November 26, 2018
Fake news is certainly a real phenomenon, but the idea that it can be policed is completely insane.
For example, the media Jews in America recently claimed that the caravan was “not an invasion,” in response to President Trump and others claiming it was an invasion. So you had a situation where each side was accusing the other of “fake news.”
Who decides which side is correct, and which is spreading fake news?
It certainly looks like an invasion, with these people rushing the border and the security forces forced to use gas to push them back, and then close the border completely.
This is definitely what an invasion would look like.
But the Jew media would then quibble over the specific word “invasion,” then show you pictures of some toddler in diapers getting gassed, and say that they are not fake news and that people saying they are fake news are the real fake news.
Who is going to decide an official definition for the word “invasion,” and decide whether or not using that term was accurate or not?
Even if you were able to find a completely apolitical mediator for this issue – and you could never find one of those, because they don’t exist – it would be difficult. Yes, the word “invasion” typically refers to a military invasion, which this is not. However, the dictionary definition includes two secondary definitions.
This “migrant caravan” is certainly “an incursion by a large number of people” and “an unwelcome intrusion into another’s domain.”
But the Jews would then come back with “well, Trump and Anne Coulter were implying these people have a goal to commit violence, and there is no way to prove they have that goal.”
So who is right?
I know which side I’m on, but that is the point: regulating fake news is going to be dependent on whose side you’re on, and if Macron is the one passing this law in France, he is doing it because he believes it will benefit his own side.
The French National Assembly has approved two laws to crack down on false information during election campaigns, despite criticism from the opposition.
President Emmanuel Macron promised the law earlier this year amid widespread concern in Western Europe about the alleged role of Russian-owned media and Russian-backed social media accounts in backing populist forces during elections.
I have virtually never seen RT be accused of “fake news.” They accuse them – accurately – of being biased in dealing with Russia, in the same way that the overwhelming media, being owned by Jews, is biased in dealing with Jews.
“Bias” is not the same thing as “inaccuracy.”
If you start trying to regulate bias, you’re in a whole new kind of mess.
The new laws will empower judges, in the run-up to elections, to order internet firms to remove ‘incorrect or misleading allegations or accusations’ that are likely to bias elections if they are published widely via an internet service.
Internet firms over a certain size will also have to provide full information about any advertisers promoting content relating to matters of public debate in the run-up to a vote.
The law also gives broadcasting authorities wider powers to reject or cancel licences for radio or television stations that are owned or influenced by foreign governments.
See, this is clearly going beyond policing inaccuracy, because the source of content does not speak to its accuracy.
Regardless of the fact that the mainstream media lies a lot, and is continually biased, I do not immediately assume something is untrue simply because the Jewish media said it.
Macron, a pro-EU liberal, has previously criticized Russian-owned media Sputnik and RT as organs of propaganda, charges they deny.
Macron’s centrist party and allies used their majority in the lower house on Tuesday evening to pass the laws, with the right-wing and left-wing opposition voting against.
The vote overruled the conservative-leaning Senate, which had rejected the proposals, saying they were likely to be ineffective while at the same time threatening the freedom of expression.
‘At every election, everywhere in the world, false information is spread massively and rapidly on social media,’ Culture Minister Franck Riester told lawmakers ahead of the vote.
‘It erodes the freedom of every citizen to form their opinions,’ Riester warned. ‘It blurs the line between true and false, and saps confidence in information. It distorts the fairness of elections and destabilizes democracy.’ But the opposition remained unconvinced, with Communist Party deputy Elsa Faucillon slamming the law as ‘at best useless, at worst counterproductive and therefore dangerous.’ It was ‘impracticable’ for judges to decide what was true and what was false in the 48 hours prescribed in the law, she argued.
It is more than impracticable, it is completely insane.
Who are these judges?
Are they all news buffs?
How are they making these decisions?
Are they arbiters of reality?
Do they have teams of people putting together comprehensive notes on every single allegedly questionable story, and then they just make a determination on whether it is true?
Very often I read a piece of news and can’t figure out whether or not it is true within 48 hours. It is often actually impossible to do so, because all of the facts are not out yet.
Point being: aside from the obvious attack on free speech – people should be able to publish fake news if they want to do that – this is a blatant move to promote his own political side by censoring the opposition under the pretense that his people can decode the nature of reality itself.
This is a desperate, insane move by Macron.
That pervert is really feeling the heat.