[dpatru]

A mistake that I've made before, that I think is quite common, is to assume government will enforce laws the way I would. Regarding speech, because I am a person of good will, tolerance, and open-mindedness, I assume government will enforce the law this way. This is a grave mistake. The people who would seek out jobs in which they can control other people's speech are exactly the sort of people who should not be given that power.

Even if the actual enforcers of speech law were honest, they would never be allowed to enforce the law where it is most needed, namely government itself. Wars are usually supported with lies. [1] [2] Will speech laws be used to punish government officials who lie the country into war? I think not. Instead, such laws will be used to protect powerful people, especially people in government. For example, in Citizen's United, a case that Democrats still criticize, the government was prosecuting the members of a small non-profit with felonies for publishing a 90-minute documentary critical of then Senator Hillary Clinton. [3]

[1] https://militaryhistorynow.com/2015/07/15/damned-lies-nine-w... [2] https://www.europereloaded.com/false-flags-and-the-american-... [3] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205

[raxxorraxor]

You are correct. There are honest politicians that clearly state in subtext about the honesty of public information. Disinformation is nothing else. It is how politics work these days and we can hope it will improve with time.

I don't know how the parent can compare an instance of a crazy person to government sending people in war that kill hundreds of thousands of people. Because these lives are no media personalities?

To me this is nothing one should base an opinion on. Information needs to be free of course and if government gets their hand on some platforms, these will become unreliable sources with far more and significant disinformation than we have seen before.

[hintymad]

Exactly. I thought what you said was pretty evident, but boy was I wrong