Colorado Bill Seeks To Force Social Platforms To Register With the State, Impose $5k/Day Fine For Allowing 'Fake News' or Conspiracy Theories (colorado.gov) 213
michaelmalak writes: The Colorado Senate President Pro Tempore, Kerry Donovan, is the prime sponsor of SB21-132,
Digital Communications Regulation, which if passed, would fine websites $5,000 per day as a class 2 misdemeanor if they "allow" user comments that:
"...promote hate speech; undermine election integrity; disseminate intentional disinformation, conspiracy theories, or fake news; or authorize, encourage, or carry out violations of users' privacy..."
A "digital communications division" would assume responsibility for licensing websites.
This is obviously a blatant violation of the First Amendment, as it would immediately shut down any website expressing views outside those of the said digital communications division (DCD):
* Political websites from a party other than the majority within the DCD.
* Religious websites, if they express views contrary to the majority within the DCD.
Sure, it wouldn't stand up to court challenge today, but maybe it will in the near future if there is court packing.
Not only does it reveal plainly, in writing, in an official government document, the intent of some legislators to outlaw all speech and thought that they disagree with, it is an embarrassment to the state of Colorado that will discourage tech companies from locating here.
"...promote hate speech; undermine election integrity; disseminate intentional disinformation, conspiracy theories, or fake news; or authorize, encourage, or carry out violations of users' privacy..."
A "digital communications division" would assume responsibility for licensing websites.
This is obviously a blatant violation of the First Amendment, as it would immediately shut down any website expressing views outside those of the said digital communications division (DCD):
* Political websites from a party other than the majority within the DCD.
* Religious websites, if they express views contrary to the majority within the DCD.
Sure, it wouldn't stand up to court challenge today, but maybe it will in the near future if there is court packing.
Not only does it reveal plainly, in writing, in an official government document, the intent of some legislators to outlaw all speech and thought that they disagree with, it is an embarrassment to the state of Colorado that will discourage tech companies from locating here.
Did they forget something? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You aren't allowed to post that now comrade and Slashdot shall be fined $5,000.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Hell, we've already seen things along the Covid story that were put forth as gospel, which was later changed due to revisions as we went along....those would be silenced.
But yeah....this is very much so govt. regulating speech, suppressing it.
If anything, the govt should be doing the opposite and trying to encourage social media to allow MORE speech, even from viewpoints that differ from the corporate mantra.
Re:Did they forget something? (Score:5, Funny)
Yep...who would the arbiter of truth be?
A guy called Bill, apparently.
He's from Colorado.
Re: (Score:2)
He should coordinate his efforts with Nevada Slim.
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly what will shoot it down. Unless your lies are trying to incite violence (already illegal even if true) or try to sell a product you can lie, lie, lie, and lie to your heart's content.
Re:Did they forget something? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. Jesus Christ, did you even read the summary on Wikipedia?
'The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". Specifically, the Court struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.'
Inciting violence is NOT protected speech. Advocating for violence is. So "Go to 12345 Fake Street right now and kill Shanghai Bill" is inciting violence, and not protected. "Boy, it sure would be nice if someone went to 12345 Fake Street and killed Shanghai Bill dead" is merely advocating for violence. Subtle distinction, but that's why "inciting" and "advocating" are two different words.
Re: (Score:2)
Even your second example might be construed as incitement since it gives his address, but it would be borderline and would depend on the tone of the conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point.
Re: (Score:3)
Nice try. But you can't weasel your way out of this. Words have legal meanings. Incitement is illegal. Advocacy is protected. You can try to spin it all you like but the meaning of words, and the legality, is very clear. You're just trying to redefine "incitement" as mere advocacy. The Brandenburg test is literally to determine whether it's incitement or not. Moron.
You're talking about him, right? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong pronoun
https://leg.colorado.gov/legis... [colorado.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong pronoun
https://leg.colorado.gov/legis... [colorado.gov]
Don't assume
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't. Several sites, including "her" Wikipedia page make it clear. Anyway, in my case, if it looks like a woman, I'm gonna call it as such until the person tells me otherwise...fuck political correctness.
