Jump to content
The Education Forum

RFK Jr Does Not Agree that Lee Harvey Oswald Acted Alone


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Dennis Berube said:

Are you serious Cliff? Government officials serve and answer to the public, obviously private citizens do not.

You’re avoiding the question.  Should the US Government require Instagram — in the name of free speech — to carry RFK Jr.’s anti-vax message?

Quote

With government, the public at least theoretically has the capability to hold them responsible or at least demand answers.

So you’re okay with the Government dictating the content on social media?

Quote

I agree with Cory's statements, it is odd people are fine with so much private influence, but can't stand it from government.

I don’t have a problem with people moderating the content on media entities they own.  I have a problem with the Government criminalizing said moderation, which is what you seem to propose.

Quote

I would at least partially attribute that to many years of anti-government propaganda from such areas as the Koch brothers, Rockefellers, CFR types etc... Of course government is bad for them, its the only feasible entity standing in their way. But having "left" wingers believe that too is rather amazing.

Lots of lefties believe in private property rights.  You obviously don’t.

Quote

Cliff, make the remedy whatever you want.  

No Dennis, you are the one claiming there is a problem with Instagram banning RFK Jr.  It’s the remedy you are beating around the bush.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Kirk Said:You should be careful what you wish for. As an anti vaxxer or maybe you see yourself as a vaxxer  truther,You should be careful what you wish for. As an anti vaxxer or maybe you see yourself as a vaxxer  truther, do you really think you will have more freedom to express that under a government that's pursuing a public policy of vaccination in order to stem the tide of a pandemic and spur an economic recovery.

You didn't answer, Dennis. This is an overview question. Cliff's asked specific questions, and you've done nothing but go off on a rant where you throw out everything  but the kitchen sink. You're being asked questions about your own proposals where it would seem you're way over your head, and not prepared for the consequences of these proposals..  It's apparent you don't know how things got to be the way they are. This question below is an engaging question any Political Science teacher could ask you. 

Cliff:You’re avoiding the question.  Should the US Government require Instagram — in the name of free speech — to carry RFK Jr.’s anti-vax message?

It's not that you haven't brought a couple of valid points in your meanderings. But it was you who've made the proposals, and you're continually not answering them.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cliff/Kirk, RFK Jr. was banned from IG for saying Hank Aaron recently had the Moderna vaccine and then died within a few weeks. That is a non-contestable fact. The legacy media then made up a story about how the coroner's office assured everyone his death was not vaccine related, that was scientifically not possible as RFK Jr discovered they never had his body at any point, much less examined it. This has not been redacted as far as I know. That story is relatively unimportant in the grand scheme of things and I (or RFK Jr) am certainly not saying he died from the vaccine. The point is that we are not allowed to even ask the question or have the debate.

If you must have my personal answer to your pet question for some reason, I would say the Equal Protection Clause would be my starting point. How is banning someone from IG for asking questions and stating facts any more acceptable than banning a black/white/red/anything person from a private golf course? One difference might be that IG is much closer to a public forum than a private golf course is, meaning, as far as the public is concerned, it might even be a more profound form of discrimination in certain ways.

Here's your polisci101 question: Should the government allow any private business to prevent access to their service/goods based on what they think?

 

Guess what? This is exactly whats coming. The horrendous Israeli government seems content to take the lead. Of course, just like the Patriot Act, it's all for our own safety. I wonder if the Founding Fathers had any thoughts about trading freedom for security...

image.thumb.png.1ca4f53c9428df7c35e178b73068a359.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

Cliff/Kirk, RFK Jr. was banned from IG for saying Hank Aaron recently had the Moderna vaccine and then died within a few weeks. That is a non-contestable fact.

Irrelevant.

Should the US Government — in the name of free speech — force Instagram to carry RFK Jr.’s posts?

Your sudden upset over Instagram lying about RFK Jr. stands in contrast to your silence over Trump et al lying all the time about everything.

