Reblogged:Elizabeth Warren: A Fool's Choice

[Gus Van Horn blog]

David Harsanyi discusses Elizabeth Warren's latest and most Orwellian proposal yet, criminalizing "disinformation" about elections:

Discussion is an active process, by which participants help each other decide for themselves whether something is true, or even discover the truth. It often leads to people changing their minds. Making people afraid to voice their opinions will make them less likely to be able to correct themselves if they are mistaken. Why does Elizabeth Warren want to curtail this valuable activity? (Image by Edvin Johansson, via Unsplash, license.)

f the state can criminalize disinformation about elections, what is to stop it from criminalizing "disinformation" about candidates or science or public policy -- or anything that supposedly undermines the common good?

If, say, a person prone to hyperbole publicly accuses Warren of being a proto-fascist scoundrel, is he "misleading" voters? What if an elected official claimed to be Native American but really wasn't? Would she be banned?

How about social-media users who assert once widely accepted scientific statements that have fallen into disfavor -- statements such as ... "there are only two genders"? What about the rhetoric of "climate-change deniers"? One wonders if Warren realizes that her plan is a precedent that authorizes the next Donald Trump to dictate the parameters of acceptable speech online.

Regarding that last question: Warren either doesn't know or (as I judge) doesn't care about these obvious implications. Either way, she is manifestly unfit for the office of President.

Every new proposal I hear about from this candidate from hell sounds more dangerous than the last.

Please note the caption for the photo in this post: Elizabeth Warren's contempt for the truth and your mind is on full display here.

-- CAV

Link to Original