Re: (Score:2)
You just described almost every male politician I know, remove the word he and you would of described almost every politician I know of. Seriously I don't disagree but the bar is set quite low, I have never really vote for someone I wanted, just someone less worse than the other. Really its about what they will do for you, not what personality they have.
Re: (Score:3)
So funny considering it's not a male.
https://leg.colorado.gov/legis... [colorado.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure which "guy" you're talking about.
https://leg.colorado.gov/legis... [colorado.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Colorado Bill, of course.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Colorado is what happens to a state that gets a flood of CA refugees.
Re: Did they forget something? (Score:2)
I suspect Arizona has more California refugees. Sure that's just a hunch, and Houston makes more headlines about it, but Phoenix is growing at a faster rate than any other city, and it's quite rare to actually bump into anybody that is actually from here. Sadly, that has been the status quo since the 90s.
Re: (Score:3)
what happens to a state that gets a flood of CA refugees
You're basically saying that people who don't want to live in California are awful.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Californians flee their state to get away from problems caused by NIMBYism and nanny-state government.
Then, in their new states, they turn around and vote for the same NIMBYism and nanny-state government that drove them out of California.
This is a common and well-known problem. They are infesting state after state. Oregon and Washington are beyond hope. In Nevada, the damage is mostly contained in Clark County (Las Vegas). Arizona is still livable outside of Phoenix. Colorado is teetering on the edge of
Re: (Score:2)
I think Idaho was looking at a tax that would essentially hit newcomers. For long term residents, the tax would effectively be zero but for people that haven't been in the state more then a couple years, it would be different. Not sure where the money went or if it got passed but it was something I heard about.
I thought it was a decent idea since you can't really stop people from moving to your state, but you sure can take their money. It's like the opposite of what some other states are doing with an exit
Re: Did they forget something? (Score:2)
They are a government trying to control speech and that isn't going to end well for them.
Right, the consequences of their attack on the Constitution will be severe indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, the consequences of their attack on the Constitution will be severe indeed.
There will be no consequences. If you are being sarcastic then I just missed it. But this law will be struck down and unconstitutional, the politicians that passed it will just shrug, and whistle a happy tune as they continue to leach of the public coffers. There needs to be consequences when they pass a unconstitutional law. Fines, removal and bared from office; I'm good with some prison time when they propose and pass laws that are found unconstitutional. I bet if this was the consequence then
Looking at the Flip Side (Score:3)
But I wonder if there's a way to structure something here that doesn't limit options to two, diametrically opposed positions of "First Amendment" on one side and "Only Government Approved Speech" on the other. I wonder if allowing the discussion to be framed in terms of these absolutes critically limits our ability to find a more sensible middle ground?
Before we get to that, I'd like to take a moment to "look at the harm". We enac
Re: (Score:3)
us supreme court will shut this down so fast (Score:5, Insightful)
us supreme court will shut this down so fast that heads will spin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be quite interesting to see how the Trump appointed judges would squirm
But yes, there's this 1st. amendment and the question WHO is to decide what 'news' is covered.
Re:us supreme court will shut this down so fast (Score:4, Informative)
The Supreme Court would strike this down 9-0. But it won't get there because if passed, the law will be immediately struck down by some lower court as violating the First Amendment and the Supreme Court would never agree to hear it.
But, for you Originalists, recall that John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798:
if any person shall write, print, utter or publish,. . . any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame . . . then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.
The Colorado law seems quite similar in spirit but expired by its own terms after Jefferson was elected. An Originalist might be tempted to uphold the law. After all, who do you think has a better understanding of the original meaning of the First Amendment: some unelected circuit court judge in Colorado, or a majority of Congressmen and the President back in 1798? The Originalist argument for the law's validity is clear, but even if Biden packs the Court, there is no liberal theory of interpretation that would persuade any of his potential picks.
Re: (Score:2)
Both sides have plenty of dumb ideas. This one happens to be owned by a Democrat https://leg.colorado.gov/legis... [colorado.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like we're in agreement.
Apply to State/City Politician websites 1st (Score:3)
How many violations do government websites, politicians, political websites already currently have?
It is disturbingly common for the government to mislead the public and for politicians to blatantly lie to the public.
Finally we can hold politicians financially responsible for misinformation and lies and broken campaign promises!
