XPost: alt.bible.prophecy, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.israel

https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/x40ml2/these_emails_show_how_the_biden_administrations/


These Emails Show How the Biden Administration's Crusade Against 'Misinformation' Imposes Censorship by Proxy
Social media companies are eager to appease the government by
suppressing disfavored speech.
JACOB SULLUM | 9.1.2022 5:35 PM

Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on RedditShare by emailPrint
friendly versionCopy page URL
Surgeon General Vivek Murthy
Surgeon General Vivek Murthy (Ron Sachs/CNP/SplashNews/Newscom)
On July 16, 2021, the day that Joe Biden accused Facebook of "killing
people" by failing to suppress misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines, a
senior executive at the social media platform's parent company emailed
Surgeon General Vivek Murthy in an effort to assuage the president's
anger. "Reaching out after what has transpired over the past few days
following the publication of the misinformation advisory, and
culminating today in the President's remarks about us," the Meta
executive wrote. "I know our teams met today to better understand the
scope of what the White House expects from us on misinformation going
forward."

Murthy had just published an advisory in which he urged a
"whole-of-society" effort to combat the "urgent threat to public health"
posed by "health misinformation," possibly including "appropriate legal
and regulatory measures." Biden's homicide charge came the next day, and
Meta was keen to address the president's concerns by cracking down on
speech that offended him.

The email, which was recently disclosed during discovery in a federal
lawsuit that Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry and Missouri
Attorney General Eric Schmitt filed in May, vividly illustrates how the
Biden administration engages in censorship by proxy, pressuring social
media platforms to implement speech restrictions that would be
flagrantly unconstitutional if the government tried to impose them
directly. Landry and Schmitt, both Republicans, argue that such pressure violates the First Amendment.

"Having threatened and cajoled social-media platforms for years to
censor viewpoints and speakers disfavored by the Left," the lawsuit
says, "senior government officials in the Executive Branch have moved
into a phase of open collusion with social-media companies to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content on social media platforms
under the Orwellian guise of halting so-called 'disinformation,' 'misinformation,' and 'malinformation.'…As a direct result of these
actions, there has been an unprecedented rise in censorship and
suppression of free speech—including core political speech—on
social-media platforms."

Landry and Schmitt reiterate that point in a "joint statement of
discovery disputes" they filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Louisiana. "Under the First Amendment, the
federal Government should have no role in policing private speech or
picking winners and losers in the marketplace of ideas," they say. "But
that is what federal officials are doing, on a massive scale—a scale
whose full scope and impact [are] yet to be determined."

So far, Schmitt reports, documents produced by the government in
response to a court order have identified 45 federal officials who
"communicate with social media platforms about 'misinformation' and censorship." Schmitt and Landry think many other officials are involved
in "a vast 'Censorship Enterprise' across a multitude of federal
agencies," and they are seeking additional documents to confirm that
suspicion.

In response to inquiries, Landry and Schmitt say, "Facebook and
Instagram identified 32 federal officials, including eight current and
former White House officials," who have contacted them regarding "misinformation and censorship of social-media content." YouTube
"identified 11 federal officials, including five current and former
White House officials," while Twitter "identified nine federal
officials, including at least one White House official."

Judging from the examples that Schmitt cites, the tenor of these
communications has been cordial and collaborative. The social media
companies are at pains to show that they share the government's goals,
which is precisely the problem. Given the broad powers that the federal government has to make life difficult for these businesses through
public criticism, litigation, regulation, and legislation, the Biden administration's "asks" for stricter moderation are tantamount to
commands. The administration expects obsequious compliance, and that is
what it gets.

Shortly after sending the July 16 email to Murthy, according to Landry
and Schmitt's joint statement, the same Meta executive sent the surgeon
general a text message. "It's not great to be accused of killing
people," he said, adding that he was "keen to find a way to deescalate
and work together collaboratively."

And so he did. "Thanks again for taking the time to meet earlier today,"
the Meta executive says in a July 23, 2021, email to Murthy. "I wanted
to make sure you saw the steps we took just this past week to adjust
policies on what we are removing with respect to misinformation, as well
as steps taken to further address the 'disinfo dozen.'" He brags that
Meta has removed objectionable pages, groups, and Instagram accounts;
taken steps to make several pages and profiles "more difficult to find
on our platform"; and "expanded the group of false claims that we remove
to keep up with recent trends."

Twitter also was eager to fall in line. "I'm looking forward to setting
up regular chats," says an April 8, 2021, message from Twitter to the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). "My team has asked for examples of problematic content so we can examine trends. All examples
of misinformation are helpful, but in particular, if you have any
examples of fraud—such as fraudulent covid cures, fraudulent vaccine
cards, etc, that would be very helpful."

Twitter responded swiftly to the government's censorship suggestions.
"Thanks so much for this," a Twitter official says in an April 16, 2021,
email to the CDC. "We actioned (by labeling or removing) the Tweets in violation of our Rules." The message, which is headed "Request for
problem accounts," is signed with "warmest" regards.

The government also got fast service from Instagram. In a July 20, 2021,
email, Clarke Humphrey, digital director for the White House COVID-19
Response Team, requests the deletion of an Instagram parody of Anthony
Fauci, Biden's top medical adviser. "Any way we can get this pulled
down?" Humphrey asks. "It is not actually one of ours." Less than a
minute later, he gets his answer: "Yep, on it!"

