13 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

How typically childish of you. You made a typo by the way

Thanks! Corrected

 

These are the reasons California passed the laws they did and they were signed into law by the governor:

Political consultant fined $6M for using AI to fake Biden's voice in robocalls to voters

Sep. 26, 2024,

 

The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday finalized a $6 million fine for a political consultant over fake robocalls that mimicked President Biden’s voice, urging New Hampshire voters not to vote in that state’s Democratic primary.'

 

https://nypost.com/2024/09/26/business/political-consultant-fined-6m-for-using-ai-to-fake-bidens-voice-in-robocalls-to-voters/

 

 

Political consultant behind fake Biden AI robocall pleads not guilty to first six charges

June 5, 2024

 

(CNN) — The political consultant behind a robocall that used artificial intelligence to impersonate President Joe Biden pleaded not guilty Wednesday to the first six charges he faces in New Hampshire, according to a court spokesperson.

 

Steven Kramer, who worked for Rep. Dean Phillips’ longshot Democratic primary campaign against Biden, previously admitted that he was behind the robocall. On the call, a voice that sounds like the president urged more than 20,000 voters not to vote in the January primary and instead “save” their vote for the November election. Phillips’ campaign denied having any role in the robocalls and distanced itself from Kramer.

 

On Wednesday, Kramer appeared in Belknap County Superior Court where he’s charged with three counts of felony voter suppression and three misdemeanor counts of impersonation of a candidate.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/05/politics/biden-ai-robocall-political-consultant-plea/index.html

 

 

 

Edited October 5, 20241 yr by TallGuyJohninBKK

8 minutes ago, Mazungu said:

He did not say he was in favor of censorship. He was stating a fact that the first amendment is a major block to fighting misinformation. For instance people's health would be harmed if misinformation like this is allowed. 

 

"I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning? As you see, it gets in the lungs, it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that."

Questions aren't allowed huh.

Maybe we should take a break for a laugh. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Questions aren't allowed huh.

A president's words matter.

 

https://time.com/5835244/accidental-poisonings-trump/

4 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Questions aren't allowed huh.

Of course not questions only lead to conspiracy theories...as reported in "MSM"

4 minutes ago, Mazungu said:

president's words matter

Yeah go back and refresh your memory  on Biden's "words" about "the unvaccinated"

1 minute ago, johng said:

Yeah go back and refresh your memory  on Biden's "words" about "the unvaccinated"

I have a poor memory. Please post what you are referring to. 

27 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Lose another point for deflection.

You are already in negative points.

4 minutes ago, Mazungu said:

I have a poor memory. Please post what you are referring to. 

The winter of death  ring any bells ?

A post making unsubstantiated claims with no link has been removed.

 

I have also removed posts using nicknames, it is not acceptable to report posters for using nicknames, then try to use it to emphasise you own opinions.

1 hour ago, Yagoda said:

Questions aren't allowed huh.

 

https://www.vice.com/en/article/scientists-explain-why-doing-your-own-research-leads-to-buying-conspiracies/

 

Scientists Explain Why ‘Doing Your Own Research’ Leads to Believing Conspiracies.  

Yep they said it  quite unbelievable  but there it is in black and white

4 hours ago, frank83628 said:

so you are pro censorship then? 

 

you just posted 'misinformation' regarding something Trumps didn't say, should you be removed from the internet now? 

Good catch @frank83628!

Have you considered the division is so 

divisive ,there is no amount of factuality  that can be shown, that will make a difference!

 

This is why I don’t bother with the same 

individuals on the left here, its like goin through the same thing over & over expecting different results!

John kerry ,is a threat to the First amendment , Free Speech ! I use experts opinions 

in constitutional law, for example.

Who the hell made  kerry the chief arbitrator of speech!

 

 

Edited October 5, 20241 yr by riclag

Another opinion truth piece from

the expert in Constitutional Law!

 

“We are living through the most dangerous anti-free speech movement in American history. We have never before faced the current alliance of government, corporate, academic and media forces aligned against free speech. A Harris-Walz administration with a supportive Congress could make this right entirely dispensable”.

 

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/10/04/schenking-free-speech-walz-makes-the-case-for-the-most-anti-free-speech-ticket-in-history/

On 10/5/2024 at 10:34 AM, Yagoda said:

https://reason.com/2024/10/03/judge-stops-california-law-targeting-election-misinformation/

 

Those who support Kamala Harris obviously will support laws limiting speech. Democrats are for censorship, and every member of their party should be voted out.

 

 

 

 

On 10/5/2024 at 10:34 AM, Yagoda said:

https://reason.com/2024/10/03/judge-stops-california-law-targeting-election-misinformation/

 

Those who support Kamala Harris obviously will support laws limiting speech. Democrats are for censorship, and every member of their party should be voted out.