 

16 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

 


 

The legacy media then made up a story about how the coroner's office assured everyone his death was not vaccine related, that was scientifically not possible as RFK Jr discovered they never had his body at any point, much less examined it. This has not been redacted as far as I know. That story is relatively unimportant in the grand scheme of things and I (or RFK Jr) am certainly not saying he died from the vaccine. The point is that we are not allowed to even ask the question or have the debate.

If you must have my personal answer to your pet question for some reason,

It’s your pet issue, Dennis.  You are the one with a highly selective sensitivity to prevarication.

16 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

 

I would say the Equal Protection Clause would be my starting point. How is banning someone from IG for asking questions and stating facts any more acceptable than banning a black/white/red/anything person from a private golf course?

It’s a free speech issue.  I think people who develop communication platforms exercise their free speech rights when they moderate their platform. 

16 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

 

One difference might be that IG is much closer to a public forum than a private golf course is, meaning, as far as the public is concerned, it might even be a more profound form of discrimination in certain ways.

If you put a Trump sign on my lawn and I take it down does that mean you are the victim of a “profound form of discrimination”?

16 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

Here's your polisci101 question: Should the government allow any private business to prevent access to their service/goods based on what they think?

Based on universal mind reading?

If I develop an internet platform my right to free speech allows me to ban writing or images I find abhorrent.

16 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

It’s a free speech issue.  I think people who develop communication platforms exercise their free speech rights when they moderate their platform. 

Moderation = free speech? That's kind of bass ackwards Cliff.

Moderation would be something like violating community rules that all members agree on when they sign up, like this forum for instance. I challenge you to find the IG rules that state asking a question about someones' death is not allowed or could get you banned. If you want to defend to the right to "moderate" questions, that's fine, but that is what your argument boils down to.

 

Here's another reason why I completely disagree Cliff. Facebook (who owns IG), just like Amazon, Google and other BigTech companies that you defend, have many ties with some of the shadiest parts of the American power structure. There are potentially so many contracts, the public can not even discover some of them (link below). The point being, it is somewhat ridiculous to claim that these bigtech companies are completely private and independent of government. If it was just BigTech, it would still be a problem, but its actually worse than that Cliff. US and UK intelligence have "declared war" on any vaccine criticism. Would you like to defend them as well? I know that in the JFK case, I cannot really think of an example of a US intelligence agency that willingly told the truth about any aspect of the case. In fact, I recall a "Get Garrison" team at CIA. That was in the 60's, now the tools of propaganda and disinformation are far more sophisticated and less transparent. Do you think we are getting an objective representation of this issue in our MSM media Cliff?

https://www.europereloaded.com/us-uk-intel-agencies-declare-cyber-war-on-independent-media-over-vaccines/

Regarding BigTech/government ties, I found a MSM source for your comfort.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/thousands-contracts-highlight-quiet-ties-between-big-tech-u-s-n1233171

Edited by Dennis Berube
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

Moderation = free speech? That's kind of bass ackwards Cliff.

Not if you believe in property rights.

Quote

Moderation would be something like violating community rules that all members agree on when they sign up, like this forum for instance.

It’s whatever the owners of the platform say it is.

Quote

I challenge you to find the IG rules that state asking a question about someones' death is not allowed or could get you banned.

It’s like the sign over the barroom mirror:

What does “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” really mean?

https://www.mydoorsign.com/blog/right-to-refuse-service-to-anyone/

Internet prevaricators are not a “protected class.”

Quote

If you want to defend to the right to "moderate" questions, that's fine, but that is what your argument boils down to.

I’m trying to figure out what *your* argument is in regard to *your* pet issue.

It’s like pulling teeth.

Should the US Government force Instagram to carry RFK Jr.’s posts?

Quote

 

Here's another reason why I completely disagree Cliff. Facebook (who owns IG), just like Amazon, Google and other BigTech companies that you defend, have many ties with some of the shadiest parts of the American power structure.

When did I defend Amazon or Google?

Quote

There are potentially so many contracts, the public can not even discover some of them (link below). The point being, it is somewhat ridiculous to claim that these bigtech companies are completely private and independent of government.
 

