Skip to comments.NIH Chief Wants Online ‘Misinformation’ Spreaders ‘Brought to Justice’ (And who might they be?)
Posted on 11/22/2021 9:28:31 AM PST by SeekAndFind
With secret police chief Merrick Garland siccing the FBI on parents at school board meetings and the social media giants continuing to cut the ground out from under dissenting voices, the Biden administration has not exactly provided a welcoming place for the freedom of speech. However, Francis Collins, the outgoing director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), thinks there is still altogether too much of it. Collins wants those who are spreading “misinformation” to be “brought to justice,” and pronto.
It’s disconcerting to see an official of the United States government (the NIH is an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services) coming out so openly against a fundamental right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and hallowed by over two centuries of precedent, but as far as Collins is concerned, the need to curtail the freedom of speech is urgent. He said Friday, “Conspiracies are winning here. Truth is losing. That’s a really serious indictment of the way in which our society seems to be traveling.”
Collins was referring to what he said was misinformation about America’s doctor, Anthony Fauci. According to The Washington Post, Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) wasn’t really funding experiments involving the gratuitous torture of puppies. The Post admitted that “NIAID was initially listed as a funder on the study in a paper in a scientific journal in late July,” but claimed that “the researchers and the medical journal corrected the error.”
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
Of course my point is absurd but so is their request to criminalize a citizen with a different opinion than their "correct" one.
Collins has resigned his office in disgrace because of his clear perjury regarding his funding of gain of function funding in China. He is evil.
“What is several million rounds Alex?”
Will he ever step inside a jail cell….
Uh, NIH chief, Brandon, raggedy jen, Tony mengelefauxcheeze and the list grows exponentially. Probably even some FReepers on the list. 😂 💉🐂💨💩
Fauci should be at the top of the list.
And on what charges does he propose to “bring to justice” these “Misinformation” Spreaders?
RE: And on what charges does he propose to “bring to justice” these “Misinformation” Spreaders?
Well, first, there has to be a law against “misinformation spreading”.
So when they change the definition of what a vaccine actually is and/or does, are they brought to justice for misinformation based on the first lie or the appended second lie?
The logical conclusion of a leftist, deep-state agency UNABLE to respond to CREDIBLE kickbacks. What would you expect from an installed president who can’t even figure out who keeps crapping in his pants every day?
My dad used to tell me when I was acting up and getting on his last nerve, “You better slow down pard. You’re crusin’ for a brusin’ right now.” When he said that, I stopped whatever it was I was doing because I knew that was the final warning. To continue would result in leather on azz. He whooped me three times in my entire life. I remember each one and the very specific lessons behind them.
Don’t know why I told this story, but I was just drawn to do so.
would think include fauci?
Wouldn’t left love?
Once that is done, the First Amendment is toast.
Nope. The beast of Revelation is ascendant today as this clearly reveals. Arm yourselves brothers and sisters - the final battle has begun.
She talking about Biden calling Rittenhouse a white supremacist?
Is there something in the 1st Amendment saying there must be no “misinformation” in it or does it amount to just who is spreading the misinformation? The truth-teller & the liar both seem to have the 1st Amendment rights as far as I can tell. Hopefully, we would all seek the truth, but when it comes to the 1st Amendment, this doesn’t seem to be the case. Sooner or later, the truth seems to come out in most, but certainly not all cases. So can we prohibit 1st Amendment rights to some who others claim are not truthful? I wouldn’t think so, because in some cases that could amount to suppressing the truth. There seems to be plenty of that occurring already.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.