Twitter swings the ban hammer at Project Veritas (1 Viewer)

[nolaspe]

Twitter suspends Project Veritas account

The move against the conservative activist organization comes amid a broader crackdown by the social media giant on those promoting misinformation.

www.politico.com

Project Veritas has been known to use deceptive practices and spread misinformation in attempts to expose what it views as “corruption, dishonesty, self-dealing, waste, fraud, and other misconduct” from liberal organizations or individuals. In September, Stanford University and University of Washington researchers wrote that a Project Veritas video alleging voter fraud with unidentified sources was what a “a domestic, coordinated elite disinformation campaign looks like in the United States.”

 

[Rawlings]

And your examples are bad examples -- at least with Molyneaux for sure. He has not merely pointed out that black people do not fare as well as other races in school - he has called them a different species. He has point blank said that they are dumber than white people his quote:

"Screaming 'racism' at people because blacks are collectively less intelligent...is insane."

And you can go on -- his whole deal is that races are different species and our breeding arena needs to be cleaned up, and that women have forked up raising kids which is why we have problems today, and so on.

And you seem to think that private companies should be forced to help him make money. That is what you are complaining about. One company doesn't want a racist and misogynist to use their platform to make money off his racism and misogyny.

Sure, there are absolutely examples of people going overboard -- but you are not actually highlighting them. You are highlighting people who's entire schtick is trying to figure out how to offend people and then whine when people get offended and don't want to give them money any more.

False! You're talking to me out of some echo chamber of talking points, attributing ideas to me I have not expressed. It's tiresome.

I hadn't heard that about him. Apparently, his rhetoric and ideology had deteriorated from the time when I first encountered him some years ago on Youtube. In that instance, he observed the above relative to America's especially rotten, inner-city schools and was accused of racism. Based on that observation, the accusation was false. I never followed him due to his childish apologetics. As for the others, I cannot recall their names, only faces, and they were not racists!

My concern goes to the destructive effect that cancel culture in social media has on free speech and on culture in general. We should all be deeply concerned. This is not going to end well.

 

[Xeno]

False! You're talking to me out of some echo chamber of talking points, attributing ideas to me I have not expressed. It's tiresome.

I hadn't heard that about him. Apparently, his rhetoric and ideology had deteriorated from the time when I first encountered him some years ago on Youtube. In that instance, he observed the above relative to America's especially rotten, inner-city schools and was accused of racism. Based on that observation, the accusation was false. I never followed him due to his childish apologetics. As for the others, I cannot recall their names, only faces, and they were not racists!

My concern goes to the destructive effect that cancel culture in social media has on free speech and on culture in general. We should all be deeply concerned. This is not going to end well.

Social media banning people does not infringe on free speech

They are private companies

 

[Rawlings]

That wasn't exactly the intent. it was more of a realization that websites couldn't keep up and monitor everything said on chat rooms, or comments. So, they weren't liable. it wasn't to promote free speech.

if anything, content editing or 'curating' is an expression of free speech by the company / website.

You can almost think of it like a news paper (which, of course is a publisher, so under stricter rules), but.. a big paper might get thousands of letters to the editor on a certain topic.. they don't publish them all. There is no rule, and 230 sure doesn't cover it, that says you must have access to all online platforms to expand your range.

All of which you say is true! But the motive of 230 was to also promote/protect free speech as much as possible. That was not controversial until lately.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

False! You're talking to me out of some echo chamber of talking points, attributing ideas to me I have not expressed. It's tiresome.

So, then I guess I'm confused about what your point is. If you don't object to a private company deciding they don't want an individual to use them to make money - which is what Youtube, Twitter, etc are doing, then I don't see your complaint. Please be more specific... saying "I'm concerned" without an actual recommendation of an alternative is pretty vague.

I hadn't heard that about him. Apparently, his rhetoric and ideology had deteriorated from the time when I first encountered him some years ago on Youtube. In that instance, he observed the above relative to America's especially rotten, inner-city schools and was accused of racism. Based on that observation, the accusation was false. I never followed him due to his childish apologetics. As for the others, I cannot recall their names, only faces, and they were not racists!

I'm not sure how closely you followed Molyneaux, but that's been his schtick for at least the past 6 years. His basic premise is that different races are actually sub-species, and that black people do poorly is because their genetics make them intellectually inferior.

He does similar things with women. It's been his MO for at least the 6 years I've heard about him.

This is why we asked you for specifics. Because the facts don't seem to match your presentation. It would be helpful for me for you to present the case of someone who was cancelled, and we can walk through the case study.

My concern goes to the destructive effect that cancel culture in social media has on free speech and on culture in general. We should all be deeply concerned. This is not going to end well.