Let's expand it and make congress and governor personally responsible if a bill they pass into law is overturned by the courts!
allegiance (Score:3, Funny)
The Colorado Senate President Pro Tempore, Kerry Donovan, is the prime sponsor...
Donovan [wikipedia.org] is a member of the increasingly ironically-named Democrat party.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I think that 2016 settled all debate on this topic. There is nothing democratic about the Democrat party.
Re: (Score:2)
The Colorado Senate President Pro Tempore, Kerry Donovan, is the prime sponsor...
Donovan [wikipedia.org] is a member of the increasingly ironically-named Democrat party.
Well, what can we say - he is the living proof of the so called Russian influence. He has swallowed Yarovaya (who comes up with these idiocies) whole and has not even hiccuped. His legislative gem is a massively f*cked up in translation of Russian federal Bill 97-F3 from 2014 with all the technically literate parts of it lost in translation. The original is usually colloquially referred to as the "Russian Blogger Law".
One thing he missed - in the meantime the Russians DROPPED it - it is unenforceable. The
Scenario walkthrough? (Score:5, Insightful)
This time last year people were saying Andrew Cuomo's decisions were killing nursing home residents and this was called fake news.
Now we know this is true, and there was also a conspiracy theory he was covering up the numbers.
Again, this is all true.
But all of this news would all be illegal in Colorado?
Re:Scenario walkthrough? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoever decides what is "fake news" will have too much power, and the designation "fake news" is too important to match reality. The party will take care of it.
Scenario walkthrough: Colorado Firewall. (Score:2)
Maybe, but the same process that pokes holes in the Great Firewall of China would poke far more effective holes in the Colorado wall.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Scenario walkthrough? (Score:5, Informative)
Let's not forget much of the MSM trumpeting Russia Russia Russia for 4 years ... also all fake news.
Re: (Score:3)
Who in particular was calling it "fake news" other than some outlier blogger?
As far as the nursing home issue, NY had shortage of hospital beds at time, and healing patients had to go somewhere. Hospital ships where scheduled to arrive, but were not ready yet. The real controversy is about NY allegedly hiding health statistics, not really the "nursing home" decision itself. I sus
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have evidence of any credible sources calling this fake news? Otherwise your claim of fake news is fake.
I remember when this happened. No one disputed that his administration gave orders to place covid patients in nursing homes. Eventually they rescinded the order, but t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A BIGGER question you should be asking is "Why did the leftist entities like MSM, unsocial media, and Democrat politicians who called it 'fake news' and a right-wing 'conspiracy theory' a year ago now suddenly acknowledge this is REAL news?"
The story was out there a year ago. For a long time. Foxnews, NYPost, international news sites, local news, and many other smaller so-called big,bad fake-news sites ran stories for weeks back then about NYC's 'faaake' nursing home deaths for weeks back then. But not
Re: (Score:2)
It'll be perfectly legal... if you pay the rent of $5000 per day.
Re: (Score:3)
and this was called fake news
All facts get called fake news by some moron. That's the problem with "fake news" Donald Trump actively fucked up the news cycle of the world with his blatant assault on media to the point where people can call facts "fake news" with a straight face and think that this is some kind of an intelligent counterpoint.
Trump didn't invent fake news, but he did successfully focus attention on it
Re:Scenario walkthrough? (Score:5, Insightful)
What Trump did is hijack and abuse the meaning. There was a tremendous amount of fake news coming out before the 2016 election, presumably to generate clickbait money. Trump then started calling anything that was bad for Trump fake news. The term is now worthless.
FUD (Score:5, Informative)
a) this may be cause for concern
but
b) the poster is being disingenuous, the $5,000/day fine is not for the alleged bad actions of site users, the fine is for failure of the site to register with the agency if you are in that business model, i.e., it is the online equivalent of requiring businesses to have a business license to operate and fining them if they operate as a business without having it
Re: (Score:2)
Requiring licensing or registration fees can still be viewed as a way to squelch "unsanctioned" speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to work about as well as sites based in the USA having to comply with the GDPR.