Twitter's desperation to please the Biden administration likewise went
beyond deleting specific messages. Landry and Schmitt note "internal
Twitter communications" indicating that senior White House officials "specifically pressured Twitter to deplatform" anti-vaccine writer Alex Berenson, "which Twitter did." In an April 16, 2021, email about a
"Twitter VaccineMisinfo Briefing" on Zoom, Deputy Assistant to the
President Rob Flaherty tells colleagues that Twitter will inform "White
House staff" about "the tangible effects seen from recent policy
changes, what interventions are currently being implemented in addition
to previous policy changes, and ways the White House (and our COVID
experts) can partner in product work."

Like Twitter, Facebook was thirsty for government guidance. In a July
28, 2021, email to the CDC headed "FB Misinformation Claims_Help
Debunking," a Facebook official says, "I have been talking about in
addition to our weekly meetings, doing a monthly disinfo/debunking
meeting, with maybe claim topics communicated a few days prior so that
you can bring in the matching experts and chat casually for 30 minutes
or so. Is that something you'd be interested in?" The CDC's response is enthusiastic: "Yes, we would love to do that."

The communications uncovered so far mainly involved anti-vaccine
messages, many of which are verifiably false. But Americans have a First Amendment right to express their opinions, no matter how misguided or ill-informed. That does not mean social media platforms are obligated to
host those opinions. To the contrary, they have a First Amendment right
to exercise editorial discretion. But that's not what is really
happening when their decisions are shaped by implicit or explicit
threats from the government. Notwithstanding all the friendly words,
Facebook et al. have strong incentives to cooperate with a government
that otherwise might punish them in various ways.

Ostensibly, the Biden administration is merely asking social media
companies to enforce their own rules. But those rules are open to interpretation, and the government is encouraging the companies to read
them more broadly than they otherwise might.

Maybe Twitter would have banished Alex Berenson even if White House
officials had not intervened, but maybe not. Multiply that question
across the myriad moderation decisions that social media platforms make
every day, and you have a situation where it is increasingly difficult
to tell whether they are exercising independent judgment or taking
orders from the government.

"Although a 'private entity is not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment,'" Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas noted in a 2021
concurrence, "it is if the government coerces or induces it to take
action the government itself would not be permitted to do, such as
censor expression of a lawful viewpoint….The government cannot
accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the
Constitution prohibits it from doing directly." That is the gist of the argument that Landry and Schmitt are making in their lawsuit.

The danger posed by the Biden administration's creepy crusade against "misinformation" is magnified by its broad definition of that concept,
which encompasses speech that the government deems "misleading," even
when it is arguably or demonstrably true. "Claims can be highly
misleading and harmful even if the science on an issue isn't yet
settled," Murthy says, and "what counts as misinformation can change
over time with new evidence and scientific consensus."

In other words, the "scientific consensus," however Murthy defines it,
can be wrong, as illustrated by the federal government's ever-evolving
advice about the utility of face masks in preventing COVID-19
transmission. The CDC initially dismissed the value of general masking,
then embraced it as "the most important, powerful public health tool we
have." More recently, it has conceded that commonly used cloth masks do
little, if anything, to stop coronavirus transmission.

"Twitter's 'COVID-19 misleading information policy,' as of December
2021, noted that Twitter will censor (label or remove) speech claiming
that 'face masks…do not work to reduce transmission or to protect
against COVID-19,'" Schmitt says. "Other platforms had similar policies.
Both Senator Rand Paul and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis were censored
by Youtube for questioning the efficacy of masks." Twitter even removed
a mask-skeptical tweet by Scott Atlas, a member of the Trump
administration's coronavirus task force. But "now," Schmitt says, "a
growing body of science shows that masks, especially cloth masks, are ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, and can impose negative
impacts on children."

Landry and Schmitt's lawsuit also notes Twitter's blocking of the New
York Post's story about Hunter Biden's laptop, which was deemed "disinformation" prior to the 2020 presidential election but turned out
to be accurate. Social media companies have made similarly questionable decisions regarding discussion of the COVID-19 "lab leak" theory, which
remains contested but has not been disproven.

Even acting on their own, social media platforms are bound to make bad
calls. But when the government demands that they all hew to an
officially recognized "consensus," the threat to free inquiry and open
debate is far graver.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.bible.prophecy, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.israel
XPost: alt.christnet.christianlife

Michael Ejercito wrote:

https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/x40ml2/these_emails_show_how_the_biden_administrations/

These Emails Show How the Biden Administration's Crusade Against >'Misinformation' Imposes Censorship by Proxy
Social media companies are eager to appease the government by
suppressing disfavored speech.
JACOB SULLUM | 9.1.2022 5:35 PM

Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on RedditShare by emailPrint
friendly versionCopy page URL
Surgeon General Vivek Murthy
Surgeon General Vivek Murthy (Ron Sachs/CNP/SplashNews/Newscom)
On July 16, 2021, the day that Joe Biden accused Facebook of "killing
people" by failing to suppress misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines, a >senior executive at the social media platform's parent company emailed >Surgeon General Vivek Murthy in an effort to assuage the president's
anger. "Reaching out after what has transpired over the past few days >following the publication of the misinformation advisory, and
culminating today in the President's remarks about us," the Meta
executive wrote. "I know our teams met today to better understand the
scope of what the White House expects from us on misinformation going >forward."

Murthy had just published an advisory in which he urged a
"whole-of-society" effort to combat the "urgent threat to public health" >posed by "health misinformation," possibly including "appropriate legal
and regulatory measures." Biden's homicide charge came the next day, and
Meta was keen to address the president's concerns by cracking down on
speech that offended him.