I’m talking about the inherent right to free speech of owners of communications platforms.

You want to change the subject.

Should the US Government force Twitter and Facebook to carry Trump’s lies about the 2020 election?

Quote

If it was just BigTech, it would still be a problem, but its actually worse than that Cliff.

So because of bad actors in big tech all internet moderation should be criminalized?

Quote

US and UK intelligence have "declared war" on any vaccine criticism. Would you like to defend them as well?

You can’t tell the difference between a government agency and a private company?

Quote

 

I know that in the JFK case, I cannot really think of an example of a US intelligence agency that willingly told the truth about too many aspects of the case. In fact, I recall a "Get Garrison" team at CIA. That was in the 60's, now the tools of propaganda and disinformation are far more sophisticated and less transparent.

You’re straining so hard to employ guilt-by-association it’s kinda painful to watch.

Quote

Do you think we are getting an objective representation of this issue in our MSM media Cliff?

https://www.europereloaded.com/us-uk-intel-agencies-declare-cyber-war-on-independent-media-over-vaccines/

Regarding BigTech/government ties, I found a MSM source for your comfort.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/thousands-contracts-highlight-quiet-ties-between-big-tech-u-s-n1233171

Ok.  Should the US Government ban moderation on social media?

Yes, or No?

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Cliff, just to make sure I understand you, you would not want any government regulation over social media moderation. Is that correct?

Yet are you perfectly fine with government regulation of other business actions, i.e. whom to hire/fire?   The government currently regulates so many areas of private business. Thus, this seems odd because if you want private business to be regulated by the government in some areas but say they are free to do what they want in other areas, despite the fact that business actions Both affect, and have an effect on, freedoms, then you are are viewing the constitution as a cafeteria where one can pick and choose what one likes.  Just my observation. 
So, should government be out of the boardroom or should government regulate it? 

Edited by Cory Santos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

So Cliff, just to make sure I understand you, you would not want any government regulation over social media moderation. Is that correct?

Yet are you perfectly fine with government regulation of other business actions, i.e. whom to hire/fire?   The government currently regulates so many areas of private business. Thus, this seems odd because if you want private business to be regulated by the government in some areas but say they are free to do what they want in other areas, despite the fact that the business actions affect and have an effect on freedoms, then you are are viewing the constitution as a cafeteria where one can pick and choose what one likes.  Just my observation. 
So, should government be out of the boardroom or should government regulate it? 

Seat belts save lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:
25 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

So Cliff, just to make sure I understand you, you would not want any government regulation over social media moderation. Is that correct?

Correct.

Quote

Yet are you perfectly fine with government regulation of other business actions, i.e. whom to hire/fire?   The government currently regulates so many areas of private business. Thus, this seems odd because if you want private business to be regulated by the government in some areas but say they are free to do what they want in other areas, despite the fact that business actions Both affect, and have an effect on, freedoms, then you are are viewing the constitution as a cafeteria where one can pick and choose what one likes.  

That’s been done already.

https://www.mydoorsign.com/blog/right-to-refuse-service-to-anyone/

Can business owners really refuse service to anyone?

Under federal anti-discrimination laws, businesses can refuse service to any person for any reason, unless the business is discriminating against a protected class.

At the national level, protected classes include:

  • Race or color
  • National origin or citizenship status
  • Religion or creed
  • Sex
  • Age
  • Disability, pregnancy, or genetic information
  • Veteran status

Some states, like California, have more protected classes than the federal baseline.  In addition to the above factors, California adds:

  • Marital status
  • Sexual orientation or gender identity
  • Medical condition, or AIDS/HIV status
  • Military or veteran status
  • Political affiliations or activities
  • Status as a victim of domestic violence, assault, or stalking

Contact  your state attorney general or consult a lawyer for details on how your state handles its particular antidiscrimination law. </q>
 
Internet commenters are not a “protected class.”

Quote


 

Just my observation. 
So, should government be out of the boardroom or should government regulate it? 

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Correct.

That’s been done already.

https://www.mydoorsign.com/blog/right-to-refuse-service-to-anyone/

Can business owners really refuse service to anyone?

