form, would any of us even know about his statements regarding the First Amendment? Maybe not...)



Anyways I've rambled on here. But basically Nazis & those who affiliate with Nazis are bad, 'mmmmm kay? (Especially Nazis who quite often talk about world domination & penetrating western governments while dressed up like Emperor Palpatine...)
 
@CBH99 Given that the first Amendment is an amendment to start with, why can't it be amended to add restrictions to carve out things, like hate speech or extreme political disinformation (like candidate A kills babies and kicks puppies)?

There are already plenty of examples of things that are criminal and not actually free speech (threats of violence, yelling fire in a theatre, etc) so there is already some nuances and it's not some free for all like some people think.
 
Navy_Pete said:
Are we going to pretend free speech in the US is a thing?
Click to expand...
Thousands of people have followings of various sizes for whatever it is they're promulgating on web pages, so yes.

". . . if people only go to one source, and the source they go to is sick, and, you know, has an agenda and they're putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence".

First he can clean up the Democratic party, so that there are no more "Steele Dossiers". If he can do that, maybe - maybe - he can be granted an opportunity to talk about extending the cleanup elsewhere.

For decades people have talked about free speech as being the solution for bad information. Kerry is just like all the rest of the lazy progressives in a hurry, too impatient or entitled to do the hard work. Also, they often enough will want to find a way to shape information to suit themselves and skirt the rules they claim to desire. So out come the authoritarian proposals.
 
What scunners me most is not even the arrogance, but the sheer idiocy of those that believe they can get 7 billion people all marching to the beat of one drum.

The evidence of history is that attempts with smaller populations by multiple Great Men (and Women) have all failed.

Trying to impose order is a fool's game. You're always much further ahead accommodating chaos. It doesn't matter if you believe in democracy or capitalism, both of them are. They are simply the least common denominators - they represent exchange by individuals. And those exchanges can't be stopped.
 
notwithstanding all the above I find it extremely unlikely that there is going to be any movement on the 1st amendment. Its like talking about Senate reform up here except 10x harder
 
Brad Sallows said:
Thousands of people have followings of various sizes for whatever it is they're promulgating on web pages, so yes.

". . . if people only go to one source, and the source they go to is sick, and, you know, has an agenda and they're putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence".

First he can clean up the Democratic party, so that there are no more "Steele Dossiers". If he can do that, maybe - maybe - he can be granted an opportunity to talk about extending the cleanup elsewhere.

For decades people have talked about free speech as being the solution for bad information. Kerry is just like all the rest of the lazy progressives in a hurry, too impatient or entitled to do the hard work. Also, they often enough will want to find a way to shape information to suit themselves and skirt the rules they claim to desire. So out come the authoritarian proposals.
Click to expand...
Did you read the rest of what I wrote?

My point wasn't that there isn't free speech in some form, just that it's a lot more restricted in practice, and also different with how much money you have. People with money have a lot free-er speech in practice compared to someone that can't afford to defend against frivolous lawsuits. Even with the anti-SLAPP legislation in place, can still cost a lot to get to that stage, and most people can't afford that. multimillionaires and billionaires can, so they have a lot more actual free speech than the poors.

The legal system is already pretty wealth gated generally but there is very little in practice stopping millionaires from preventing anyone with a webpage from saying something they don't like with the threat of an expensive lawsuit. Even though truth is a defence against libel, doesn't really matter if you lose your house trying to respond to threats of libel suits.
 
Navy_Pete said:
Did you read the rest of what I wrote?
Click to expand...
Yes.
Navy_Pete said:
My point wasn't that there isn't free speech in some form, just that it's a lot more restricted in practice, and also different with how much money you have. People with money have a lot free-er speech in practice compared to someone that can't afford to defend against frivolous lawsuits. Even with the anti-SLAPP legislation in place, can still cost a lot to get to that stage, and most people can't afford that. multimillionaires and billionaires can, so they have a lot more actual free speech than the poors.

The legal system is already pretty wealth gated generally but there is very little in practice stopping millionaires from preventing anyone with a webpage from saying something they don't like with the threat of an expensive lawsuit. Even though truth is a defence against libel, doesn't really matter if you lose your house trying to respond to threats of libel suits.
Click to expand...
A liberty isn't an entitlement to the means to exercise it. Whether or not some people can reach a larger audience isn't relevant to the liberty. Litigious responses are one way of threatening freedom of expression, but litigious responses are not themselves difficult to dissuade with penalties for frivolous litigation, and crowdfunding can make weak lawsuits into pointless wastes of money.

One of the tactics a government could use to suppress expression is to make it easier to use lawfare. There are willing executioners out there who would happily form digital brownshirt legions if they had laws that made it easier for them to do so. This isn't an idea out of the blue; it would draw on the already established practice in which activists are quietly informed that if they bring suit against an agency, the agency will essentially roll over in the courts.
 
Navy_Pete said:
@CBH99 Given that the first Amendment is an amendment to start with, why can't it be amended to add restrictions to carve out things, like hate speech or extreme political disinformation (like candidate A kills babies and kicks puppies)?

There are already plenty of examples of things that are criminal and not actually free speech (threats of violence, yelling fire in a theatre, etc) so there is already some nuances and it's not some free for all like some people think.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with you actually, nor do I believe free speech should be a free for all with absolutely no limits.

But we already have clearly defined laws as to what constitutes hate speech, slander/libel, etc and a judicial process to use if one candidate starts to blatantly state disinformation about another.

Threats of violence, trying to incite violence or hatred, criminal harassment, yelling fire in a crowded public space - we already have an understanding of what our society says is appropriate and inappropriate, and we have the laws and legal framework to distinguish between the two.


That's not what the article is about, though.

The article is about a well known American politician complaining that one of the most important amendments in the US Constitution is actually a pain in his butt, and his job would be easier if they just got rid of it.

This is essentially a person who was voted into office stating that he feels like his job would be far easier if those same people who voted him in would just shut the f**k up already...

...


And what part of free speech do we now limit? Asking questions? Being critical of bad policies? Discussing with each other the various topics of the day in online discussion forums? Asking these elected officials questions when money goes missing, or when they appear to be corrupt?

Besides hate speech, threats, harassment, etc - what other kinds of speech should have legal limits?



(Anytime the WEF and the terms limiting free speech, mandatory vaccinations, great resets, etc appear in the same sentence...call me paranoid, but my instincts tell me the final result won't be something good.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
    • Trolling
    • Humorous
Politicized Climate Change as Wealth Redistribution
Replies
3
Views
535
daftandbarmy
daftandbarmy
Kirkhill
    • Like
Multi Domain Task Force - Canada
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
daftandbarmy
daftandbarmy
Kirkhill
    • Like
Optimism
Replies
0
Views
4K
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Retired AF Guy
    • Like
Departmental Results Report 2022-2023
Replies
2
Views
8K
daftandbarmy
daftandbarmy
daftandbarmy
The Harsh Realm of “Gentle Parenting”
Replies
19
Views
13K
Fishbone Jones
Fishbone Jones
Back
Top