The email, which was recently disclosed during discovery in a federal
lawsuit that Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry and Missouri
Attorney General Eric Schmitt filed in May, vividly illustrates how the
Biden administration engages in censorship by proxy, pressuring social
media platforms to implement speech restrictions that would be
flagrantly unconstitutional if the government tried to impose them
directly. Landry and Schmitt, both Republicans, argue that such pressure >violates the First Amendment.

"Having threatened and cajoled social-media platforms for years to
censor viewpoints and speakers disfavored by the Left," the lawsuit
says, "senior government officials in the Executive Branch have moved
into a phase of open collusion with social-media companies to suppress >disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content on social media platforms
under the Orwellian guise of halting so-called 'disinformation,' >'misinformation,' and 'malinformation.'�As a direct result of these
actions, there has been an unprecedented rise in censorship and
suppression of free speech�including core political speech�on
social-media platforms."

Landry and Schmitt reiterate that point in a "joint statement of
discovery disputes" they filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Louisiana. "Under the First Amendment, the
federal Government should have no role in policing private speech or
picking winners and losers in the marketplace of ideas," they say. "But
that is what federal officials are doing, on a massive scale�a scale
whose full scope and impact [are] yet to be determined."

So far, Schmitt reports, documents produced by the government in
response to a court order have identified 45 federal officials who >"communicate with social media platforms about 'misinformation' and >censorship." Schmitt and Landry think many other officials are involved
in "a vast 'Censorship Enterprise' across a multitude of federal
agencies," and they are seeking additional documents to confirm that >suspicion.

In response to inquiries, Landry and Schmitt say, "Facebook and
Instagram identified 32 federal officials, including eight current and
former White House officials," who have contacted them regarding >"misinformation and censorship of social-media content." YouTube
"identified 11 federal officials, including five current and former
White House officials," while Twitter "identified nine federal
officials, including at least one White House official."

Judging from the examples that Schmitt cites, the tenor of these >communications has been cordial and collaborative. The social media
companies are at pains to show that they share the government's goals,
which is precisely the problem. Given the broad powers that the federal >government has to make life difficult for these businesses through
public criticism, litigation, regulation, and legislation, the Biden >administration's "asks" for stricter moderation are tantamount to
commands. The administration expects obsequious compliance, and that is
what it gets.

Shortly after sending the July 16 email to Murthy, according to Landry
and Schmitt's joint statement, the same Meta executive sent the surgeon >general a text message. "It's not great to be accused of killing
people," he said, adding that he was "keen to find a way to deescalate
and work together collaboratively."

And so he did. "Thanks again for taking the time to meet earlier today,"
the Meta executive says in a July 23, 2021, email to Murthy. "I wanted
to make sure you saw the steps we took just this past week to adjust
policies on what we are removing with respect to misinformation, as well
as steps taken to further address the 'disinfo dozen.'" He brags that
Meta has removed objectionable pages, groups, and Instagram accounts;
taken steps to make several pages and profiles "more difficult to find
on our platform"; and "expanded the group of false claims that we remove
to keep up with recent trends."

Twitter also was eager to fall in line. "I'm looking forward to setting
up regular chats," says an April 8, 2021, message from Twitter to the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). "My team has asked for >examples of problematic content so we can examine trends. All examples
of misinformation are helpful, but in particular, if you have any
examples of fraud�such as fraudulent covid cures, fraudulent vaccine
cards, etc, that would be very helpful."

Twitter responded swiftly to the government's censorship suggestions.
"Thanks so much for this," a Twitter official says in an April 16, 2021, >email to the CDC. "We actioned (by labeling or removing) the Tweets in >violation of our Rules." The message, which is headed "Request for
problem accounts," is signed with "warmest" regards.

The government also got fast service from Instagram. In a July 20, 2021, >email, Clarke Humphrey, digital director for the White House COVID-19 >Response Team, requests the deletion of an Instagram parody of Anthony
Fauci, Biden's top medical adviser. "Any way we can get this pulled
down?" Humphrey asks. "It is not actually one of ours." Less than a
minute later, he gets his answer: "Yep, on it!"

Twitter's desperation to please the Biden administration likewise went
beyond deleting specific messages. Landry and Schmitt note "internal
Twitter communications" indicating that senior White House officials >"specifically pressured Twitter to deplatform" anti-vaccine writer Alex >Berenson, "which Twitter did." In an April 16, 2021, email about a
"Twitter VaccineMisinfo Briefing" on Zoom, Deputy Assistant to the
President Rob Flaherty tells colleagues that Twitter will inform "White
House staff" about "the tangible effects seen from recent policy
changes, what interventions are currently being implemented in addition
to previous policy changes, and ways the White House (and our COVID
experts) can partner in product work."

Like Twitter, Facebook was thirsty for government guidance. In a July
28, 2021, email to the CDC headed "FB Misinformation Claims_Help
Debunking," a Facebook official says, "I have been talking about in
addition to our weekly meetings, doing a monthly disinfo/debunking
meeting, with maybe claim topics communicated a few days prior so that
you can bring in the matching experts and chat casually for 30 minutes
or so. Is that something you'd be interested in?" The CDC's response is >enthusiastic: "Yes, we would love to do that."

The communications uncovered so far mainly involved anti-vaccine
messages, many of which are verifiably false. But Americans have a First >Amendment right to express their opinions, no matter how misguided or >ill-informed. That does not mean social media platforms are obligated to
host those opinions. To the contrary, they have a First Amendment right
to exercise editorial discretion. But that's not what is really
happening when their decisions are shaped by implicit or explicit
threats from the government. Notwithstanding all the friendly words,
Facebook et al. have strong incentives to cooperate with a government
that otherwise might punish them in various ways.

