Posted on 02/29/2024 7:20:55 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
MSNBC legal analyst Barbara McQuade argued Monday that the United States’ “deep commitment to free speech” makes Americans uniquely susceptible to disinformation campaigns.
McQuade, a University of Michigan law professor, went on “The Rachel Maddow Show” to promote her new book, “Attack from Within: How Disinformation is Sabotaging America.” She said her “goal” with the book was to spark a “national conversation about truth and our commitment to it.”
She added, “I hope that by dissecting it, explaining it, and educating the public, we can all see disinformation for what it is so that we can begin to push back against it.”
When asked by host Rachel Maddow whether America is just as susceptible to disinformation as other countries, McQuade argued that it is even more vulnerable.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Babs sounds like a real nut case. I hope she isn’t related to “Lone Wolf McQuade”. I hate Nazi biatches who hate freedom. “Lone Wolf McQuade” does too!
The Rachel Madcow Show. I guess that tells us all we need to know about Babs.
Prior to the passage of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, the U.S. government was barred from creating and distributing propagandandized media domestically.
This legislation removed the barrier.
https://bartoll.se/2021/09/staged-shootings/
The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, was eventually buried within the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (section 1078 (a)), passed into public law by President Obama, effective on January 2, 2013, and the SMMA portion amended the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987, allowing for materials produced by the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) to be available within the United States.
In short, the U.S. government is allowed to create propaganda tailored specifically for U.S. public consumption, using any media as it sees fit, while remaining anonymous as the source of the material being reported. And this is the reason why we have seen an extreme increase in these staged and fake attacks and psyops since this act was signed into law. Keep in mind that if they fake a shooting or a terrorist attack, then nobody got hurt or died; and thus no crime was committed. It’s much easier and safer for them to stage and fake shootings and terror attacks than to use a patsy or a ‘mind controlled’ puppet.“Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors from engaging in any medium or form of communication, either directly or indirectly, because a United States domestic audience is or may be thereby exposed to program material, or based on a presumption of such exposure.”
I am reminded of the COFFIN BILLS against Andrew Jackson in 1828. Dirty!
Needs some duct tape across her mouth. That is common sense!
Well, she sure went on the correct network, which spews disinformation, to talk about disinformation! Communists teaching our young people.
Disinformation = Anything a liberal disagrees with
My kids were home schooled, and they both have a healthy distrust of government (and the media, and politicians).
It's possible, and needs to happen more. People can't continue to use public schools as their baby sitting service.
Barbara is a dissembling leftist idiot. There are plenty of countries in Europe that limit free speech and actions (all related to what one would call ‘free-speech’). And they are all either based on wokeism (don’t hurt anyone’s feelings) or “don’t be a Nazi and Heil it.”
About the only ‘free speech’ they won’t touch is anything that has to do with Islam.
"MSNBC legal analyst says First Amendment makes US ‘vulnerable,’ calls for ‘common sense’ speech restrictions"
Regardless that many people unsurprisingly believe the street gossip about constitutionally protected “free speech” that they have been indoctrinated with in public school classrooms, that free speech is absolute, it remains that the states have always had the constitutional power to reasonably regulate speech to various extents.
H O W E V E R ...
Before the states start limiting "absolute" free speech, ordinary qualified citizen voters must do the following. Voters must support hopeful Trump 47 with a new, Constitution-respecting Congress that will do its 14th Amendment duty to make laws to discourage the states from abusing power to limit speech and other constitutionally enumerated protections as well.
Excerpted from 14A:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
In fact, Justice Reed had noted that it is the job of judges to balance 10th Amendment state powers with 14th Amendment personal protection limits on those powers.
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of civil liberties would be a mockery." —Justice Reed, Jones v. City of Opelika, 1942.
That might be a good start.
Maddow praised the book’s arguments and touted McQuade’s work as a “real public service and a pleasure.”
Problem is the teacher I am referring to teaches at a Christian school, not a public school.
FIRE! in a theater
Fightin' words.
Libel and slander laws
This c-— is a law professor?
What, an ax murder was not available?
These people seem to think freedom of the press belongs only to an occupation and not an individual.
Journalism isn’t a career it is an action that any citizen can exert. We don’t need a newspaper, radio station, or network to be protected by the 1st Amendment.
The idea that the press can be restricted for some implies some industry possesses greater rights than others. This idea is ripped from the book “Animal Farm”... all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
Wrong.
Freedom of the press belongs to each individual in an equal manner.
Macquarie is a Michigan attorney, and appears to have just violated her oath which, in relevant part, reads as follows:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm):
I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Michigan;”
By NOT supporting the 1st Amendment right of Freedom of Speech and advocating for restrictions on it, she is manifestly NOT supporting the U.D. Constitution, IN VIOLATION OF HER OATH.
I think that it would be quite interesting for someone in Michigan to explore a complaint to the Michigan Bar regarding this matter.
This whole issue has been playing out on college campuses since October 7.
The Pali side says “Jews are evil extremists and should be silenced”.
Meanwhile the Jewish side says “The Palis are evil extremists and should be silenced.”
Suddenly “hate speech” gets defined as the speech of whoever loses in the power struggle.
We always knew that was what was happening here.
So, where’s this “disinformation” originating? One only needs look at the various instances of climate change reporting, covid mask success, Hunter Biden’s laptop, “Russia, Russia, Russia” in Trump’s 2016 campaign, the 2020 Presidential election voting, and numerous other instances of disinformation. In time after time, the so-called disinformation has proven to be much more accurate than the official line put out by “official” government agencies.
Censorship?
How about slander/defamation laws and consequences reform.
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.