I think most people agree that anything can be taken too far, but usually when we get to specifics, it does not live up to the doom and gloom being hyped. As it is, I suggest conservatives start to become bigger fans of the ACLU -- this is kind of their jam, and they've been fighting against cancel culture for decades.

 

[SystemShock]

False! You're talking to me out of some echo chamber of talking points, attributing ideas to me I have not expressed. It's tiresome.

I hadn't heard that about him. Apparently, his rhetoric and ideology had deteriorated from the time when I first encountered him some years ago on Youtube. In that instance, he observed the above relative to America's especially rotten, inner-city schools and was accused of racism. Based on that observation, the accusation was false. I never followed him due to his childish apologetics. As for the others, I cannot recall their names, only faces, and they were not racists!

My concern goes to the destructive effect that cancel culture in social media has on free speech and on culture in general. We should all be deeply concerned. This is not going to end well.

 

[wardorican]

All of which you say is true! But the motive of 230 was to also promote/protect free speech as much as possible. That was not controversial until lately.

Well, if it was their motive, they sure never said it. The biggest driving force was keeping obscene material away from kids.

Only the Trump DOJ and with his Executive Order, was this idea of 'free speech' a driving force. Without finding evidence from 1996 of this, I find it somewhat revisionist.

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

www.law.cornell.edu

I'll highlight one part.

No provider or user of an interactive computer serviceshall be held liable on account of—

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

Here's the whole thing. (sorry, the formatting sucks)


(a)Findings The Congress finds the following:
(1)
The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
(2)
These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.
(3)
The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
(4)
The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.
(5)
Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
(b)PolicyIt is the policy of the United States—
(1)
to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
(2)
to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
(3)
to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;
(4)
to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and
(5)
to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.
(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2)Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer serviceshall be held liable on account of—
(A)
any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)
any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
(d)Obligations of interactive computer service
A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.
(e)Effect on other laws
(1)No effect on criminal law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.
(2)No effect on intellectual property law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.
(3)State law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.
(4)No effect on communications privacy law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law.
(5)No effect on sex trafficking lawNothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit—
(A)
any claim in a civil action brought under section 1595 of title 18, if the conduct underlying the claim constitutes a violation of section 1591 of that title;
(B)
any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 1591 of title 18; or
(C)
any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 2421A of title 18, and promotion or facilitation of prostitution is illegal in the jurisdiction where the defendant’s promotion or facilitation of prostitution was targeted.
(f)DefinitionsAs used in this section:
(1)Internet
The term “Internet” means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.
(2)Interactive computer service
The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.
(3)Information content provider
The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.
(4)Access software providerThe term “access software provider” means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:
(A)
filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;
(B)
pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or
(C)
transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.
(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title II, § 230, as added Pub. L. 104–104, title V, § 509, Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 137; amended Pub. L. 105–277, div. C, title XIV, § 1404(a), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–739; Pub. L. 115–164, § 4(a), Apr. 11, 2018, 132 Stat. 1254.)

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

This is definitely one of those "take the log out of your own eyes before taking the speck out of your neighbors" eye type situation. "Cancel culture" has been alive and well on the American right for decades (or even longer).

Basically, on this issue - it's probably more effective if the liberals work on reigning in the excesses on their side, and the conservatives to stop their own habit of cancel culture -- before criticizing the other side.

 

[V Chip]

This is definitely one of those "take the log out of your own eyes before taking the speck out of your neighbors" eye type situation. "Cancel culture" has been alive and well on the American right for decades (or even longer).

It amazes me that the conservatives conceived "cancel culture": birthed it, raised it, fed and nurtured it, schooled it and honed it, let it out into the world to have its cancel culture babies, and now only generations and generations later we're hearing them denounce their own spawn because it has turned its eye towards them.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

It amazes me that the conservatives conceived "cancel culture": birthed it, raised it, fed and nurtured it, schooled it and honed it, let it out into the world to have its cancel culture babies, and now only generations and generations later we're hearing them denounce their own spawn because it has turned its eye towards them.

NWA says you’re gangsta, and The Dixie Chicks agree with them.

 

[SystemShock]

NWA says you’re gangsta, and The Dixie Chicks agree with them.

That is one sentence I never thought I'd read.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

It amazes me that the conservatives conceived "cancel culture": birthed it, raised it, fed and nurtured it, schooled it and honed it, let it out into the world to have its cancel culture babies, and now only generations and generations later we're hearing them denounce their own spawn because it has turned its eye towards them.

I tried to resist, but the temptation was just too great. So I made it...