Re: (Score:2)
the poster is being disingenuous
Yeah. But that's a shame. They could have had their first $5000 fine right there.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not to mention the ridiculous claim that this immediately shuts down any website from any other political party. The only way that is consistent with the quoted text is on the assumption that all political websites promote hate speech or disseminate deliberate misinformation; no doubt some do, probably most do, but clever political operators can lie by omission so it's overreach to say that all do.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Here are two precedents:
1. Two members of Congress sent a letter last month [thehill.com] to cable and streaming companies suggesting they stop hosting NewsMax, OANN, and Fox News.
2. In an analogous situation within the same state, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled against Masterpiece Cakeshop.
Re: FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that wasn't the case. He was happy to make them a cake. He was not ok using his freedom of expression to write on the cake.
They could have bought a cake from him. He would have made them a cake.
Facts and details matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Anything can get labeled hate speech.
You can say that again.
Heard yesterday that 6 Dr.Seuss books are getting pulled from publishing because of "racist and insensitive imagery" [cnbc.com]
Next they will probably go after Astrix & Obleix and Tin-Tin because of similar reasons.
It is saddening that sig has become more and more relevant over the years.
Re: (Score:2)
To clarify, here is the way it works:
1. Register website with DCD
2. A user makes a comment
3. Someone reports the comment to DCD
4. DCD holds a hearing
5. DCD revokes the website's license
6. Website continues to operate anyway
7. DCD imposes $5,000/day fine (because the website is operating without a license now)
8. Failure to pay results in asset seizure, jailing, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think there are various such, but they aren't framed as requirements on newspapers. Business licenses, employment records, etc. apply to newspapers as much as to anything else. And they (well, many of them) don't apply to churches.
Re: (Score:2)
Still have to register with the IRS (and state equivalent) as a tax-exempt entity.
Re: (Score:2)
Fake news and conspiracies (Score:3)
Re:Fake news and conspiracies (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. Unless you're under oath in a court of law lies are completely protected speech.
Not only that, but lies, exaggerations, and half-truths have been the driving force between tons of political movement since the start of the country. We're used to it and live with it because the alternative - allowing the government to become the arbiter of truth is simply too dangerous. It's a power that not only might be abused but inevitably WILL be.
China has such powers. Dr. Li Wenliang was punished by the government for spreading "lies" about a new virus (COVID-19) appearing there in late 2019 before later dying of that same virus.
Galileo was place under house arrest by the Catholic church for spreading "lies" that the Earth was not the center of the universe.
Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for spreading "lies" that the stars were distant suns with planets and potential inhabitants of their own.
If you never allow publishing or discussion of "lies" you never get to found out which ones are actually the truth.
Re:Fake news and conspiracies (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed. Unless you're under oath in a court of law lies are completely protected speech.
There are several sorts of lies that aren't protected speech - libel, slander, fraud, etc. This is good and appropriate. There are also categories of persuasive speech (incitement to violence, seditious conspiracy) that can be penalized criminally. This is also generally a good thing. The thing that makes these laws reasonable is that there's a fairly high burden of proof to convict, in keeping with the principles of our justice system.
The challenge is, in this case, you have illiberal lies (about election fraud, etc), and an arguably illiberal law being used to try to address them. Furthermore, you have an author, who is further misrepresenting the bill itself in order to provoke a more emotional and vigorous political backlash than the bill would otherwise generate.
I have a hard time buying that the response to anti-democratic, illiberal impulses on the right (like claiming any election where you lost is illegitimate and fraudulent) is to impose illiberal laws on communication. That said, the proliferation of disinformation and illiberalism is deeply concerning, and I'm not convinced democracy can survive in a society where blatant lies are extremely profitable, politically effective, and instantly distributed to millions. In previous eras, we had technological, regulatory, and structural limitations that made all of these things less of an issue.
I don't personally think that bills like this one are the right solution, but anybody who doesn't see this as a problem isn't paying attention.
Re: Fake news and conspiracies (Score:3)
No, Galileo was placed under house arrest because he A) publicly made fun of the Pope for disagreeing with him which ambitious Cardinals used to prosecute him for internal political advantage in the Catholic Church's power structure and they were successful in doing so because B)Galileo was a complete asshole to all his contemporary astronomers and publicly denigrated their theories when they disagreed with his own when plenty of times their theories turned out to be correct. Thus none of them were willing
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure where the lie was there.
