Re: OT: Ping Bloggs

As Judge Learned Hand pointed out a while ago, "free speech" doesn't allow somebody to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.

If you are peddling dangerous misinformation, society will find a way to get you to shut up.

Sadly you need independent quality control to prevent money grubbing lunatics from making money out of peddling dangerous nonsense.

You do seem to be addicted to precisely that kind of dangerous nonsense, so you don't like the idea.

Right wing lunatics always believe that something is being covered up. It is a particularly pernicious form of dangerous nonsense, and you do seem to be particularly fond of it.

Finding a solution which which you would find satisfactory isn't going to a be high priority item on anybody's agenda. Finding a way to get you to shut up might be.

Pointing out that you are a dangerous clown doesn't seem to work all that well, but it is still worth doing.

There's a common core to all your such comments, Bill. You just want strict authoritarian control over the release of information. Everyone else you want to see shut-up. Stalin and Goebells would have been proud of you.

Did you know the left's attempt to cancel the monarchy will fail?

Makes you wonder what “heritage” the foundation is intent on protecting! Whew! Good thing there are some true patriots out there who know that without a divinely-decreed overclass of betters whose lifestyle the people must support by law, Western civilization is truly lost...

Not exactly. What I'd prefer would be draconian punishment of people who publisheded false and misleading information. The prospect of you, and Flyguy anbd John Doe being locked together in a chain gang is absolutely delightful.

We do have this to some extent now with laws against slander and defamation, and prosecutions for fraud against people who drag in paying customers with false advertising.

At present you can mostly buy yourself out of trouble. This wouldn't be appropriate for people who advocate buying guns and shooting other people (as has happened here).

Extending it to people who damage society by publishing malicious nonsense, even if they are too silly to realise quite how damaging and malicious it is, isn't much of a stretch.

Probably not. I'd be happy to see open publication - just as we have now - but backed up by fact-checking with teeth. For people like you they'd be fangs.

Yawn. Sorry, M8, but I'm not supporter of the Monarchy. I don't hate them either, though. Let's just say if there's a mob of angry Leftists storming Buck House and dragging the Queen out to burn her at the stake, I'd just simply shrug and walk away. I'm not *quite* as raving a conservative as you seem to think. :-D

I assume you mean *knowingly* publishing false information.

Oh dear.

Seems I've got you rattled for no good reason, Bill. Who would you have to do this "fact checking" you speak of? The "fact checking" we have at present is little short of a joke, and it would be funny were the implications not so serious. "Fact checking" as it is today is nothing more than some self-appointed bodies calling everyone who demurs from the official line a liar. That must be galling for those researchers who have uncovered proof to back up what they claim and only wish to expose it. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, Bill. Let's have it all out in the light.

Cursitor Doom does like his baseless delusions.

Fact-checkers make mince-meat of your favourite delusions, so you have persuaded yourself that they are "little short of a joke" which is one more of your self-serving delusions

Not actually the way it works, but Cursiotr Doom does like his self-serving delusions..

As in the malign influence of the Frankfurt School - or Cultural Marxists as you prefer to call them. The people who wrote "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" would also have been most upset.

Except that Cursitor Doom imagines that the sun shines out of his own backside. What he is basking in is a stream of deceptive effluent.

Sells a lot of tabloid to lil old ladies in the States, what IS Prince Harry up to? Did he have a BLACK BABY? (????) Gotta find out

"I tells ya Mildred, that Prince Harry is a handsome devil, I don't know what he sees in that California harlot Meghan. I would've let him schtupp me good when I was a lass back in '57."

As opposed to attempting to rescue an elderly lady from a demented mob. Would you be quite so indifferent if she didn't happen to be the Queen?

But something fairly close to a demented psychopath. Much too interested in your pathological fantasies to worry about the way they'd work out in real life.

Yeah what's all this about burning stakes. Nobody's burning no stakes. All former royalty will be welcome to live out their lives in sunny Beverly Hills in the company of other exorbitantly wealthy weirdos.

You're the resident psychopath here, Bill, I wouldn't dream of stepping on your toes.

