New in PJ Media:
One would think that a former president of the United States would be a staunch defender of the First Amendment. When it comes to Barack Obama, however, you’d think wrong. Obama spoke Wednesday at an event sponsored by The Atlantic and the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics, “Disinformation and the Erosion of Democracy.” In the course of a long and rambling discussion with The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, Obama called for government control over the Internet in order to stem the “demand for crazy” that was spreading what he called “disinformation.” As Leftists always do, Obama claimed that this “disinformation” was threatening “our democracy,” that is, the Left’s political and cultural hegemony.
Obama first insisted, with his characteristic near-incoherence: “I am close to a First Amendment absolutist. I believe in the idea of not just free speech, but also that you deal with bad speech with good speech, that you engage, um, that, that, that, that the exceptions to that are very narrow, um, and, and, and, y’know, particularly, uh, among this cohort of folks in college, and I’ve talked to my daughters about this, um, y’know, I don’t want us to be such a society of manners that, like, we can’t, we feel like our feelings are hurt and we can’t hear something that, uh, somebody says, and, and, and we wilt. Uh, I think, uh, I want us all as citizens to be in the habit of being able to hear stuff that we disagree with and be able to answer with our words.” His First Amendment absolutism, however, only went so far.
After a good bit more rambling, Obama got around to asserting that in order to limit the spread of what he called “toxic information,” it would be “reasonable for us as a society to have a debate, and then to put in place a combination of regulatory measures and, uh, industry norms, uh, that leave intact the opportunity for these platforms to make money, but say to them that, there, there, there’s certain practices that we are not, that we don’t think are good for our society and we’re gonna discourage.” There goes the First Amendment.
This is because, he explained, “I do think that there is a demand for crazy on the internet that we have to grapple with,” and that this involves “a systematic effort to either promote false information, to suppress true information, for the purpose of political gain, financial gain, enhancing power, suppressing others, targeting those you don’t like.” Among these, “Roughly 40 percent of the country appears convinced that the current president was elected fraudulently and that the election was rigged,” and 30-35% reject the “medical miracle” of vaccines. It was important, Obama said, to reassert “the value of, y’know, expertise and, uh, science.”
There is more. Read the rest here.
European pagan says
He became so old
Eva says
Sadly, he’s got too old. It would be better for the world if he hadn’t made it this far.
notnolib says
Why can’t we upvote here?
Ugly Sid says
Why did jihadwatch employ a censor named Marc?
If words are not violence, why can’t we express ourselves?
I was bounced by FrontPage years ago for complaining about spam. Have you seen them lately?
Don’t take too much for granted. Things often are not what one thinks.
gravenimage says
Front Page Magazine is here:
https://www.frontpagemag.com/
Robert Spencer often writes for them.
And free speech *is* an absolute–but this does not mean that every individual is forced to provide a platform for everyone.
You don’t, for instance, have to allow Jihad terrorists to use your living room as a meeting place.
Few comments are removed here–most of them involve calls for violence, and a very few are just off-topic.
Ugly Sid says
Now that FrontPage is moderated again ( & I refuse to participate with said moderator. I refuse to facilitate the collection of my promulgated sentiments. ), I expect the spam to fall off.
And my posts removed from this site were a gratuitous insult by another power drunk simpleton with immunity. I may still have the emails, but the subject text had been memory holed just as the enthusiastic censor gloated.
gravenimage says
Actually, posts inciting violence are not allowed here–for good reason.
Ugly Sid says
I chose my words carefully.
“Gratuitous” means the absence of good reason.
“Gloat” means he strutted his power to eviscerate like he were a frigging peacock.
And precisely what were the little nobodies going to to do about it? No one, other than the censor, would read the words. That was his whole point.
You’re the pencil. But he’s the eraser. Period.
I did not post here again for years. It worked. He shut me up by shutting me down.
I fear your confidence in perpetual fairness is pollyannish. I’m more skeptical.
gravenimage says
You have not said why you think Jihad Watch should post violent comments, and how without this it somehow not fair. Not surprised.
Don McKellar says
He showed up to bolster His Fraudulency’s dumpster fire “presidency” and has instead come out with two viral videos of him humiliating and ignoring Biden, a speech in “support” of Biden where he mentions himself over 30 times, and this event where he advocates crushing free speech.
Rarely says
The spreading of disinformation has become so much easier (and effective) with computerization. Also it is much, much more dangerous than in the past.
How wonderful it would be if disinformation and outright lies could be kept from spreading. But it’s a slippery slope inevitably resulting in granting incredible powers to whoever was running the system and, eventually, totalitarianism.
Nevertheless, something must be done and I hope someone can figure out just what that might be.
gravenimage says
Rarely, why must “something be done” to prevent speech that you don’t like?
Ugly Sid says
To attenuate the prospect of an unfavorable electoral result loosening a hold upon political hegemony.
Losing elections are technically described as Attacks Upon Our Democracy, which justifies imprisoning those who oppose Our Democracy, and intimidating the rest.
>*”For our friends, everything. For our enemies, the Law!”*
Westman says
Is this what we get from a wealthy society that has too much free time on its hands?