Ostensibly, the Biden administration is merely asking social media
companies to enforce their own rules. But those rules are open to >interpretation, and the government is encouraging the companies to read
them more broadly than they otherwise might.

Maybe Twitter would have banished Alex Berenson even if White House
officials had not intervened, but maybe not. Multiply that question
across the myriad moderation decisions that social media platforms make
every day, and you have a situation where it is increasingly difficult
to tell whether they are exercising independent judgment or taking
orders from the government.

"Although a 'private entity is not ordinarily constrained by the First >Amendment,'" Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas noted in a 2021 >concurrence, "it is if the government coerces or induces it to take
action the government itself would not be permitted to do, such as
censor expression of a lawful viewpoint�.The government cannot
accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the
Constitution prohibits it from doing directly." That is the gist of the >argument that Landry and Schmitt are making in their lawsuit.

The danger posed by the Biden administration's creepy crusade against >"misinformation" is magnified by its broad definition of that concept,
which encompasses speech that the government deems "misleading," even
when it is arguably or demonstrably true. "Claims can be highly
misleading and harmful even if the science on an issue isn't yet
settled," Murthy says, and "what counts as misinformation can change
over time with new evidence and scientific consensus."

In other words, the "scientific consensus," however Murthy defines it,
can be wrong, as illustrated by the federal government's ever-evolving
advice about the utility of face masks in preventing COVID-19
transmission. The CDC initially dismissed the value of general masking,
then embraced it as "the most important, powerful public health tool we >have." More recently, it has conceded that commonly used cloth masks do >little, if anything, to stop coronavirus transmission.

"Twitter's 'COVID-19 misleading information policy,' as of December
2021, noted that Twitter will censor (label or remove) speech claiming
that 'face masks�do not work to reduce transmission or to protect
against COVID-19,'" Schmitt says. "Other platforms had similar policies.
Both Senator Rand Paul and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis were censored
by Youtube for questioning the efficacy of masks." Twitter even removed
a mask-skeptical tweet by Scott Atlas, a member of the Trump
administration's coronavirus task force. But "now," Schmitt says, "a
growing body of science shows that masks, especially cloth masks, are >ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, and can impose negative >impacts on children."

Landry and Schmitt's lawsuit also notes Twitter's blocking of the New
York Post's story about Hunter Biden's laptop, which was deemed >"disinformation" prior to the 2020 presidential election but turned out
to be accurate. Social media companies have made similarly questionable >decisions regarding discussion of the COVID-19 "lab leak" theory, which >remains contested but has not been disproven.

Even acting on their own, social media platforms are bound to make bad
calls. But when the government demands that they all hew to an
officially recognized "consensus," the threat to free inquiry and open
debate is far graver.

The only healthy way to stop the "misinformation" (aka lies) is to
choose instead to http://tinyurl.com/TrulyLove (John 15:12) our
neighbor.

Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry ( http://tinyurl.com/RapidOmicronTest
) and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.

So how are you ?









...because we mindfully choose to openly care with our heart,

HeartDoc Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Cardiologist with an http://bit.ly/EternalMedicalLicense
2024 & upwards non-partisan candidate for U.S. President: http://WonderfullyHungry.org
and author of the 2PD-OMER Approach:
http://bit.ly/HeartDocAndrewCare
which is the only **healthy** cure for the U.S. healthcare crisis

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.bible.prophecy, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.israel
XPost: alt.christnet.christianlife

(Jacob) 09/02/22 "Dexter" tragically vainjangling (1 Tim 1:6) ...

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.bible.prophecy/c/XfVbwRPUcpg/m/BDDY6jVFDwAJ

Link to post explicating vainjangling by the eternally condemned: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/O23NguTslhI/-xLGqnNjAAAJ

"Like a moth to flame, the eternally condemned tragically return to be
ever more cursed by GOD."

Behold in wide-eyed wonder and amazement at the continued fulfillment
of this prophecy as clearly demonstrated within the following USENET
threads:

(1) Link to thread titled "LORD Jesus Christ of Nazareth is our #1
Example of being wonderfully hungry;"

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/_iVmOb7q3_Q/m/E8L7TNNtAgAJ

(2) Link to thread titled "Being wonderfully hungry;"

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.med.cardiology/uCPb3ldOv5M

(3) Link to thread titled "A very very very simple definition of sin;"

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.bible.prophecy/xunFWhan_AM

(4) Link to thread titled "The LORD says 'Blessed are you who hunger
now;'"

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.bible.prophecy/e4sW8dr44rM

(5) Link to thread titled "Being wonderfully hungry like LORD Jesus;"

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.bible.prophecy/xPY1Uzl-ZNk/QeKLDNCpCwAJ

... for the continued benefit (Romans 8:28) of those of us who are http://bit.ly/wonderfully_hungry like GOD ( http://bit.ly/Lk2442 )
with all glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm117_ ) to the LORD.

Source: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/O23NguTslhI/pIZcsOCJBwAJ

Laus DEO !

While wonderfully hungry ( http://bit.ly/Philippians4_12 ) in the Holy
Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy 8:3) me to hunger right now (Luke
6:21a), I pray (2 Chronicles 7:14) that GOD continues to curse
(Jeremiah 17:5) you, who are eternally condemned (Mark 3:29), more
than ever in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Amen.

Laus DEO ! ! !