I give about as much of a damn about the Queen as SHE gives about ME: Zero IOW. A non-Royal old lady wouldn't fare any better, either. What use would I be at my age against a "demented mob"? Again: ZERO.

You do keep on about delusions. But it's YOU who defends "news organisations" like CNN when we all (hopefully) now know they use crisis actors to play shooting victims in a school masacre they invented to try to get guns banned. Thank God those actors were so stupid they didn't think to pull their audition show-reels off YT before accepting that scandalous commission, or we might never have discovered the whole thing was Fake News. But if that's your bag, by all means keep watching CNN.

Nonsense; there's an actual ISSUE here, not just a person; can you address the issue?

Misinformation kills. In the Bible, 'beware false prophets' carries that message. Later, Voltaire offered "Someone who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities".

A belief (probably false) that the West is at war with Islam caused nineteen enthusiasts to kill thousands, 9/11/2001. Later, the Donald apparently endorsed this belief, by snubbing several Islamic nations... none of that is happy news.

Yeah, there's the occasional call to burn 'incorrect' books, but the real issue is best treated by keeping communication channels OPEN, and that means preventing cult-like insulated enclaves. The best 'independent quality control' available, is international press coverage. Bill doesn't care to control information, but to SPREAD it; he's an editor, author, scientist, after all.

It's your delusions that are the problem. The proposition that CNN invents gun massacres is ludicrous. Massacres involve real death certificates which are remarkably hard to fake, and real distraught relatives (which are easier to fake, in the short term).

Audition show reels on You Tube are "real" news? Any clown can put them up and make fake claims about where they came from. Your enthusiasm for improbable nonsense does make you remarkably gullible.

I don't. It may be available on Australian TV but I get my news from the ABC - which is an exact equivalent of the UK's BBC, down to being unpopular with whichever political party is in power, who resent their spin being undercut by honest reporting.

Your preference for vile right-wing propaganda makes you a sucker for different - and considerably more dubious - organisations.

You can spin your gullibility any way you like, but you still end up looking exactly like the clown you are.

No risk of that. As far as I can tell I'm not in the least psychopathic, but you are the kind of pathetic twerp that I do take care to avoid in real life.

Probably not entirely true. The Royals have a duty to look as if they care about the welfare of their subjects - since you don't live in the UK any more, you may not be one of them - and they are unlikely to know enough about you to realise that their duty to the rest of their subjects would involve having you locked up in a place where you couldn't spread your rabid delusions.

Since you would almost certainly be an active member of any demented mob around, this does seem to be true. You might not be a particularly physically effective member of that mob, but - given your performance here - you would be an enthusiastic supporter of their most bizarre and rabid actions.

This is one of the main reasons I find your attitude distasteful, Bill: your insistence on locking up people who disagree with you. It's the hallmark of a totalitarian like Joe Stalin. It would be funny were it not for the fact that you actually believe what you post. Thank heavens you are in no position to enforce your more extreme punishments against those whose opinions you find so 'unacceptable.'

There is *so* much wrong with the garbage you've written above I can't be bothered to deal with it all. However, your audacity in quoting Voltaire to defend yours and Bill's position is too egregious to go unanswered. Voltaire's philosophy is the very antithesis of Sloman's. Voltaire was an arch Libertarian. Sloman, OTOH, is an arch Totalitarian. Voltaire was probably best known for this little snippet. He may or may not have originally stated it, but he was its chief proponent:

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Sloman's version: 'I don't agree with what you say so I'll have you locked up for saying it.'

"The right to free speech is more important than the content of the speech." -Voltaire

'The right to free speech should be abolished.' - Sloman

And here's one from Voltaire that could have been written specially for Bill Sloman:

"Many are destined to reason wrongly; others, not to reason at all; and others, to persecute those who do reason."

If you think you can find anything in Voltaire's body of work which in any way supports yours or Sloman's views, you have understood none of it. Now kindly f*ck off.

No mention of lockup was made; only disagreement was voiced. Both Voltaire and Sloman voiced disagreement.

You fumbled the main point by applying too much spin, again.