Re:Fake news and conspiracies (Score:4, Insightful)
Free and Disliked Speech (Score:3)
So, any site that
disseminates intentional disinformation, conspiracy theories, or fake news
as decided by the
digital communications division (division) and the digital communications commission (commission) within the department of regulatory agencies
will impose a fine, and direct law enforcement to collect it.
I think they should pass this and flood this commission with trivial & banal complaints over minutiae regarding political debate statistics, classification of bands into specific genres, relative significance of historical events, childish name calling, and of course - check this across all languages and scenarios globally.
This State Representative should chair this commission and her peers should refuse the disband it, keeping her in Moderator Hell for Eternity.
Re: (Score:2)
If they pass this you won't even have enough time to open the website before the entire law is struck down by the supreme court on a 1st amendment violation.
No more online ads in Colorado? (Score:2)
The proposal specifically requires companies to register if they do any one of several things, which includes these gems:
Profiling users based on their personal data collected;
Selling or authorizing others to use users' personal data to provide location-based advertising or targeted advertising; or
Using facial recognition software and other tracking technology.
So.. no more Facebook Ads, or Google Ads, in Colorado? Each individual website would have to register with the State in order to continue running ads
There's probably a 1st ammendment issue (Score:3)
Maybe if it's crafted to be viewpoint neutral but this sounds unconstitutional in theory and unworkable in practise.
But the rest of the poster's summary is just a ridiculous laundry list of nutty right wing talking points:
* Political websites from a party other than the majority within the DCD.
* Religious websites, if they express views contrary to the majority within the DCD.
There's zero evidence of this except for the fact that some political parties and religious groups are disproportionately likely to promote fake news and conspiracy theories.
But that's hardly evidence that an effort to combat disinformation is driven by partisan bias.
Sure, it wouldn't stand up to court challenge today, but maybe it will in the near future if there is court packing.
The last one in particular is the claim that Biden is going to pack the SCOTUS with liberal justices even though he stated his opposition to court packing, created a bi-partisan committee to come up with other (ie non-packing) solutions, and he doesn't have support in the Senate to pack the court even if he wanted to.
The only reason why Conservatives started talking about court packing is they were trying to shift the focus from their indefensible appointment of Barrett to Biden's hypothetical response to their indefensible action.
Re: (Score:2)
One political party? Would that be the party that prosecuted the fact free conspiracy theory that the Trump administration colluded with Russia?
Perhaps you should take some time and look at the other political party some. They have many conspiracy theories of their own, and they will gladly tell you all about them. Just because they don't call them conspiracy theories, does not make them any more true.
Re: (Score:2)
So, the report stated that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to throw the election? I seem to have missed this evidence you are looking at, can you post a page number?
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason why Conservatives started talking about court packing is they were trying to shift the focus from their indefensible appointment of Barrett
I'm going to say you're just accidentally ignorant of the topic and not intentionally ignorant, but top D-team politicians are indeed talking about packing the court [yahoo.com].
While we're on the topic, I'd be interested in hearing why you think Barrett's appointment is "indefensible." AFAICT she is better than Kavanaugh in every way.
Democrats are the new Conservatives (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Bad bill means we need more conservative control (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You realize that this was a Dem, right?
https://leg.colorado.gov/legis... [colorado.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Glad we're in agreement then.
What are the precedents? (Score:2)
There are already certain limitations on speech inciting imminent violence. And I think we could probably agree that's fine to build some rules about containing that online.
There are laws built to address slander and libel. But I don't think those can be used to gag someone without a court case can they?
I think the bigger issue here is that with the growth of conspiracy groups and deliberate misinformation, there might need to be some better, well structured laws surrounding purposeful spreading of misinf
Shame on you, Kerry Donovan, shame! (Score:3)
Wow Violates Federal and State Law (Score:3)
U.S. Constitution First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Colorado Constitution: Bill Of Rights: Section 10
Section 10. Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech; every person shall be free to speak, write or publish whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty; and in all suits and prosecutions for libel the truth thereof may be given in evidence, and the jury, under the direction of the court, shall determine the law and the fact.