Bottom line: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/O23NguTslhI/h5lE-mr0DAAJ

<begin trichotomy>

(1) Born-again (John 3:3 & 5) humans - Folks who have GOD's Help (i.e.
Holy Spirit) to stop (John 5:14) sinning by being http://bit.ly/wonderfully_hungry (Philippians 4:12) **but** are still
able to choose via their own "free will" to be instead http://bit.ly/terribly_hungry (Genesis 25:32) trapped in the
entangling (Hebrews 12:1) deadly (i.e. killed immortals Adam&Eve) sin
of gluttony (Proverbs 23:2).

(2) Eternally condemned (Mark 3:29) humans - Folks who will never have
GOD's Help (i.e. Holy Spirit) to stop being
http://bit.ly/terribly_hungry (2 Kings 6:29) as evident by their
constant vainjangling (1 Timothy 1:6) about everything except how to
stop (John 5:14) sinning.

(3) Perishing humans - The remaining folks who may possibly (Matthew
19:26) become born-again (John 3:3 & 5) as new (2 Corinthians 5:17)
creatures in Christ.

<end trichotomy>

Suggested further reading:
http://T3WiJ.com

+++

someone eternally condemned & ever more cursed by GOD wrote:

HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

Subject: The LORD says "Blessed are you who hunger now ..."

Source: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.bible.prophecy/e4sW8dr44rM/NSkTJxvFBAAJ

Shame on andrew, look at his red face.

LIE.

The color of my face in **not** visible here on USENET nor is the
color of my face red for those who can see me.

He is trying to pull a fast one. His scripture bit is found among these:

'14 Bible verses about Spiritual Hunger'

Such are the lies coming from the lying pens of the http://bit.ly/terribly_hungry (Genesis 25:32) commentators.

That which is "spiritual" is independent of time so that there
would've been no reference to "now."

Therefore, the LORD is referring to physical hunger here instead of
the spiritual "hunger and thirst for righteousness" elsewhere in
Scripture.

Indeed, physical hunger can **not** coexist with physical thirst
because the latter results in the loss of saliva needed for physical
hunger.

It is when we hunger for food "now" (Luke 6:21a) that we are able to
eat food "now."

No such time constraints exist for "spiritual hunger."

Moreover, the perspective of Luke 6:21a through the eyes of a
physician (i.e. Dr. Luke) would be logically expected to be physical
instead of spiritual.

All glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm117_ ) to GOD for His compelling you to unwittingly demonstrate your ever worsening cognitive condition which
is tragically a consequence of His cursing (Jeremiah 17:5) you more
than ever.

Laus DEO !

+++

someone eternally condemned & ever more cursed by GOD perseverated:
(in a vain attempt to refute posts about being wonderfully hungry)

Psalms
81:10 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt: >open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.

Indeed, receiving a mouthful (Psalm 81:10) of manna from GOD will only
make His http://HeartMDPhD.com/Redeemed want even more, so that we're
even http://bit.ly/wonderfully_hungrier with all glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm117_ ) to GOD.

Laus DEO !

Proverbs
13:25 The righteous has enough to satisfy his appetite, But the stomach of >the wicked is in need.

Indeed, the righteous know to be satisfied (Luke 6:21a) with an omer
(Exodus 16:16) of manna, while the wicked need (Proverbs 13:25) this
knowledge as evident by their eating until they are full (i.e.
satiated).

Joel
2:26 And ye shall eat in plenty, and be satisfied, and praise the name of
the LORD your God, that hath dealt wondrously with you: and my
people shall never be ashamed.

Indeed, an omer (32 ounces per Revelation 6:6) of manna is plenty
(Joel 2:26) with all glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm117_ ) to GOD and to
the shame of you, who are eternally (Mark 3:29) condemned.

Laus DEO ! !

Psalms
107 For he satisfies the thirsty and fills the hungry with good things.

Indeed, being filled (Psalm 107:9) with an omer (Exodus 16:16) of
manna is a Wonderful (Isaiah 9:6) thing while being satiated (i.e.
full) is evil.

Acts
14:17 "Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by >giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying
your hearts with food and gladness."

In the interim, you, who are eternally (Mark 3:29) condemned, will
never be satisfied (Acts 14:17) because you are ever more cursed
(Jeremiah 17:5) by GOD.

Source: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/uCPb3ldOv5M/KgM8NFKuAQAJ

+++

someone eternally condemned & ever more cursed by GOD perseverated:

HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

Subject: a very very very simple definition of sin ...

Source: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/mXmFD9kIocc/y8GNXircBQAJ

Does andrew's "definition" agree with scripture? Let's see in 1 John:

Actually, sin is **not** defined in 1 John 1:8-10

John wrote this to christians. The greek grammer (sic) speaks of an ongoing >> status. He includes himself in that status.

John was a Jew instead of a Greek so there is really no reason to
think that Greek grammar is relevant here.

1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is
not in us.

1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, >> and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is >> not in us.

John also wrote earlier at John 5:14 that LORD Jesus commands:

"Now stop sinning or something worse may happen to you." (John 5:14)

And, indeed, your being eternally condemned (Mark 3:29) & ever more
cursed (Jeremiah 17:5) by GOD, as evident by your ever worsening
cognitive deficits, is really worse.

Now again, here's how to really stop sinning as LORD Jesus commands
(John 5:14):

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.bible.prophecy/2-Qpn-o81J4/ldGubKEZAgAJ

While wonderfully hungry ( http://bit.ly/Philippians4_12 ) in the Holy
Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy 8:3) me to hunger right now (Luke
6:21a), I again pray (2 Chronicles 7:14) that GOD continues to curse
(Jeremiah 17:5) you, who are eternally condemned (Mark 3:29), more
than ever in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Amen.

