3 ms·

> What happens when a citizen states an opinion that the government deems misinformation or disinformation? Well, what does happen?

• pessimizer 5y ago
  Ever since H. Clinton called Gabbard a "Russian asset," Gabbard sued, and the suit was dismissed because it was determined that a "Russian asset" didn't have to have any connection to Russians, they could just be a person who said things that Russians liked to have said; since then we're back in the age of "pinkos." Having an opinion that patriotic Americans think that Russians would like you to have is the same as being a traitor. It's like an accidental terrorist. That's what a pinko was; a person who believed in civil rights, worker's rights, etc.. They weren't red, they were pink. edit: this was greatly foreshadowed after 9/11 when the courts managed to jail some people for "material support" of terrorism for simply expressing approval of terrorism. You see, expressing approval of terrorism in public could lead to people being convinced that terrorism is good, and those people could join terrorist groups, and those terrorist groups could harm America with their help. Like gods, rendering the immaterial material. That's always been the punchline of the Al-Awlaki case. We've been guided into focusing on the murders of his young children or his American citizenship because children are sympathetic and individualist nationalists are more concerned when things happen to Americans without a legal process than when things happen to others without a legal process. The punchline is that Al-Awlaki was drone killed for being a propagandist, not any terrorist act. This was also back when the ACLU was a coherent organization, so they objected.