"You know Hillary, I think this Internet Truth Squad is a great idea, but I don't think we're gonna get it in time to help you with the Gunwalker scandal hearings. I think you're pretty much screwed on that. First time in a while, huh?"
FOX News: "Bill Clinton Muses About Creating Internet Agency to Combat Falsehoods."
If Bill Clinton had his way, there would be an Internet agency created by the U.S. government or United Nations to debunk malicious rumors that originate and spread online.
"I think it would be a legitimate thing to do," Clinton told CNBC in an interview that aired Friday. He was interviewed alongside Mati Kochavi, a cybersecurity entrepreneur.
But Clinton added that if such an agency were ever created, it would have to be "totally transparent" about where its funding came from and would have to be independent.
"Let's just say the U.S. did it. It would have to be an independent federal agency that no president could countermand or anything else because people wouldn't think you were just censoring the news and giving a different falsehood out," he said.
"That is, it would be like, I don't know, National Public Radio or BBC or something like that, except it would have to be really independent and they would not express opinions, and their mandate would be narrowly confined to identifying relevant factual errors," he said.
Clinton said the agency would have to have citations so it could be checked in case it made a mistake.
"Somebody needs to be doing it, and maybe it's a worthy expenditure of taxpayer money," he said. "But if it's a government agency in a traditional sense, it would have no credibility whatever, particularly with a lot of the people who are most active on the Internet."
So, I guess if it were funded by George Soros and his ilk, like Clinton's favorite Center for American Progress (from whose rostrum
Bill Clinton denounced the Three Percent and Oathkeepers last 19 April) that would have MORE credibility?
Here's the transcript.
The Gunwalker Scandal began as "a malicious rumor" on the CleanUpATF.org site. There was no proof, only whispers among ATF agents. By Clinton's wish, it would be "debunked" before it could make it into the "mainstream" media. No larger news organization would then touch it since it had been "officially discredited." Now, given who his political partner is, I can understand why the philandering Perjurer in Chief would want that capability. But why should anybody else?
14 comments:
Yes, I read this earlier on the interwebs and just had to laugh.
The liar in chief posits that NPR or the BBC are not funded by government. He states that the proposed internet oversight board should be "independent" to avoid the appearance of further conspiracy theories, yet says it is worthy of tax-payer funding. The lack of logic is so Clinton-esque. We should not expect anything remotely related to the truth to pass over his lips.
KPN3%
The communist left already has a "Truth squad. It's called "Snopes" and "Factcheck.org" Both of which have no problem suppressing or manipulating the truth when it's not in line with their agenda.
If that "truth squad" were run by anyone other than the government it would mean the end of all government agencies' and offices' web sites. No more .gov at all. :)
I dunno about any one else, but it seems to me the internet IS ALREADY a "truth squad". Every time the feral Govt tells us a lie, out comes the internet truth squad to refute the .govs Bravo Sierra. Must depend on what the definition of Is is huh??
WV wiress, what Klintoon wants to create...
I can just see the faces of the drones-in-office when I post this to NJ's statists..... >MW
And so the assault on the 1st amendment advances. Having the Lame Stream Media in their hip pocket, the left now want to be able to quash ANY possible dissent.
Given the percentage of RINOs in both houses, I see no reason why this would not come up for a vote. After all on the face of it it SOUNDS perfectly reasonable and logical. It even sounds completely innocuous. They do not want to quash dissent, they only want to keep people from being able to spread lies and malicious rumors. How could any reasonable person object to that?
I fear that should such an agency come to be, there would be no way to even KNOW ANYTHING WAS HAPPENING! A real life version of the battle of Sipsey Street could occur and nobody outside the immediate neighborhood would even know about it. Even those in the neighborhood would not be told what had really happened.
Dutchman, could creation of such an agency be considered a "Boston Massacre" type incident? Would that alone not constitute a hostile act worthy of rebellion?
DAMN! I never saw THAT one coming.
Bad Cyborg X
The Ministry of Truth (MiniTrue)--Protecting You from Vicious Rumors Since 1984! ;^)
MALTHUS
"The Gunwalker Scandal began as "a malicious rumor"
Completely incorrect, Gun-Runner began as a plot by TPTB to augment the numbers of guns involved crimes Read Drug Related Murders in Mexico to use as an Excuse to enact more Gun-Control Laws in The USA.
But of course as is always the case with Ol'Slick Willy,or Mrs Slick Willy the ability to tell the truth is beyond their capabilities.
Dennis
III
Texas
"Ministry of Truth", anyone?
You would think that the press would be extremely offended by such an idea. I mean, the very job of the press is to inform us of what is really going on - and here's their butt boy implicitly admitting what we all know anyway, that the press is absolutety useless. They're so useless, in fact, that they can't even disseminate propaganda effectively. I love it.
As others have already said, Ministry of Truth. . .
Stock up on paper, pens, printer ink, envelopes, etc.
We may need to be sending our inaccurate falsehoods by USPS.
/snark off
B Woodman
III-per
Screw Clinton.....no, wait a minute.....that ol' rump ranger would like that.
Bob
III
There already is an internet oversight board that surpresses "malicious rumors" about the people in the arab world turning on their own governments. That board is up and running to good effect in The Peoples Republic of China. The fact that one of our former presidents could advocate a similar board in the USA without causing an uproar from the "mainstream media" says just how far down that road we already are. Note also how the "authorized journalists" sat still for and in many cases even advocated the rape of The First Amendment under McCain-Feingold because they were exempt from its restrictions.
Much as I suspect the Fudds would grumble about but eventually accept a ban on all magazine-fed firearms as long as they could keep an M70 Winchester with the box blocked off by a government authorized gunsmith, the press would eventually accept government pre-approval of anything published by an authorized cadre of "journalists" provided that they were on the authorized list.
Warning to any thugs in sheep's clothing.
Touching the 1st Amendment is just as bad as touching the 2nd Amendment.
It is a Line in the Sand we will defend.
Period. End of Story. Mark it down.
What ever you want to say. That is an attack on the Consitution I swore to defend against all enemies foreign, or Domestic!!!
Post a Comment