Laus DEO ! ! !

Again, this is done in hopes of convincing all reading this to stop
being http://bit.ly/terribly_hungry (2 Kings 6:29) where all are in
danger of becoming eternally condemned (Mark 3:29) just as had
happened to Ananias and Sapphira and more contemporaneously to Bob
Pastorio.

Again, the LORD did strike down http://bit.ly/Bob_Pastorio on Fool's
day just 9+ years ago:

http://bobs-amanuensis.livejournal.com/8728.html

Again, this is done ...

http://bit.ly/HeartDocAndrew touts hunger (Luke 6:21a) with all glory
( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD, Who causes us to hunger
(Deuteronomy 8:3) when He blesses us right now (Luke 6:21a) thereby
removing the http://tinyurl.com/HeartVAT from around the heart

...because we mindfully choose to openly care with our heart,

HeartDoc Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Cardiologist with an http://bit.ly/EternalMedicalLicense
2024 & upwards non-partisan candidate for U.S. President: http://WonderfullyHungry.org
and author of the 2PD-OMER Approach:
http://bit.ly/HeartDocAndrewCare
which is the only **healthy** cure for the U.S. healthcare crisis

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.bible.prophecy, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.israel
XPost: alt.christnet.christianlife

HeartDoc Andrew wrote:

Michael Ejercito wrote:

https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/x40ml2/these_emails_show_how_the_biden_administrations/


These Emails Show How the Biden Administration's Crusade Against
'Misinformation' Imposes Censorship by Proxy
Social media companies are eager to appease the government by
suppressing disfavored speech.
JACOB SULLUM | 9.1.2022 5:35 PM

Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on RedditShare by emailPrint
friendly versionCopy page URL
Surgeon General Vivek Murthy
Surgeon General Vivek Murthy (Ron Sachs/CNP/SplashNews/Newscom)
On July 16, 2021, the day that Joe Biden accused Facebook of "killing
people" by failing to suppress misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines, a
senior executive at the social media platform's parent company emailed
Surgeon General Vivek Murthy in an effort to assuage the president's
anger. "Reaching out after what has transpired over the past few days
following the publication of the misinformation advisory, and
culminating today in the President's remarks about us," the Meta
executive wrote. "I know our teams met today to better understand the
scope of what the White House expects from us on misinformation going
forward."

Murthy had just published an advisory in which he urged a
"whole-of-society" effort to combat the "urgent threat to public health"
posed by "health misinformation," possibly including "appropriate legal
and regulatory measures." Biden's homicide charge came the next day, and
Meta was keen to address the president's concerns by cracking down on
speech that offended him.

The email, which was recently disclosed during discovery in a federal
lawsuit that Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry and Missouri
Attorney General Eric Schmitt filed in May, vividly illustrates how the
Biden administration engages in censorship by proxy, pressuring social
media platforms to implement speech restrictions that would be
flagrantly unconstitutional if the government tried to impose them
directly. Landry and Schmitt, both Republicans, argue that such pressure
violates the First Amendment.

"Having threatened and cajoled social-media platforms for years to
censor viewpoints and speakers disfavored by the Left," the lawsuit
says, "senior government officials in the Executive Branch have moved
into a phase of open collusion with social-media companies to suppress
disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content on social media platforms
under the Orwellian guise of halting so-called 'disinformation,'
'misinformation,' and 'malinformation.'…As a direct result of these
actions, there has been an unprecedented rise in censorship and
suppression of free speech—including core political speech—on
social-media platforms."

Landry and Schmitt reiterate that point in a "joint statement of
discovery disputes" they filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Louisiana. "Under the First Amendment, the
federal Government should have no role in policing private speech or
picking winners and losers in the marketplace of ideas," they say. "But
that is what federal officials are doing, on a massive scale—a scale
whose full scope and impact [are] yet to be determined."

So far, Schmitt reports, documents produced by the government in
response to a court order have identified 45 federal officials who
"communicate with social media platforms about 'misinformation' and
censorship." Schmitt and Landry think many other officials are involved
in "a vast 'Censorship Enterprise' across a multitude of federal
agencies," and they are seeking additional documents to confirm that
suspicion.

In response to inquiries, Landry and Schmitt say, "Facebook and
Instagram identified 32 federal officials, including eight current and
former White House officials," who have contacted them regarding
"misinformation and censorship of social-media content." YouTube
"identified 11 federal officials, including five current and former
White House officials," while Twitter "identified nine federal
officials, including at least one White House official."

Judging from the examples that Schmitt cites, the tenor of these
communications has been cordial and collaborative. The social media
companies are at pains to show that they share the government's goals,
which is precisely the problem. Given the broad powers that the federal
government has to make life difficult for these businesses through
public criticism, litigation, regulation, and legislation, the Biden
administration's "asks" for stricter moderation are tantamount to
commands. The administration expects obsequious compliance, and that is
what it gets.

Shortly after sending the July 16 email to Murthy, according to Landry
and Schmitt's joint statement, the same Meta executive sent the surgeon
general a text message. "It's not great to be accused of killing
people," he said, adding that he was "keen to find a way to deescalate
and work together collaboratively."

And so he did. "Thanks again for taking the time to meet earlier today,"
the Meta executive says in a July 23, 2021, email to Murthy. "I wanted
to make sure you saw the steps we took just this past week to adjust
policies on what we are removing with respect to misinformation, as well
as steps taken to further address the 'disinfo dozen.'" He brags that
Meta has removed objectionable pages, groups, and Instagram accounts;
taken steps to make several pages and profiles "more difficult to find
on our platform"; and "expanded the group of false claims that we remove
to keep up with recent trends."

