What a sad age we live in. I guess that the calling of anything "fake news" because it doesn't agree with one's worldview made this kind of thing inevitable

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=To91BJGKr5I

What's the solution to these issues? Closing down their facebook page is only going to make them more determined.

Just ignore them, don't get involved.
Don't give them the page click, response, rise or reaction they're after.
Don't try using any sort of reasoned reply or logic. Don't bother with trying to debunk their claims. They won't be listening, they won't change their minds, they'll insist you're part of it.
They live in their own sad little worlds, leave them to it and enjoy what life has to bring.

In the age of mass media, it seems to me that allowable limitation on freedom of speech needs to be expanded beyond "shouting fire in a movie theater".

People who willfully and blatantly present false information to the public (such as some of the above) need to be taken off of mass media, including being banned from posting on the internet. Doing the same while banned should get them about 15 years. Just posting while banned would be worth about a year. These people do real and tangible damage to society.

And yes, it should make MSM feel the pressure of willful and blatant news manipulation.

I don't agree with shutting down their social media. You're allowed to be crazy. Best thing to do is to ignore them. They want attention.

If they accuse someone of something they should be able to take them to court to rectify the situation. Take away their ability to live a happy life and they will go away.

CCGPV wrote:

I don't agree with shutting down their social media. You're allowed to be crazy. Best thing to do is to ignore them. They want attention.

If they accuse someone of something they should be able to take them to court to rectify the situation. Take away their ability to live a happy life and they will go away.

Being "crazy" and being malicious are two different things.
Victims do have the right to sue and they're not going away.

salttee wrote:

In the age of mass media, it seems to me that allowable limitation on freedom of speech needs to be expanded beyond "shouting fire in a movie theater".

People who willfully and blatantly present false information to the public (such as some of the above) need to be taken off of mass media, including being banned from posting on the internet. Doing the same while banned should get them about 15 years. Just posting while banned would be worth about a year. These people do real and tangible damage to society.

And yes, it should make MSM feel the pressure of willful and blatant news manipulation.

That is a scary viewpoint to have. I don't want to live in that world.

What about banning protesting in the streets too. Lots of those people use propaganda and misrepresent facts to prove their point. Oh, and we shouldn't allow any online reviews of products because those are purely opinions and might not be based on facts either. Where is the line?

CCGPV wrote:

salttee wrote:

In the age of mass media, it seems to me that allowable limitation on freedom of speech needs to be expanded beyond "shouting fire in a movie theater".

People who willfully and blatantly present false information to the public (such as some of the above) need to be taken off of mass media, including being banned from posting on the internet. Doing the same while banned should get them about 15 years. Just posting while banned would be worth about a year. These people do real and tangible damage to society.

And yes, it should make MSM feel the pressure of willful and blatant news manipulation.

That is a scary viewpoint to have. I don't want to live in that world.

What about banning protesting in the streets too. Lots of those people use propaganda and misrepresent facts to prove their point. Oh, and we shouldn't allow any online reviews of products because those are purely opinions and might not be based on facts either. Where is the line?

Don't worry, you're safe, the normal practice of right wingers making ridiculously false comparisons wouldn't be interfered with by my above suggestion.

salttee wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

I don't agree with shutting down their social media. You're allowed to be crazy. Best thing to do is to ignore them. They want attention.

If they accuse someone of something they should be able to take them to court to rectify the situation. Take away their ability to live a happy life and they will go away.

Being "crazy" and being malicious are two different things.
Victims do have the right to sue and they're not going away.

Well then these people who are being attacked need to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. I don't think many would have a problem with that. One less nutjob out there burgeoning everyone else with their drivel.

CCGPV wrote:

salttee wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

I don't agree with shutting down their social media. You're allowed to be crazy. Best thing to do is to ignore them. They want attention.

If they accuse someone of something they should be able to take them to court to rectify the situation. Take away their ability to live a happy life and they will go away.

Being "crazy" and being malicious are two different things.
Victims do have the right to sue and they're not going away.

Well then these people who are being attacked need to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. I don't think many would have a problem with that. One less nutjob out there burgeoning everyone else with their drivel.

Let me get this straight, you're saying that you're OK with summary vigilante justice?

salttee wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

salttee wrote:

Being "crazy" and being malicious are two different things.
Victims do have the right to sue and they're not going away.

Well then these people who are being attacked need to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. I don't think many would have a problem with that. One less nutjob out there burgeoning everyone else with their drivel.

Let me get this straight, you're saying that you're OK with summary vigilante justice?

No, I'm OK with someone protecting themselves from physical violence and intimidation. If someone comes onto your property and physically attacks your or you feel physically threatened you should be able to respond with force.