The founding fathers ran businesses and worked outside of government unlike today’s professional cadre of politicians who lust for power and retire incredibly wealthy, far beyond the express ability of their salaries.
Perhaps the Founders understood that wealthy authoritarian government was the force keeping British citizens from reaching their potential; that only by granting freedoms of citizen speech and action could the new government, of and by the people, be kept under oversight.
As always, there are minds who feel they are granted some extravagant superiority to manipulate others, “for the good of society”. For them, temporary service is the stepping-stone to power which establishes a virtual image of altruism while they refine their schemes.
What does one call a government whose State elections are funded, in the majority, by interests other than the states citizens? Certainly not, “representative”. How many emails do we receive from candidates in other states wanting donations to their campaigns? And the national political parties have slush funds to send to favored candidates.
The result is obvious – our US government has evolved into government by the rich and powerful. The media just recently reported that the former corporate undertaker, Utah Senator, Romney, has been voting against the clear Utah citizens expectations. Being very wealthy before being a Senator, Romney is free to vote in a pattern that will allow a run for US President – Utah citizens be damned.
Obama has made the transition from Community Organizer to world-stage and wealthy. Is he living amongst the the people for whom he organized? Is he at the funerals of promising young men whose lives are being cut short by gangs and drug addicts? Did we see him ignore Biden while glad-handing in DC where a real Community Organizer, like Martin Luther King, would have helped Biden to at least feel secure.
Obama is now about Obama and the exercise of Power. As was posited in, “House Of Cards”, money is a low-tier game. The real political wealth is power. Unaccountable power is the greatest power.
If more power can be gained by shutting down real free speech then expect it. Just don’t believe the flowery justifications; no one can toss pretty Hemlock flowers like Obama – it will always be about government gaining power at the citizen’s expense.
James Lincoln says
Westman says,
“Is this what we get from a wealthy society that has too much free time on its hands?”
That’s what happens when a society becomes “overdeveloped”.
Perhaps people holding public office should be required to have, at least, a part-time job in the private sector’s general economy.
somehistory says
they should all be required to sign up with a temp agency and take any jobs offered…at least until they have decided they don’t want to *serve* all of their lives…like pelosi and others who leave when it’s time for croaking.
Temp agencies have all kinds of businesses as clients. Fully-rounded they’d be if they had to work for one. at least, the ones with integrity would be. The rest are slugs.
somehistory says
so, who believes a liar, caught in so very many lies, such as “If you want to keep your doctor….” when it comes to what is “disinformation.”
(that term is incredibly stupid as “information” is true and if someone writes or says something untrue, it is not “information” at all. )
and what we are supposed to believe is true. In the old days, a newspaper printed what the reporter and the editor thought to be true. The reporter was told to “check” sources, etc. and if something was later found to be false, they did a retraction. It was up to the reader to decide what he wished to believe…to him what was true and what seemed false…not the reporter or the editors.
When tv came along, it worked basically the same way…and the one watching the news would decide whether or not he believed what was said.
Now, the government…the media, hollywood people, and former pretenders to the WH, want to tell us what to believe by shutting up their opposition. The average person can be deceived into believing a lie if the teller is proficient at lying,…”You can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”…(Abe L)…
and although lies can do an enormous amount of damage, everyone should get to choose what and whom to believe. Liars like “bo” shouldn’t get to decide who gets to speak and that the lies that he endorses are held to be true, while the Truth is censored right out of existence.
Many today would rather believe the lie than deal with the Truth.
gravenimage says
Barack Obama Comes Out Against the First Amendment
……………
So much for his being a “First Amendment absolutist”.
In fact, the *only* speech that should be legally restricted is that directly inciting violence. The idea that you can crush freedom of speech because it is subjectively “toxic information” (what does that even mean, if it is accurate? Just something he doesn’t like?) or “crazy” is, or should be, completely insufficient.
By “regulatory measures” he means the government crushing any speech that he personally finds offensive.
And, a smaller, point, but I thought that Obama was supposed to be articulate–or at least slick. But he sounds almost as incoherent here as does Joe Biden.
somehistory says
“bo” was without his prompter. He, in my opinion, is a stupid, stupid, evil creature and just as bumbling as biden. At one time, biden could speak well…not that what he said was necessarily good, but he could express himself in an articulate fashion. “bo” needed his teleprompter. Without it, he even admitted to his “mozlum faith.”
savvyone says
I believe with you. I had more to say, but Securi erased it.
somehistory says
thank you, savvyone and g.
There is certainly a lot “more to say” on this subject.
gravenimage says
Spot on, Somehistory.
raja says
Somehistory,
I can’t disagree with you as he was the one who ensured that all established norms of American democracy was weakened and destroyed sometimes. He was too mindful of how Islamists would be hurt more than Americans (for supremacist reasons) . He didn’t even have the courtesy of receiving the then visiting head of state of Israel Benjamin Netu.
This creep has finally let the cat out of the bag (about the his true intentions). I wonder what his crony Biden has to say now
Infidel says
So he is just openly saying what most of us actually knew about him all along?
gregbeetham says
Yeah you can tell when a lefty is lying; it’s when they are speaking.