Twitter also was eager to fall in line. "I'm looking forward to setting
up regular chats," says an April 8, 2021, message from Twitter to the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). "My team has asked for
examples of problematic content so we can examine trends. All examples
of misinformation are helpful, but in particular, if you have any
examples of fraud—such as fraudulent covid cures, fraudulent vaccine
cards, etc, that would be very helpful."

Twitter responded swiftly to the government's censorship suggestions.
"Thanks so much for this," a Twitter official says in an April 16, 2021,
email to the CDC. "We actioned (by labeling or removing) the Tweets in
violation of our Rules." The message, which is headed "Request for
problem accounts," is signed with "warmest" regards.

The government also got fast service from Instagram. In a July 20, 2021,
email, Clarke Humphrey, digital director for the White House COVID-19
Response Team, requests the deletion of an Instagram parody of Anthony
Fauci, Biden's top medical adviser. "Any way we can get this pulled
down?" Humphrey asks. "It is not actually one of ours." Less than a
minute later, he gets his answer: "Yep, on it!"

Twitter's desperation to please the Biden administration likewise went
beyond deleting specific messages. Landry and Schmitt note "internal
Twitter communications" indicating that senior White House officials
"specifically pressured Twitter to deplatform" anti-vaccine writer Alex
Berenson, "which Twitter did." In an April 16, 2021, email about a
"Twitter VaccineMisinfo Briefing" on Zoom, Deputy Assistant to the
President Rob Flaherty tells colleagues that Twitter will inform "White
House staff" about "the tangible effects seen from recent policy
changes, what interventions are currently being implemented in addition
to previous policy changes, and ways the White House (and our COVID
experts) can partner in product work."

Like Twitter, Facebook was thirsty for government guidance. In a July
28, 2021, email to the CDC headed "FB Misinformation Claims_Help
Debunking," a Facebook official says, "I have been talking about in
addition to our weekly meetings, doing a monthly disinfo/debunking
meeting, with maybe claim topics communicated a few days prior so that
you can bring in the matching experts and chat casually for 30 minutes
or so. Is that something you'd be interested in?" The CDC's response is
enthusiastic: "Yes, we would love to do that."

The communications uncovered so far mainly involved anti-vaccine
messages, many of which are verifiably false. But Americans have a First
Amendment right to express their opinions, no matter how misguided or
ill-informed. That does not mean social media platforms are obligated to
host those opinions. To the contrary, they have a First Amendment right
to exercise editorial discretion. But that's not what is really
happening when their decisions are shaped by implicit or explicit
threats from the government. Notwithstanding all the friendly words,
Facebook et al. have strong incentives to cooperate with a government
that otherwise might punish them in various ways.

Ostensibly, the Biden administration is merely asking social media
companies to enforce their own rules. But those rules are open to
interpretation, and the government is encouraging the companies to read
them more broadly than they otherwise might.

Maybe Twitter would have banished Alex Berenson even if White House
officials had not intervened, but maybe not. Multiply that question
across the myriad moderation decisions that social media platforms make
every day, and you have a situation where it is increasingly difficult
to tell whether they are exercising independent judgment or taking
orders from the government.

"Although a 'private entity is not ordinarily constrained by the First
Amendment,'" Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas noted in a 2021
concurrence, "it is if the government coerces or induces it to take
action the government itself would not be permitted to do, such as
censor expression of a lawful viewpoint….The government cannot
accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the
Constitution prohibits it from doing directly." That is the gist of the
argument that Landry and Schmitt are making in their lawsuit.

The danger posed by the Biden administration's creepy crusade against
"misinformation" is magnified by its broad definition of that concept,
which encompasses speech that the government deems "misleading," even
when it is arguably or demonstrably true. "Claims can be highly
misleading and harmful even if the science on an issue isn't yet
settled," Murthy says, and "what counts as misinformation can change
over time with new evidence and scientific consensus."

In other words, the "scientific consensus," however Murthy defines it,
can be wrong, as illustrated by the federal government's ever-evolving
advice about the utility of face masks in preventing COVID-19
transmission. The CDC initially dismissed the value of general masking,
then embraced it as "the most important, powerful public health tool we
have." More recently, it has conceded that commonly used cloth masks do
little, if anything, to stop coronavirus transmission.

"Twitter's 'COVID-19 misleading information policy,' as of December
2021, noted that Twitter will censor (label or remove) speech claiming
that 'face masks…do not work to reduce transmission or to protect
against COVID-19,'" Schmitt says. "Other platforms had similar policies.
Both Senator Rand Paul and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis were censored
by Youtube for questioning the efficacy of masks." Twitter even removed
a mask-skeptical tweet by Scott Atlas, a member of the Trump
administration's coronavirus task force. But "now," Schmitt says, "a
growing body of science shows that masks, especially cloth masks, are
ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, and can impose negative
impacts on children."

Landry and Schmitt's lawsuit also notes Twitter's blocking of the New
York Post's story about Hunter Biden's laptop, which was deemed
"disinformation" prior to the 2020 presidential election but turned out
to be accurate. Social media companies have made similarly questionable
decisions regarding discussion of the COVID-19 "lab leak" theory, which
remains contested but has not been disproven.

Even acting on their own, social media platforms are bound to make bad
calls. But when the government demands that they all hew to an
officially recognized "consensus," the threat to free inquiry and open
debate is far graver.