 

[Rawlings]

Well, if it was their motive, they sure never said it. The biggest driving force was keeping obscene material away from kids.

Only the Trump DOJ and with his Executive Order, was this idea of 'free speech' a driving force. Without finding evidence from 1996 of this, I find it somewhat revisionist.

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

www.law.cornell.edu

I'll highlight one part.

No provider or user of an interactive computer serviceshall be held liable on account of—

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

Here's the whole thing. (sorry, the formatting sucks)


(a)Findings The Congress finds the following:
(1)
The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
(2)
These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.
(3)
The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
(4)
The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.
(5)
Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
(b)PolicyIt is the policy of the United States—
(1)
to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
(2)
to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
(3)
to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;
(4)
to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and
(5)
to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.
(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2)Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer serviceshall be held liable on account of—
(A)
any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)
any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
(d)Obligations of interactive computer service
A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.
(e)Effect on other laws
(1)No effect on criminal law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.
(2)No effect on intellectual property law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.
(3)State law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.
(4)No effect on communications privacy law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law.
(5)No effect on sex trafficking lawNothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit—
(A)
any claim in a civil action brought under section 1595 of title 18, if the conduct underlying the claim constitutes a violation of section 1591 of that title;
(B)
any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 1591 of title 18; or
(C)
any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 2421A of title 18, and promotion or facilitation of prostitution is illegal in the jurisdiction where the defendant’s promotion or facilitation of prostitution was targeted.
(f)DefinitionsAs used in this section:
(1)Internet
The term “Internet” means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.
(2)Interactive computer service
The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.
(3)Information content provider
The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.
(4)Access software providerThe term “access software provider” means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:
(A)
filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;
(B)
pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or
(C)
transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.
(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title II, § 230, as added Pub. L. 104–104, title V, § 509, Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 137; amended Pub. L. 105–277, div. C, title XIV, § 1404(a), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–739; Pub. L. 115–164, § 4(a), Apr. 11, 2018, 132 Stat. 1254.)

Yes, I'm familiar with the code. I don't understand why you're quibbling with me about its intent: in general, once again, to promote the entrepreneurial spirit and protect free speech among other things. I didn't say anything about absolute free speech.

 

[Rawlings]

It amazes me that the conservatives conceived "cancel culture": birthed it, raised it, fed and nurtured it, schooled it and honed it, let it out into the world to have its cancel culture babies, and now only generations and generations later we're hearing them denounce their own spawn because it has turned its eye towards them.

You're ridiculous. Suppression of Speech is lefty's middle name.

 

[V Chip]

You're ridiculous. Suppression of Speech is lefty's middle name.

Oh my. What blinders you have on.

As SBTB points out, even in the past 40-50 years the cancel culture has been DOMINATED by the right and it's not even close. Moral Majority. PMRC. AFA. CARA (MPA Rating System). The Red Scare. Banned books at libraries and schools. Protests against TV shows, movies, actors. Anti-miscegenation laws. Anti-drinking laws. It goes on and on and on.

And if you go further back, the list is more dominated by right/conservative cancel culture. The idea that it's a leftist thing is yet another tactic of the right: accuse others of doing something they themselves are guilty of.

 

[brandon]

Generally, I'm alluding to the wisdom of the American conservative (classical liberal) regarding the imperatives of natural law.

Well, in that instance I'm alluding to the dozens of conservative Youtubers who have been deplatformed, demonetized or routinely have their videos blocked.

PragerU, Crowder, Tommy Robinson, Veritas, Candace Owens, and many others have been deflatformed altogether, including Stefan Molyneux

Do you believe that the "wisdom of the American conservative (classical liberal)" is representative of the people you named who you believe have been canceled?

 

[Saintman2884]

Oh my. What blinders you have on.

As SBTB points out, even in the past 40-50 years the cancel culture has been DOMINATED by the right and it's not even close. Moral Majority. PMRC. AFA. CARA (MPA Rating System). The Red Scare. Banned books at libraries and schools. Protests against TV shows, movies, actors. Anti-miscegenation laws. Anti-drinking laws. It goes on and on and on.

And if you go further back, the list is more dominated by right/conservative cancel culture. The idea that it's a leftist thing is yet another tactic of the right: accuse others of doing something they themselves are guilty of.

Well then lets go further back and expand this conversation or this thread's scope further then just what happened here in the US politically with "Cancel Culture".

Prohibition, at least in its legal beginnings and when the movement was getting close to being passed in 1919, was nearly universally supported by politicians on both sides of the aisle, even by far-left groups like the Wobblies. So this nation's biggest anti-drinking law or at least one that prohibited the making and distribution of commercialized liquor had unanimous bipartisan support.