CCGPV wrote:

No, I'm OK with someone protecting themselves from physical violence and intimidation. If someone comes onto your property and physically attacks your or you feel physically threatened you should be able to respond with force.

What does that have to do with the subject under discussion?

salttee wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

No, I'm OK with someone protecting themselves from physical violence and intimidation. If someone comes onto your property and physically attacks your or you feel physically threatened you should be able to respond with force.

What does that have to do with the subject under discussion?

I have no idea you asked me a question and I answered it.

Read the OP.

You indicated that you think people should use guns to solve the problem presented in the OP.

salttee wrote:

Read the OP.

You indicated that you think people should use guns to solve the problem presented in the OP.

Well yes I was making a sarcastic over the top point about silencing crazy people.

Politely asking them to stop is not going to work. "Banning them from the internet" (whatever that means) isn't going to work.

Back in the day we just arrested them and sent them to a state institution, pumped them full of drugs, and forgot about them. There's a lot of people who think we should go back to that practice. There'd be a lot less crazy people (and homeless) around.

You're out in left field. If you ever want to join the discussion started by zkojq, be sure and let us know.

salttee wrote:

You're out in left field. If you ever want to join the discussion started by zkojq, be sure and let us know.

I'm out in left field but you want to throw someone in prison for 15 years for posting unpopular opinions on the internet.

I guess we're both outfielders then.

CCGPV wrote:

I'm out in left field but you want to throw someone in prison for 15 years for posting unpopular opinions on the internet.

I guess we're both outfielders then.

Calling victims crises actor's ain't an opinion, it is just a statement without basis in facts and rather a holocaust holocaust denial level lie. Stating an opinion should be protected, lying shouldn't be.

salttee wrote:

Victims do have the right to sue and they're not going away.

Boy am I glad to life in a country where I don't need to sue, but can press charges against libel. And if their lies where bad enough, that is up to 5 years prison for ya, even if it is usually just a cash penalty.

Same if you make up fake crimes and put them to the public, like on Facebook. Because for many crimes the police has to investigate if they learn about it, investing time and resources, that not just cost money, but keep them from investigating real crimes.

Lies deserve no protection and the victims of such should not need to get a lawyer to get their right. It isn't different from someone stealing your wallet.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

I'm out in left field but you want to throw someone in prison for 15 years for posting unpopular opinions on the internet.

I guess we're both outfielders then.

Calling victims crises actor's ain't an opinion, it is just a statement without basis in facts and rather a holocaust holocaust denial level lie. Stating an opinion should be protected, lying shouldn't be.

salttee wrote:

Victims do have the right to sue and they're not going away.

Boy am I glad to life in a country where I don't need to sue, but can press charges against libel. And if their lies where bad enough, that is up to 5 years prison for ya, even if it is usually just a cash penalty.

Same if you make up fake crimes and put them to the public, like on Facebook. Because for many crimes the police has to investigate if they learn about it, investing time and resources, that not just cost money, but keep them from investigating real crimes.

Lies deserve no protection and the victims of such should not need to get a lawyer to get their right. It isn't different from someone stealing your wallet.

Best regards
Thomas

Of course its an opinion- or belief. Its an incorrect belief but they believe it.

Pressing charges is suing. You're taking someone to court over something they did. The same thing happens in the USA.

The victims of these nutjobs do have legal recourse.

Are you calling for people to be arrested and jailed for believing in conspiracy theories? Should people be arrested for calling politicians or business owners crooks if they feel slighted? What level of social discourse is acceptable to you?

If you don't agree with someone then challenge their views and try and influence them. Just because your view is different it doesn't mean it's right but at the same time it doesn't mean they're right as well.

Shutting people's accounts down (how many on here would love that to happen to mine here?!) or shutting down the debate, usually by crying 'racism' is not constructive and is the modern day equiuof a gulag.

I think it is interesting that "crisis actors" only show up at mass shootings and are used to strenghen the "argument" that guns need to be everywhere or to leave the Second Amendment alone. People are really reaching. Why is no one pushing the conspiracy that Barbara Bush is really still alive and it is a false flag operation to undermine the Turkish government or something equally as silly? False Flag and crisis actors are only used by the left? Maybe those who come up with this drivel have more time on their hands sitting in their basements with their guns and MREs?

seb146 wrote:

I think it is interesting that "crisis actors" only show up at mass shootings and are used to strenghen the "argument" that guns need to be everywhere or to leave the Second Amendment alone. People are really reaching. Why is no one pushing the conspiracy that Barbara Bush is really still alive and it is a false flag operation to undermine the Turkish government or something equally as silly? False Flag and crisis actors are only used by the left? Maybe those who come up with this drivel have more time on their hands sitting in their basements with their guns and MREs?

You're trying to inject logic into something crazy people believe. These are mentally ill people.

