Freedom of Speech: Disinformation versus Misinformation

The First Amendment to the US Constitution as found in the Bill of Rights

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first amendment to the US Constitution provides several guarantees:

1. No governmental interference with the exercise of religion
2. No governmental interference with the freedom of speech
3. No governmental interference with the freedom of the press
4. No governmental interference with the ability of the people to assemble
5. No governmental interference with the ability of the people to petition the government

Free Speech

While discussion of free speech is nothing new to our national discourse it has become a very hot topic lately. A particular flashpoint has been debates over whether or not people should be able to freely disseminate disinformation and misinformation.

Rather than giving space here to discuss the merits of free speech (I am a fan), I want to make sure we are all aware of the meaning of the words we are using, so that when we talk about misinformation and disinformation, we start from a common understanding.

Lies

The words disinformation and misinformation both mean the same thing: lies. The only difference between the two is that disinformation carries the added weight that the purveyor knows the truth and is deliberately spreading lies. Misinformation, in contrast may be an honest mistake; telling a lie without knowing it is a lie.

Opinions

My problem with the current debate on free speech is that too many people conflate opposing opinions with deliberate lies. For anyone to lie requires that there are immutable facts at the core of the debate. Unfortunately, the current state of so-called journalism is very long on opinion and very short on facts.

Facts

It is the absence of facts that compels police to refer to a suspect as an "alleged" perpetrator until after the person is convicted in a court of law. That is because a big part of the function of a trial is to establish what are the facts in a situation, in contrast with the opinions, perspectives, and views of anyone.

Poor Journalism

All too often what a journalist calls disinformation is actually an opinion that differs from that of the journalist. It is hard to figure this out because the talking heads on TV and the poison pen opinion pieces that many journalist pass off as news contain relatively few actual facts compared to the abundance of opinion and hyperbole.

It seems to me that most so-called journalists today are afraid to just report the news. They seem to fear that their audience is too stupid (or too smart) to hear the facts and draw conclusions that align with those of the reporter.

Critical Thinking

The current pervasiveness of this sort of nineteenth century yellow-journalism (or journalistic advocacy, if you prefer a less harsh term for the corruption of our 'news' media) seems to be to be an indictment of both the profession of journalism and of the efficacy of our educational system to produce citizens who can look at facts and draw their own conclusions through critical thinking.

Just the Facts

For my part, I long for news sources that report the facts, all the facts that are available. I long for journalistic integrity that will report both the flattering facts and the unflattering facts, and let me decide my own opinion, rather than trying to force feed me theirs. I am equally put off by Sean Hannity tailoring a story to promote Donald Trump as I am by Jen Psaki tailoring a story to promote Kamala Harris. Neither are offering news. Both are offering opinion pieces. At least Fox positions Hannity is positioned as an opinion show. MSNBC's Jen Psaki overtly presents news and then seamlessly shifts to opinion. Of course, given than Jen Psaki was the spokesperson for a Democrat President of the United States, it shouldn't surprise anyone that she isn't taking a neutral stance and just reporting facts.

Looking for Good News

If you have found a news bureau that truly reports the facts, without pruning them to create a particular spin, please, let me know.

And, if you can disagree without being disagreeable, let's start our own club. I am always open to hearing other viewpoints. I just don't appreciate it when facts are either ignored or made up.

See Tom's political views on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/TomSheppardPoliticalViews/
Follow Tom on Twitter: @ThomasKSheppard

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM).

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein.

(c) Copyright 2024 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

If you believe Government is NOT the answer to all our problems, you will want to read
 Godvernment: Government as God

Lying Liberal Altruists

Image (c) iqoncept and Depositphotos.com

                              This article is an excerpt from Godvernment: Government as God 

Tom Sheppard

9/4/2020

The Lie of Liberal Altruism

In the 25th chapter of Matthew, the Savior speaks of the final judgment.  To those who have done well and to those who have not, He offers the same explanation for the reward they are offered.  He tells them all that, "... inasmuch as ye have done [or not done] it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

He is referring to how they did, or did not, take care of the poor, the sick, the destitute, and the afflicted among them.

