Guess it depends on what side of the fence yer...on...

All cover-ups eventually get uncovered, and never to good outcomes for the coverers or the coverees. Except in times of war, where national security is concerned, should information be suppressed. When Alan Turing allowed enemy attacks to take place as to not reveal the fact that they had broken the enigma machine comes to mind.

I don't think most free speech should be suppressed. Hopefully, most people are able to separate the truth from fiction or truth taken out of context for malicious reasons, or the reason something is suddenly not truthful because of more information.

And, as Al said, it depends on who thinks it's good/bad/indifferent.

I think reporters should have to vet their information before they report it to the public. Too many times now, they report something with nothing to back it up. That shouldn't happen.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DC5

All cover-ups eventually get uncovered, and never to good outcomes for the coverers or the coverees. Except in times of war, where national security is concerned, should information be suppressed. When Alan Turing allowed enemy attacks to take place as to not reveal the fact that they had broken the enigma machine comes to mind.

---

The cover ups always get em and at times are worse than the actual crime.

I do recall learning a hard lesson with a sore rear end during my childhood.  "Not telling the WHOLE truth is the same as lying".  My father's words.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Hornet

quote:

---

Originally posted by DC5

All cover-ups eventually get uncovered, and never to good outcomes for the coverers or the coverees. Except in times of war, where national security is concerned, should information be suppressed. When Alan Turing allowed enemy attacks to take place as to not reveal the fact that they had broken the enigma machine comes to mind.

---

The cover ups always get em and at times are worse than the actual crime.

I do recall learning a hard lesson with a sore rear end during my childhood.  "Not telling the WHOLE truth is the same as lying".  My father's words.

---

Yup, lying by omission, had trouble sitting down after that one myself, but I learned.

Suppose someone developed a harmful opioid using a few common kitchen ingredients and a mixing bowl. Would we want that published knowing the drug abuse problem we already have ? Suppose we have a world leader arriving in the city and the police don't want the public to know where the guests are staying. That actually happened here. I was given the job of setting up an elaborate telephone system in the Hotel Vancouver. The Queen and Prince Phillip were arriving about 3 weeks later. In anticipation of a leak the government had the same job done in 4 other luxury hotels. In the end they were able to keep it undisclosed for the 2 days they were here. It would probably flabbergast a few knowing what the government has known over the years. If we realized the consequences for making the information public most of us would likely prefer it to be under tight wraps.

I don’t intend to initiate a political discussion, but speaking as a retired history teacher, I see schools and public officials advocating suppression of facts every day, according to news reports and some videos of officials. As a historian, I’m disturbed by suppression of facts, even ones people might be uncomfortable with. Also, and too often, officials and members of the public confuse, and/or conflate, facts with opinion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjo bill-e

We have heard of misinformation and disinformation. Have you yet heard of malinformation? Misinformation is spreading what is thought to be true, but is incorrect. Disinformation is spreading a deliberate falsehood. But malinformation is information with is true and factual, yet still deemed harmful. It includes true facts presented out of context which leads to false conclusions, and true facts spread and repeated for the purpose of causing harm (doxing), but also true facts which might tend to prevent something desired from happening, which begs the questions: harmful to who, desired by who and, who decides?

Some purely theoretical scenarios:
During a pandemic a new fact about the virus or vaccine is found to be true. This new fact contradicts earlier official pronouncements and if spread and believed might discourage compliance with the mandated measures.
Should this factual information be suppressed? Should people ever be punished for speaking the truth?
Or, during a banking crisis it is discovered that a regulator has been cooking the books and that officially reported financial statistics have been falsified. Widespread knowledge of that could start an uncontrolled bank run.
Should a reporter be punished for publishing true reporting on that corrupt regulator?
We have some limits on speech, especially if it is deliberately false and/or intended to harm. Should we also have limits on speech which is true, yet inconvenient, or possibly harmful?

---

Happens every day with petit and grand juries. True information is supressed to preserve the right to a fair trial. Which leads to the fence-walking answer: "Sometimes."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Rogers

I don’t intend to initiate a political discussion, but speaking as a retired history teacher, I see schools and public officials advocating suppression of facts every day, according to news reports and some videos of officials. As a historian, I’m disturbed by suppression of facts, even ones people might be uncomfortable with. Also, and too often, officials and members of the public confuse, and/or conflate, facts with opinion.

---

I had the same problem with teaching science.  Intelligent Design is not science, and not an alternative to Evolution by Natural Selection, which is. 

quote:

---

Originally posted by DC5

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Rogers

I don’t intend to initiate a political discussion, but speaking as a retired history teacher, I see schools and public officials advocating suppression of facts every day, according to news reports and some videos of officials. As a historian, I’m disturbed by suppression of facts, even ones people might be uncomfortable with. Also, and too often, officials and members of the public confuse, and/or conflate, facts with opinion.

---

I had the same problem with teaching science.  Intelligent Design is not science, and not an alternative to Evolution by Natural Selection, which is. 

---

Intelligent Design is science in today's world. A.I. would argue that. So would GMO's which is basically taking an existing organism and genetically "pushing it" in the preferred direction of choice. Sorta bypassing evolution in my opinion. 

quote:

---

Originally posted by 5B-Ranch

quote:

---

Originally posted by DC5

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Rogers

I don’t intend to initiate a political discussion, but speaking as a retired history teacher, I see schools and public officials advocating suppression of facts every day, according to news reports and some videos of officials. As a historian, I’m disturbed by suppression of facts, even ones people might be uncomfortable with. Also, and too often, officials and members of the public confuse, and/or conflate, facts with opinion.