CCGPV wrote:

I don't agree with shutting down their social media. You're allowed to be crazy. Best thing to do is to ignore them. They want attention.

If they accuse someone of something they should be able to take them to court to rectify the situation. Take away their ability to live a happy life and they will go away.

You can disagree all you want, but a private business isn't controlled by the constitution. Also I agree with suing the likes of Alex Jones into bankruptcy.

Jouhou wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

I don't agree with shutting down their social media. You're allowed to be crazy. Best thing to do is to ignore them. They want attention.

If they accuse someone of something they should be able to take them to court to rectify the situation. Take away their ability to live a happy life and they will go away.

You can disagree all you want, but a private business isn't controlled by the constitution. Also I agree with suing the likes of Alex Jones into bankruptcy.

I never claimed a private business should be required to do anything. I said I don't think they should.

I think everyone is on-board with suing Jones. As for winning the case...I'm not so sure they will. I hope they do, but I'll be surprised.

CCGPV wrote:

I think everyone is on-board with suing Jones. As for winning the case...I'm not so sure they will. I hope they do, but I'll be surprised.

If you were a parent of a Sandy Hook victim and had to listen to the likes of Alex Jones calling you a liar and claiming you're a paid actor and that your child hadn't died, do you not think that's defamation? IMHO, that's a slam-dunk. I hope he has his ass handed to him on a plate.

IMHO, believing the Earth is flat and it's all a government/NASA conspiracy is one thing, this is hugely different.

CCGPV wrote:

Of course its an opinion- or belief. Its an incorrect belief but they believe it.

An opinion doesn´t need to be true, but it is more than just a believe. An Opinion is a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty, but is not without grounds.

Pressing charges is suing. You're taking someone to court over something they did. The same thing happens in the USA.

Word used wrong, i mean criminal charge. I don´t need to sue, i´d be a witness and the victim at the same time, the state prosecutor will seek to convict, it is not my lawyer trying to get a conviction. Not in this case, since it requires the victim to want prosecution, but on bigger crimes they will prosecute regardless of the victim wanting it or not. You can for example not buy yourself out of rape charges with an out of court settlement.

The victims of these nutjobs do have legal recourse.

Yeah, with significant financial risk to add hurt to injury.

Are you calling for people to be arrested and jailed for believing in conspiracy theories?

Nah, you can believe whatever you want, no matter how stupid or wrong. If you take it to the public, you better make sure that the target of your lies doesn´t take offense or that you can proof your claim.

German penal code §186 reads wrote:

Whosoever asserts or disseminates a fact related to another person which may defame him or negatively affect public opinion about him, shall, unless this fact can be proven to be true, be liable to imprisonment not exceeding one year or a fine and, if the offence was committed publicly or through the dissemination of written materials (section 11(3)), to imprisonment not exceeding two years or a fine.

and if it can be shown that you are perfectly aware of lying and doing is deliberately to cause damage::

German penal code §187 reads wrote:

Whosoever intentionally and knowingly asserts or disseminates an untrue fact related to another person, which may defame him or negatively affect public opinion about him or endanger his creditworthiness shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding two years or a fine, and, if the act was committed publicly, in a meeting or through dissemination of written materials (section 11(3)) to imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine.

Alex Jones would probably not make it long here. And that is good.

Should people be arrested for calling politicians or business owners crooks if they feel slighted? What level of social discourse is acceptable to you?

Discourse based on facts and other information that doesn´t defame or negatively affect public opinion about persons involved. You can call a business man crooked as often as you want, as long they don´t take offense by it and/or it is true. There is also a rather huge difference between "he is acting like a crook" and "he is a crook" as well. Mens rea is of course required.

But if they take offense and it ain´t true, they don´t even need to resort to libel laws....

German penal code §185 reads wrote:

An insult shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding one year or a fine and, if the insult is committed by means of an assault, with imprisonment not exceeding two years or a fine.

Assault in this case would be for example calling someone an asshole and then spitting in their face.

It is not an armed society that is polite, a society that outlaws the worst expressions of being impolite that is polite.

Calling someone an asshole or lying about them does not deserve any more protection than punching someone in the face.

best regards
Thomas

scbriml wrote:

IMHO, believing the Earth is flat and it's all a government/NASA conspiracy is one thing, this is hugely different.

If you get personal, your victim deserves the ability to fight back with the same investment of time and money to make you stop.

Just imagine "Oh, the guy has punched you once or twice a week for the last year... well, you need to get a lawyer, that will send you invoices, go to court, that has fees on which you pay the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield (federal courts) if you can´t pay right away, and, of course, you may lose and have those costs on top of the injury" ...... That would not fly. But for non physical crimes against people that seems to be the norm, unless you steal their bitcoin, also non-physical, and you have the government back on your side.

best regards
Thomas