 

 

But it's okay for Trump to go after Google who he mistakenly claims have tweaked their algorithms to be biased against him?

 

 

2 hours ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

But it's okay for Trump to go after Google who he mistakenly claims have tweaked their algorithms to be biased against him?

 

 

have a look into this guy and the FACTS he has collected up regarding  google and how they work their search results! (i know you wont)

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2040437316434539

3 hours ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

But it's okay for Trump to go after Google who he mistakenly claims have tweaked their algorithms to be biased against him?

 

 

That's not a freedom of speech matter. 

3 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

That's not a freedom of speech matter. 

 

 

 

.....but I'm allowed to say it?

52 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

have a look into this guy and the FACTS he has collected up regarding  google and how they work their search results! (i know you wont)

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2040437316434539

 

 

You got the bit in parentheses correct.

1 hour ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

 

.....but I'm allowed to say it?

You can be as stupid as you want until I reckon the mods tell you to stop.

And now Hillary is again calling for censorship

 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/hillary-clinton-says-social-media-companies-need-moderate-content-we-lose-total-control

17 hours ago, Yagoda said:

You can be as stupid as you want until I reckon the mods tell you to stop.

 

Which begs the question.....how on earth are you still allowed to post????

2 hours ago, Will B Good said:

 

Which begs the question.....how on earth are you still allowed to post????

Why dont you ask that I be banned? Thats what your lot do.

 

How ironic that you post that  55555555

2 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Why dont you ask that I be banned? Thats what your lot do.

 

How ironic that you post that  55555555

 

Ironic?

 

 

 

On 10/5/2024 at 10:34 AM, Yagoda said:

https://reason.com/2024/10/03/judge-stops-california-law-targeting-election-misinformation/

 

Those who support Kamala Harris obviously will support laws limiting speech. Democrats are for censorship, and every member of their party should be voted out.

 

49 minutes ago, placeholder said:

 

Well clearly the ad in question is a blatant out and out lie, but one example does not a censorship regime make.

34 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Well clearly the ad in question is a blatant out and out lie, but one example does not a censorship regime make.

More nonsense from you. The California law only allows for civil lawsuits against defenders. Desantis is threatening people with actual criminal prosecution and prison. What's more this isn't Desantis' first attempt at free speech suppression. Previousl he also wants to make it easier to sue people who criticize public officials.

Ron DeSantis’s plan to strip First Amendment rights from the press, explained

Florida’s Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis wants to eliminate the First Amendment safeguards that prevent lawsuits seeking to strong-arm the press into silence.

He’s been very clear about this goal: In February, DeSantis led a roundtable discussion brainstorming ideas to weaken the press’s First Amendment protections. Flanked by a panel dominated by defamation plaintiffs and lawyers, the Orbánesque governor attacked the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) for, in his words, empowering a media that will “find a way to smear you.”

https://www.vox.com/politics/23622299/ron-desantis-first-amendment-press-new-york-times-v-sullivan

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

More nonsense from you. The California law only allows for civil lawsuits against defenders. Desantis is threatening people with actual criminal prosecution and prison. What's more this isn't Desantis' first attempt at free speech suppression. Previousl he also wants to make it easier to sue people who criticize public officials.

Ron DeSantis’s plan to strip First Amendment rights from the press, explained

Florida’s Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis wants to eliminate the First Amendment safeguards that prevent lawsuits seeking to strong-arm the press into silence.

He’s been very clear about this goal: In February, DeSantis led a roundtable discussion brainstorming ideas to weaken the press’s First Amendment protections. Flanked by a panel dominated by defamation plaintiffs and lawyers, the Orbánesque governor attacked the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) for, in his words, empowering a media that will “find a way to smear you.”

https://www.vox.com/politics/23622299/ron-desantis-first-amendment-press-new-york-times-v-sullivan

Your so sad. Vox indeed. Orbanesque? Is that the new hate word from the facist left?

 

You dont even know the issues surrounding NY Times vs Sullivan well enough to differentiate them from First Amendment Litigation. Study up, Ill wait for you at the big boy table.

37 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Your so sad. Vox indeed. Orbanesque? Is that the new hate word from the facist left?

 

You dont even know the issues surrounding NY Times vs Sullivan well enough to differentiate them from First Amendment Litigation. Study up, Ill wait for you at the big boy table.

Vox got it's facts straight. 

And it takes a major league ignoramus to not know that Sullivan is a core free speech first amendment case.

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that First Amendment freedom of speech protections limit the ability of public officials to sue for defamation. 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/new_york_times_v_sullivan_(1964)#:~:text=Sullivan (1964) is a landmark,officials to sue for defamation.