Under federal anti-discrimination laws, businesses can refuse service to any person for any reason, unless the business is discriminating against a protected class.

At the national level, protected classes include:

  • Race or color
  • National origin or citizenship status
  • Religion or creed
  • Sex
  • Age
  • Disability, pregnancy, or genetic information
  • Veteran status

Some states, like California, have more protected classes than the federal baseline.  In addition to the above factors, California adds:

  • Marital status
  • Sexual orientation or gender identity
  • Medical condition, or AIDS/HIV status
  • Military or veteran status
  • Political affiliations or activities
  • Status as a victim of domestic violence, assault, or stalking

Contact  your state attorney general or consult a lawyer for details on how your state handles its particular antidiscrimination law. </q>
 
Internet commenters are not a “protected class.”

 

So, to be clear, government regulation of business when it comes to speech/content ok -in your view-on other media such as books, magazines, newspapers, film and tv.  
Government regulation of hiring/firing practices, insurance, pay rate all ok too in your view. 

But in your view social media is a special entity which enjoys immunity from government regulation?

lol, ok.  I’ll have seconds in the cafeteria line.  One cannot have enough ambrosia. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people running the big tech social media companies didn’t independently wake up one morning and decide heightened moderation and withdrawal of service was the best next step for their business models. This all came about as result of pressure from US Congressional committees bolstered by advocacy for this result from the influential legacy media such as the NY Times.

As usual, Cliff asks all the wrong questions. The notion that the government should force social media outlets to carry controversial posts hasn’t been advocated by anyone. The issue is whether the government should use its powerful influence and ability to regulate business in an effort to limit speech. Which is what has happened. Pretending this is all just the expression of private property rights is not just short-sighted, it entirely misses the point.

RFK Jr’s positions extend beyond vaccine issues, and generally follow a progressive and international outlook. Shutting down his Instagram page - with 700,000 followers - eliminates an entire forum for networking and information sharing for a large number of people. Edward Curtin discusses this as a form of informational warfare:

https://off-guardian.org/2021/02/14/opening-the-cias-can-of-worms/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

The people running the big tech social media companies didn’t independently wake up one morning and decide heightened moderation and withdrawal of service was the best next step for their business models.

Facebook woke up one morning and realized it was a recruitment site for Fascist crazies.

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/08/07/reports-facebook-fires-employee-who-shared-proof-of-right-wing-favoritism/

Reports: Facebook Fires Employee Who Shared Proof of Right Wing Favoritism

Former employees, speaking anonymously, told NBC that they were concerned Facebook gave conservative outlets preferential treatment to avoid criticisms of anti-conservative bias. </q>

Quote

This all came about as result of pressure from US Congressional committees bolstered by advocacy for this result from the influential legacy media such as the NY Times.

You’re grossly exaggerating the influence of Congressional committees.  Zuckerberg has been under intense internal pressure within Facebook.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7605687/Republican-Congressman-pushes-anti-vaxxer-claims-questions-Mark-Zuckerberg.html

  • Zuckerberg said we 'hear consistently from our community that people want us to stop the spread of misinformation'

 

Quote

As usual, Cliff asks all the wrong questions. The notion that the government should force social media outlets to carry controversial posts hasn’t been advocated by anyone.

Why couldn’t Dennis come out and say that?

Quote

The issue is whether the government should use its powerful influence and ability to regulate business in an effort to limit speech.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-twitter-ceos-testify-zuckerberg-dorsey-senate-hearing-watch-live-stream-today-2020-11-17/

Please point to the Congressional edict requiring Facebook et al to ban anti-vax.

Quote

Which is what has happened.

From the cbs article linked above:

Facebook’s fact-checking rules stipulate that the site can limit the reach of pages that repeatedly share misinformation. But NBC News obtained evidence that Facebook relaxed its rules for Right Wing accounts such as “Breitbart, former Fox News personalities Diamond and Silk, the nonprofit media outlet PragerU and the pundit Charlie Kirk.”