Today, much of our political debate and divide appears to be focused on how we, as a society, believe we should go about taking care of the least advantaged among us.

For many years, as I read or heard these words, I believed that Jesus was speaking metaphorically.  I believed He was saying that He was holding us accountable for our treatment of our fellow human beings, and He is certainly saying that.  However, I am now convinced that Jesus was not speaking metaphorically in this matter.  Rather, He was being completely literal.

We learn elsewhere that in His atoning sacrifice, He suffered all the pains of humanity (Doctrine and Covenants 18:11), so that He could learn to succor those in need (Hebrews 2:18).  I suggest that, in a very real way, He has actually shared and felt the very pains of the homeless, the hungry, the naked, those in prison, and those who wash up on the edges of our society like flotsam washing up on a beach, and, that He did not suffer those pains in some abstract way, or as a derivative of what those people suffer—rather, through some incomprehensible mechanism, He is and was able to fully feel the actual pains that each of us has suffered and will suffer.  Having felt those actual pains, He then can understand our situation completely and can comfort us, or forgive us, in exact measure according to our pain and need.

Knowing that He feels the pains of others, when we help those in need, when we relieve the suffering of those in anguish or pain, when we feed the hungry, we directly reduce the amount of suffering and pain that Christ suffers.  Likewise, when we cause others to suffer, we add to the pain that He suffers.  When we fail to act to alleviate the pain and suffering of others, we fail to alleviate His pain and suffering.

I believe that is true.

In light of that belief, some would suppose that I would be driven to embrace the social welfare model of government (aka socialism, communism, progressivism, liberalism, fascism).  In fact, much of the social welfare model of government wraps itself in a mantle of altruism about caring for the less fortunate among us, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Socialists like Bernie Sanders and liberals like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama seek to destroy the rich (other than themselves), and even the middle class, and make us all equally poor together.

I despise their cries to destroy the wealthy in order to help the poor, and there is no hypocrisy in my feelings.  You cannot lift anyone up by tearing someone else down.

When Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and their ilk talk about helping the poor and relieving suffering, they are not talking about digging deep into their own pockets and giving until it hurts themselves in order to help others.  They are content to keep their own wealth, gained by feeding at the trough of the taxpayers.  They will keep their wealth, and instead they will dig deep into the pockets of others and force them to give until it hurts.

Their hypocrisy in their failure to live the very principles they are espousing is as clear and horrendous as that of any Christian preacher who rails from the pulpit against the evils of the flesh, and then is caught in adultery and debauchery.  Their altruistic battle cries of "soak the rich" mask the brutal reality of their policies, which actually soak everyone who is above the poverty line in order to make us all poor together and ensure that the only path to wealth and comfort is through service to the state.

We need to re-enshrine the notion of individual action and individual accountability in our nation, especially when it comes to the issues of caring for the poor and disadvantaged.  A thrust toward individual accountability is in direct opposition to the socialist thrust of collective accountability.

Each individual should take personal action to help those who are less advantaged than they.  Each person should do according to their ability and means.  This does not mean that we cannot band together into charitable organizations to magnify our efforts, but we should not ever rely upon the power of taxation, which is nothing less than forcible redistribution of wealth, in order to take care of those who are disadvantaged.

I make a notable exception in this for military veterans.  Military veterans are the only organization which has earned the right to partake of a portion of the public treasury to support them in their times of trouble.  Because they have literally offered their lives in the service of our country, they are actually entitled to support through taxation.

Food for thought!

See Tom's political views on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/TomSheppardPoliticalViews/ 
Follow Tom on Twitter: @ThomasKSheppard 

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). 

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

(c) Copyright 2020 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

Your comments are welcome. Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

If you believe Government is NOT the answer to all our problems, you will want to read
 Godvernment: Government as GodClick on the image below to buy your copy today

Godvernment is available in both paperback and ebook format through Amazon.