---

I had the same problem with teaching science.  Intelligent Design is not science, and not an alternative to Evolution by Natural Selection, which is. 

---

Intelligent Design is science in today's world. A.I. would argue that. So would GMO's which is basically taking an existing organism and genetically "pushing it" in the preferred direction of choice. Sorta bypassing evolution in my opinion. 

---

A.I. is not a life form.  GMO's use the same processes that evolution uses, just cutting out the time to achieve the same, or similar results via artificial selection.  But the proponents of ID claim that the entire process was kicked off by a designer with a plan.  Because this is not testable, nor falsifiable, it is not science.  So yes, we can custom design plants and animals by altering what is already there, but this is the same thing nature does, and what we've been doing through cross breeding for centuries.

So yes, we intelligently design things, and modify life forms, but the universe was not designed by us, or any other designer.

I can envision a situation in which a cable TV news organization refuses to broadcast factual information that their viewers don't want to hear because doing so would harm their ratings and jeopardize their profitability. Nah, that would never happen.

Pay more attention to your own neighborhood's needs rather than what you find on tv and your computer.
When you do that you are participating in reality as it applies to you.
TV and the internet invite people to take sides on things outside of their own lives and loved-ones.

Everything begins at home.

The biggest danger for fact importance is that we are teaching ourselves how to live on fiction.
The basis of all this is insisting on having our own way...much like a spoiled brat.

Sounds like a justification for the suppression of Free Speech.
If you can't accept the truth you'd best learn more about the subject and return to the issue at a later time.

But I personally have NEVER felt threatened by what I have read or heard and I have always been able to think
about what I have read or heard in a calm rational manner. I don't know why.

There are many things that have "come up" lately that I think have been calculated to get a "rise" out of people but have no other purpose.
Why?

What is the worst thing that could be published or spoken?

TJ

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjo bill-e

We have heard of misinformation and disinformation. Have you yet heard of malinformation? Misinformation is spreading what is thought to be true, but is incorrect. Disinformation is spreading a deliberate falsehood. But malinformation is information with is true and factual, yet still deemed harmful. It includes true facts presented out of context which leads to false conclusions, and true facts spread and repeated for the purpose of causing harm (doxing), but also true facts which might tend to prevent something desired from happening, which begs the questions: harmful to who, desired by who and, who decides?

Some purely theoretical scenarios:
During a pandemic a new fact about the virus or vaccine is found to be true. This new fact contradicts earlier official pronouncements and if spread and believed might discourage compliance with the mandated measures.
Should this factual information be suppressed? Should people ever be punished for speaking the truth?
Or, during a banking crisis it is discovered that a regulator has been cooking the books and that officially reported financial statistics have been falsified. Widespread knowledge of that could start an uncontrolled bank run.
Should a reporter be punished for publishing true reporting on that corrupt regulator?
We have some limits on speech, especially if it is deliberately false and/or intended to harm. Should we also have limits on speech which is true, yet inconvenient, or possibly harmful?

---

This is actually a good thread topic ..imo..

Thanks.

Who gets to decide what's harmful and what isn't?
Who gets to decide the definition of "harmful"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by steve davis

Who gets to decide what's harmful and what isn't?
Who gets to decide the definition of "harmful"?

---

That's the problem with suppressing speech.

I think us minions and peons can handle more if given a chance. Especially if we respect the source. I would rather told “no comment at this time” then lying to me.
If aliens are confirmed I want to know!
As to dreaded disease appearance, such as viruses etc, tell me what you know, or hypothesize as an expert or tell me you are guessing until you know more. Trouble is, greed is all to often the big motivational cause of misinformation. Brad

quote:

---

Originally posted by steve davis

Who gets to decide what's harmful and what isn't?
Who gets to decide the definition of "harmful"?

---

For all of us, I think the only acceptable answer is "me".

quote:

---

Originally posted by kww

quote:

---

Originally posted by steve davis

Who gets to decide what's harmful and what isn't?
Who gets to decide the definition of "harmful"?

---

For all of us, I think the only acceptable answer is "me".

---

If you meant to say for each of us, OK, if you meant it as read you forgot to use the /s

quote:

---

Originally posted by DC5

quote:

---

Originally posted by kww

quote:

---

Originally posted by steve davis

Who gets to decide what's harmful and what isn't?
Who gets to decide the definition of "harmful"?

---

For all of us, I think the only acceptable answer is "me".

---

If you meant to say for each of us, OK, if you meant it as read you forgot to use the /s

---

Think of it as Schrödinger's Sentence.

OK, as long as you are aware that the answer is "me".

quote:

---

Originally posted by 5B-Ranch

quote:

---

Originally posted by DC5

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Rogers

I don’t intend to initiate a political discussion, but speaking as a retired history teacher, I see schools and public officials advocating suppression of facts every day, according to news reports and some videos of officials. As a historian, I’m disturbed by suppression of facts, even ones people might be uncomfortable with. Also, and too often, officials and members of the public confuse, and/or conflate, facts with opinion.

---

I had the same problem with teaching science.  Intelligent Design is not science, and not an alternative to Evolution by Natural Selection, which is. 

---

Intelligent Design is science in today's world. A.I. would argue that. So would GMO's which is basically taking an existing organism and genetically "pushing it" in the preferred direction of choice. Sorta bypassing evolution in my opinion. 

---

It's not.

Let me see if I’m understanding. So A.I. Is not designed by intelligence and manipulating genes does not require intelligence? Just want to see if I’m understanding the comments.