Obama Says We Need More "Regulations and Standards" on the Practice of Free Speech on Social Media
Oh, look. It's just the former President of the United States of America slandering half the country as conspiracy theorists and saying that we need local and national, as well as political and cultural work, to make sure that everyone is agreeing on the same facts.
And how do we decide on the facts? Well, according to former President Obama, it's going to require government regulations and standards to choose what's true and what isn't. The state will need to decide what's acceptable speech.
Wikipedia wrote: Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court... .... The case brought up the issue of whether or not the First Amendment protected public protestors at a funeral against claims of emotional distress, better known as tort liability. It involved a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, claimed by Albert Snyder, a man whose son Matthew Snyder, a U.S. Marine, was killed during the Iraq War. The claim was made in response to the actions of the Phelps family as well as the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) who were also present at the picketing of the funeral. The Court ruled in favor of Phelps in an 8‚Äď1 decision, determining that their speech related to a public issue was completely protected, and could not be prevented as it was on public property....
excerpt from, "Snyder v. Phelps"
Judging from the above Justice alito might be the only one who will agree with Obama ‚Ěó
The Quiet Christian wrote: First, there have to be facts. But when truth became relative rather than absolute, now there are no facts because nothing is true. The former President is only suggesting a government-enforced system of belief. I think a good example is the PRC's system...is that what anyone wants to live under?
Quiet Brother, it is a rhetorical question, but I will still answer it with an emphatic NO. I would rather live under the counter-culture of Jesus Christ. But I'm not sure if any country is doing that today.
President Obama, had not been perfect in truth telling that the PolitiFact site pointed out in 2017:
"We‚Äôve also been noting his policy flip-flops, annotating his State of the Union addresses and tracking over 500 of his campaign promises. His famed line, "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it," was named our 2013 Lie of the Year. And he‚Äôs name-dropped us a few times, too."
Some political leaders are really easy to figure out, you just believe the opposite of what they say and I would think about 90% of the time or more you'd be correct ‚Ěó
The following article looks like a good way of figuring out what's honest on the social media.
Erin Calabrese wrote: .... ‚ÄĘSearch online for the information or claim. .... ‚ÄĘLook at who posted this content. .... ‚ÄĘCheck the profile picture of the account. .... ‚ÄĘSearch for other social media accounts for this person .... ‚ÄĘInspect the content the account posted. ....
excerpt from, "5 ways to spot disinformation on your social media feeds"
First, there have to be facts. But when truth became relative rather than absolute, now there are no facts because nothing is true. The former President is only suggesting a gobernment-enforced system of belief. I think a good example is the PRC's system...is that what anyone wants to live under?