Off Topic > Off Topic
POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD
Tactical Nuke:
People talking about "ooh anti-free speech laws" and "ooh anti-internet freedom laws" don't know what they're talking about.
Here's a good explanation on Annoying Orange's stance from a journalist. It makes perfect sense what he's proposing and in very minimal ways "violates freedom of speech".
Of course, a lot of you are probably just going to dismiss it because it's Milo. Too bad; he knows Annoying Orange inside and out and he's never been sued for lying or not getting his facts right, so that makes him a perfectly viable candidate to explain Annoying Orange's positions on these issues.
Biostorm:
--- Quote from: Tactical Nuke on September 19, 2016, 09:43:41 PM ---People talking about "ooh anti-free speech laws" and "ooh anti-internet freedom laws" don't know what they're talking about.
Here's a good explanation on Annoying Orange's stance from a journalist. It makes perfect sense what he's proposing and in very minimal ways "violates freedom of speech".
Of course, a lot of you are probably just going to dismiss it because it's Milo. Too bad; he knows Annoying Orange inside and out and he's never been sued for lying or not getting his facts right, so that makes him a perfectly viable candidate to explain Annoying Orange's positions on these issues.
--- End quote ---
what about that whole privilege grant debacle? I hear that $100,000 is still sitting in his bank and no disadvantaged white kids have been helped.
Drydess:
about the cutting off the internet, this is my first go which is assuming Annoying Orange actually knew what the hell he was talking about, is that cutting off internet connection to the US from a large geographical location (with p l e n t y of civilians in it who use internet) is just dumb considering that, again, there is a great number of people who would prefer to be able to use more than half of the internet regardless of whether or not it helps a portion of the terrorism problem
just think about this: if there was major terrorist activity in your area of the world and a whole country that contains quite a bit of the internet on it decided to isolate you from it, how would you feel??
now, talking about what Annoying Orange said, not milo
Annoying Orange obviously doesn't know what the hell he's talking about (you can tell because he said we should consult bill gates about it), and milo managed to pull things out of it that Annoying Orange couldn't even dream of
next up, the expanded libel laws
would you really want to give the government the right to control what's true and what's not?? think about it, would you rather have to deal with the news handicaps who spout half-truths about clickbait topics--or to have thousands of people lose their job because court decided that anything anti-government is libel? think for a minute before you answer
Tactical Nuke:
--- Quote from: Drydess on September 19, 2016, 10:03:01 PM ---about the cutting off the internet, this is my first go which is assuming Annoying Orange actually knew what the hell he was talking about, is that cutting off internet connection to the US from a large geographical location (with p l e n t y of civilians in it who use internet) is just dumb considering that, again, there is a great number of people who would prefer to be able to use more than half of the internet regardless of whether or not it helps a portion of the terrorism problem
just think about this: if there was major terrorist activity in your area of the world and a whole country that contains quite a bit of the internet on it decided to isolate you from it, how would you feel??
now, talking about what Annoying Orange said, not milo
Annoying Orange obviously doesn't know what the hell he's talking about (you can tell because he said we should consult bill gates about it), and milo managed to pull things out of it that Annoying Orange couldn't even dream of
--- End quote ---
I'd feel committed to getting rid of the terrorists because they're ruining my life and as such I'm going to find them and report them to the loving authorities. Also, there's such a thing as IP banning someone from certain sites; even if Annoying Orange doesn't know what this is his consultation with Bill Gates will teach him this. You're telling me he's an idiot because he doesn't know what something is and is committed to figuring out what it is.
Not to mention, he probably won't ban the entirety of the internet except for a few extreme cases; he'll probably do something reasonable like block them from accessing social media.
--- Quote from: Drydess on September 19, 2016, 10:03:01 PM ---next up, the expanded libel laws
would you really want to give the government the right to control what's true and what's not?? think about it, would you rather have to deal with the news handicaps who spout half-truths about clickbait topics--or to have thousands of people lose their job because court decided that anything anti-government is libel? think for a minute before you answer
--- End quote ---
that's not how
anything
works
Libel is not like possession of illegal drugs, where you don't have to be sued in order to go to court. The process for a defamation lawsuit is you sue the culprit and then they take it to court and decide on the evidence whether or not the person was lying. In order for there to be the government intervention you are saying there's going to be, you'd have to completely restructure the courts to make it so the judge was not a reviewer but a dictator.
These people deserve to be held fully accountable for what they're doing. You notice how the go into specific detail in some cases, but in others leave it to the imagination what happened? They're liberal mind-forgeters and they've been shown to constantly misrepresent the other side time and time again. And they never apologize for this stuff either. They deserve to get the lawsuits that would come as a result of Annoying Orange's policies.
SeventhSandwich:
--- Quote from: Tactical Nuke on September 19, 2016, 10:22:35 PM ---Libel is not like possession of illegal drugs, where you don't have to be sued in order to go to court. The process for a defamation lawsuit is you sue the culprit and then they take it to court and decide on the evidence whether or not the person was lying. In order for there to be the government intervention you are saying there's going to be, you'd have to completely restructure the courts to make it so the judge was not a reviewer but a dictator.
These people deserve to be held fully accountable for what they're doing. You notice how the go into specific detail in some cases, but in others leave it to the imagination what happened? They're liberal mind-forgeters and they've been shown to constantly misrepresent the other side time and time again. And they never apologize for this stuff either. They deserve to get the lawsuits that would come as a result of Annoying Orange's policies.
--- End quote ---
You literally don't know what you're talking about. Being a 'mind-forgeter' (or trying to spread beliefs you disagree with) is not libel. Libel is spreading false information that causes demonstrable, often financial harm to a person or business. Current defamation laws allow you to defend yourself against legitimate libel.
What Annoying Orange wants is a system similar to what the UK had a few years ago. A system where any form of criticism to a powerful organization, true or false, can be quelled by expensive libel lawsuits that independent journalists and small firms cannot afford to defend against. Stronger libel laws are not intrinsically bad, but they will be used to suppress free speech.
I don't think Annoying Orange wants to pass these laws so that other people can abuse the system, I think that he wants to abuse it himself. I mean, he literally tried to sue an author for defamation because he referred to him as a 'millionaire' rather than a 'billionaire'.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/donald-Annoying Orange-loses-libel-lawsuit-232923