Keep in mind, of course, what has been defined or come to represent modern liberalism in 21st century or even left-wing politics or platforms today was very different then what's been termed the "Old Left", " New Left" emerged mostly after WWII largely influenced by the Frankfurt School and focused more on social issues like South African Apartheid, segregation in the United States, the Free Speech Movement at Berkley UC, later the anti-Vietnam War movement. Issues "Old Left" early 20th century Trotskyists, Bolsheviks, or other Western leftist party pre-WWII mostly ignored or felt were irrevalent.

The Soviet Union and its Eastern European Warsaw Bloc socialist aligned countries also banned books from schools and libraries, including the Bible and Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984, as well as jailed supposed "dissidents" if they were caught with, possessed, or distributed "seditious" "counter-revolutionary" or "revisionists" books, pamphlets, even in some Cold War-era Communist countries, rock music or certain bands were outlawed officially by the state.
These countries regimes weren't exactly far-right or conservative in terms of their political atlas.

You mentioned the Red Scare. I'll bring up Stalin's infamous late 1930's, Moscow "Show Trials" where tortured, beaten, intimidated loyal Communists, innocent BTW, enthusiastically affirmed their guilt for crimes and subversion against the state and international Communist movement, as well as purging skilled, capable Red Army officers and generals just to pacify Stalin's increasing meglamania and paranoia because he wanted to decimate the one institution during his period of rule that could legimately overthrow him: The Red Army. Then there's Mao's "Cultural Revolution", from 1966-76, which saw intellectuals, government officials, teachers, workers, factory managers denounced as " revisionists", or "capitalist roaders", people were paraded around in the streets with dunce caps on their heads jeered, mocked and ridiculed by whipped up mobs. Moaist China by the early 1970's became an intellectual, cultural and political wasteland.

 

[Saintman2884]

Oh my. What blinders you have on.

As SBTB points out, even in the past 40-50 years the cancel culture has been DOMINATED by the right and it's not even close. Moral Majority. PMRC. AFA. CARA (MPA Rating System). The Red Scare. Banned books at libraries and schools. Protests against TV shows, movies, actors. Anti-miscegenation laws. Anti-drinking laws. It goes on and on and on.

And if you go further back, the list is more dominated by right/conservative cancel culture. The idea that it's a leftist thing is yet another tactic of the right: accuse others of doing something they themselves are guilty of.

Prohibition, at least in its legal beginnings and when the movement was getting close to being passed in 1919, was nearly universally supported by politicians on both sides of the aisle, even by far-left groups like the Wobblies. So this nation's biggest anti-drinking law or at least one that prohibited the making and distribution of commercialized liquor had unanimous bipartisan support.

Keep in mind, of course, what has been defined or come to represent modern liberalism in 21st century or even left-wing politics or platforms today was very different then what's been termed the "Old Left", " New Left" emerged mostly after WWII largely influenced by the Frankfurt School and focused more on social issues like South African Apartheid, segregation in the United States, the Free Speech Movement at Berkley UC, later the anti-Vietnam War movement. Issues "Old Left" early 20th century Trotskyists, Bolsheviks, or other Western leftist party pre-WWII mostly ignored or felt were irrevalent.

The Soviet Union and its Eastern European Warsaw Bloc socialist aligned countries also banned books from schools and libraries, including the Bible and Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984, as well as jailed supposed "dissidents" if they were caught with, possessed, or distributed books, pamphlets, even in some Cold War-era Communist countries, rock music or certain bands were outlawed officially by the state.
These countries regimes weren't exactly far-right or conservative in terms of their political atlas.

You mentioned the Red Scare. I'll bring up Stalin's infamous late 1930's, Moscow "Show Trials" where tortured, beaten, intimidated loyal Communists, innocent BTW, enthusiastically affirmed their guilt for crimes and subversion against the state and international Communist movement, as well as purging skilled, capable Red Army officers and generals just to pacify Stalin's increasing meglamania and paranoia because he wanted to decimate the one institution during his period of rule that could legimately overthrow him: The Red Army. Then there's Mao's "Cultural Revolution", from 1966-76, which saw intellectuals, government officials, teachers, workers, factory managers denounced as " revisionists", or "capitalist roaders", people were paraded around in the streets with dunce caps on their heads jeered, mocked and ridiculed by whipped up mobs. Moaist China by the early 1970's became an intellectual, cultural and political wasteland.

 

[SFIDC3]

Generally, I'm alluding to the wisdom of the American conservative (classical liberal) regarding the imperatives of natural law.

This will be the funniest thing I've read today....Thanks for that....