Normally, Facebook’s fact-checking teams give “strikes” to accounts posting misinformation. Yet documents given to NBC show that some employees “with direct oversight from company leadership, deleted strikes during the review process that were issued to some conservative partners for posting misinformation over the last six months.” </q>
 
You don’t have a problem with right-wing bias on Facebook, do you , Jeff?

Quote

Pretending this is all just the expression of private property rights is not just short-sighted, it entirely misses the point.

And your remedy for this problem is...?

Quote

RFK Jr’s positions extend beyond vaccine issues, and generally follow a progressive and international outlook. Shutting down his Instagram page - with 700,000 followers - eliminates an entire forum for networking and information sharing for a large number of people. Edward Curtin discusses this as a form of informational warfare:

https://off-guardian.org/2021/02/14/opening-the-cias-can-of-worms/

The baby got thrown out with the bath water.  I suggest you help organize a boycott.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

The people running the big tech social media companies didn’t independently wake up one morning and decide heightened moderation and withdrawal of service was the best next step for their business models. This all came about as result of pressure from US Congressional committees bolstered by advocacy for this result from the influential legacy media such as the NY Times.

As usual, Cliff asks all the wrong questions. The notion that the government should force social media outlets to carry controversial posts hasn’t been advocated by anyone. The issue is whether the government should use its powerful influence and ability to regulate business in an effort to limit speech. Which is what has happened. Pretending this is all just the expression of private property rights is not just short-sighted, it entirely misses the point.

RFK Jr’s positions extend beyond vaccine issues, and generally follow a progressive and international outlook. Shutting down his Instagram page - with 700,000 followers - eliminates an entire forum for networking and information sharing for a large number of people. Edward Curtin discusses this as a form of informational warfare:

https://off-guardian.org/2021/02/14/opening-the-cias-can-of-worms/


The public perception of big tech and the separation from the state is interesting. If we thought about any other significant power in the world, not from the west, we'd automatically assume there is state interference with the tech firms of that country, as its in the national interest. But, in the USA the opposite is assumed, that there is this separation and no direct or subversive interference. Is that a logical conclusion? Not really. 

Are the government able to access your cellphones at the touch of a button, are they able to access your Facebook, Insta, Youtube, Gmail etc? Absolutely. Are they able to do that with the blessing of these tech firms? Definitely. The 5G network debacle between Britain and Huawei, with the US pressuring Britain not to accept Huawei on security grounds has been interesting to watch. The reason being claimed is China state interference. The other side is the claim that the USA doesn't have an easy access backdoor into the network, like they do with others. Is it in he best interests of our security, maybe. The better the devil you know argument is always made. 

The double standard is always that if someone else is doing something invasive, it's a threat to national security and if our own country is doing it, then it's also because of national security, protecting us. We have also seen the propensity for misuse by the state, whether that's in the Oliver Stone film "Snowden" or in terms of intellectual property theft, sexual blackmail, surveillance etc. We are all sold this lie about terrorists coming to take away our freedoms, very sophisticated networks of terrorists that live in caves or villages without internet and obviously match the Pentagon in sophistication and resources. 

Some of you may want to look into DARPA, the ARPA-NET, the origins of Google, Stanford research institute and even the lifelog / facebook coincidence. To me the idea that the tentacles of government security agencies are not deeply involved in big tech is patently absurd. If the government wants someone censored on social media platforms, it will be done. If you think RFK Jr had 700,000 followers, do you have any idea how his social media reach will scale up on a post that's interesting? The power is immense. If you then consider vaccines are the hot topic, at a time the populations of the globe are hysterical with fear of Covid19, then if his message is warning of dangers or contrarian in general, it means everyone on earth is likely to hear about it. He has credibility as an author, lawyer, activist and mostly because he is the son and nephew of two very well liked guys on a global level. Whether you believe his views and others on certain vaccines, autism or Covid19, is another matter. But, I can see why government would want to censor him and free speech, whether he is right or wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

I can see why government would want to censor him and free speech, whether he is right or wrong. 

Please show the proof the government censored RFK Jr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...