Yeah Just shit Written By Dead White Guys. So 18th Century and welcome to the post truth, post common sense, post freedom post liberty 21st century, It's double plus good comrade
Re: (Score:2)
Colorado Constitution: Bill Of Rights: Section 10
Section 10. Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech; every person shall be free to speak, write or publish whatever he will on any subject ...
I don't get your point. This bill says (1) if social media companies fail to register themselves with a Colorado government division then they'll be fined -- companies already have to register in various ways and places, so this isn't unusual; (2) the government division will hold hearings on whether the companies have allowed people to post hate speech -- there have already been several federal hearings on social media practices, and indeed this law doesn't impair any speech freedoms.
How do you construe th
How about a bullshit disclaimer? (Score:4, Insightful)
"This post, along with all other posts on this site are pure, unadulterated bullshit. Only a fool would believe anything here."
naming (Score:2)
A "digital communications division" would assume responsibility for licensing websites.
Because it will be in charge of enforcing accuracy, "The Ministry of Truth" would be a good name for that.
More Speech! Less Laws; Less Censorship! (Score:4, Interesting)
This is, certainly, an undeniable fact of history!
When you prescribed speech, you create dissonance and, eventually, destruction.
I worked for a Fortune 100 Company. The department's VP had to make a choice that affected All of His Employees. In a meeting, he said that he wanted everyone's opinion who cared to share it. To him directly or through the managerial channel. He gave us a comment period with an end date. He told us that he would take all the comments that we provided and all the other information that he received and would make a decision. Further, he said that because of of us had input into the decision that he expected all of us to abide by his final decision. The VP did this and keep his word. We, the employee, accepted his decision and follow his ensuing directive. I never heard any complaints on this issue or decision. Quite amazing to witness!
If we allow person or persons to state their positions and tolerate their "bad" speech, we allow the person to change and "grow". Many times people will try to articulate an unwelcome or poorly thought out position and they realize their own words are "bad" and change their language, thoughts, attitudes, habits, etc. A psychologist told me once that all she does is let a client talk and sooner or later, the client realizes the foolishness that they have espouses and accepted. Then the client starts working to change.
When we tolerate "bad" speech and accept the person (not the speech). we may build a bridge to "good" speech, thoughts, ideas, lifestyles, and actions.
The above alternative works for lots of persons or people.
Don't Trap Person In Their "Bad" Speech!
Re: (Score:2)
Don't Trap Person In Their "Bad" Speech!
Trap them in their good speech. Be like the movie Liar, Liar with Jim Carrey.
ministry of truth (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Very Orwellian of you....
“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
“We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it.”
“the object of waging a war is always to be in a better position in which to wage another war.”
William "Colorado Bill" Seeks at it again.. (Score:2)
never pass. (Score:2)
What's wrong with conspiracy theories? (Score:2)
What motivation is there to prevent people from discussing conspiracies? (The only motivation I can think of, is if you're part of a conspiracy. But are there any others?)
2 kinds of Conspiracy Theorys (Score:2)
My personal view is there are two kinds of conspiracy theories.
1. The ones by people who are really out of touch with reality, ie, the Hollow Earth, Alien Lizard People running the world, faked moon landing, and others that are completely unsupported by any kind of independently verified evidence, and any evidence disproving them is all part of a HUGE world wide conspiracy spanning generations to cover it all up.
2. Then there are the ones that can point to verifiable facts from independent sources and say "
Wrong Party? (Score:2)
She sounds like a Republican. That's teh party of voter suppression and limits on Constitutional rights. Or is it that all politicians are secretly fascists?
This legislation is *NOT* related to legalization (Score:2)
Your tinfoil is showing (Score:2)
The sponsor in question has previously been the party whip. Her husband works for Hickenlooper. It's not sane to suggest such a person is deliberately sabotaging their own party.
Re: (Score:2)
So it's a war and you're siding with the propaganda machine and lying hacks at CNN and similar. Got it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's really sad that people don't realize the actual point of a second propaganda machine as a fallback for the first. Blompf isn't a n*zi, he's a zionist puppet, and he says just enough forbidden but true things to make it appear that he isn't.
Alex Jones, many "christian extremist" qanon's do the same. Sadly this whole system shows how easy it is to trick someone into a lie by simply countering another lie.