The only healthy way to stop the "misinformation" (aka lies) is to
choose instead to http://tinyurl.com/TrulyLove (John 15:12) our
neighbor.

Here was a conversation about the media in 1994.

Well I have to look that up for myself. I’m just going by what I
see/read in the news media.

– Darryl Hamilton

That’s an interesting approach, kind of like trying to determine the actual intelligence and character of Black people by watching “Birth of a Nation”….

– Christopher Charles Morton

Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry ( http://tinyurl.com/RapidOmicronTest
) and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.

So how are you ?

I am wonderfully hungry!


Michael

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.bible.prophecy, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.israel
XPost: alt.christnet.christianlife

Michael Ejercito wrote:

HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

Michael Ejercito wrote:

https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/x40ml2/these_emails_show_how_the_biden_administrations/


These Emails Show How the Biden Administration's Crusade Against
'Misinformation' Imposes Censorship by Proxy
Social media companies are eager to appease the government by
suppressing disfavored speech.
JACOB SULLUM | 9.1.2022 5:35 PM

Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on RedditShare by emailPrint
friendly versionCopy page URL
Surgeon General Vivek Murthy
Surgeon General Vivek Murthy (Ron Sachs/CNP/SplashNews/Newscom)
On July 16, 2021, the day that Joe Biden accused Facebook of "killing
people" by failing to suppress misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines, a >>> senior executive at the social media platform's parent company emailed
Surgeon General Vivek Murthy in an effort to assuage the president's
anger. "Reaching out after what has transpired over the past few days
following the publication of the misinformation advisory, and
culminating today in the President's remarks about us," the Meta
executive wrote. "I know our teams met today to better understand the
scope of what the White House expects from us on misinformation going
forward."

Murthy had just published an advisory in which he urged a
"whole-of-society" effort to combat the "urgent threat to public health" >>> posed by "health misinformation," possibly including "appropriate legal
and regulatory measures." Biden's homicide charge came the next day, and >>> Meta was keen to address the president's concerns by cracking down on
speech that offended him.

The email, which was recently disclosed during discovery in a federal
lawsuit that Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry and Missouri
Attorney General Eric Schmitt filed in May, vividly illustrates how the
Biden administration engages in censorship by proxy, pressuring social
media platforms to implement speech restrictions that would be
flagrantly unconstitutional if the government tried to impose them
directly. Landry and Schmitt, both Republicans, argue that such pressure >>> violates the First Amendment.

"Having threatened and cajoled social-media platforms for years to
censor viewpoints and speakers disfavored by the Left," the lawsuit
says, "senior government officials in the Executive Branch have moved
into a phase of open collusion with social-media companies to suppress
disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content on social media platforms
under the Orwellian guise of halting so-called 'disinformation,'
'misinformation,' and 'malinformation.'�As a direct result of these
actions, there has been an unprecedented rise in censorship and
suppression of free speech�including core political speech�on
social-media platforms."

Landry and Schmitt reiterate that point in a "joint statement of
discovery disputes" they filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Louisiana. "Under the First Amendment, the
federal Government should have no role in policing private speech or
picking winners and losers in the marketplace of ideas," they say. "But
that is what federal officials are doing, on a massive scale�a scale
whose full scope and impact [are] yet to be determined."

So far, Schmitt reports, documents produced by the government in
response to a court order have identified 45 federal officials who
"communicate with social media platforms about 'misinformation' and
censorship." Schmitt and Landry think many other officials are involved
in "a vast 'Censorship Enterprise' across a multitude of federal
agencies," and they are seeking additional documents to confirm that
suspicion.

In response to inquiries, Landry and Schmitt say, "Facebook and
Instagram identified 32 federal officials, including eight current and
former White House officials," who have contacted them regarding
"misinformation and censorship of social-media content." YouTube
"identified 11 federal officials, including five current and former
White House officials," while Twitter "identified nine federal
officials, including at least one White House official."

Judging from the examples that Schmitt cites, the tenor of these
communications has been cordial and collaborative. The social media
companies are at pains to show that they share the government's goals,
which is precisely the problem. Given the broad powers that the federal
government has to make life difficult for these businesses through
public criticism, litigation, regulation, and legislation, the Biden
administration's "asks" for stricter moderation are tantamount to
commands. The administration expects obsequious compliance, and that is
what it gets.

Shortly after sending the July 16 email to Murthy, according to Landry
and Schmitt's joint statement, the same Meta executive sent the surgeon
general a text message. "It's not great to be accused of killing
people," he said, adding that he was "keen to find a way to deescalate
and work together collaboratively."

And so he did. "Thanks again for taking the time to meet earlier today," >>> the Meta executive says in a July 23, 2021, email to Murthy. "I wanted
to make sure you saw the steps we took just this past week to adjust
policies on what we are removing with respect to misinformation, as well >>> as steps taken to further address the 'disinfo dozen.'" He brags that
Meta has removed objectionable pages, groups, and Instagram accounts;
taken steps to make several pages and profiles "more difficult to find
on our platform"; and "expanded the group of false claims that we remove >>> to keep up with recent trends."

Twitter also was eager to fall in line. "I'm looking forward to setting
up regular chats," says an April 8, 2021, message from Twitter to the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). "My team has asked for >>> examples of problematic content so we can examine trends. All examples
of misinformation are helpful, but in particular, if you have any
examples of fraud�such as fraudulent covid cures, fraudulent vaccine
cards, etc, that would be very helpful."

Twitter responded swiftly to the government's censorship suggestions.
"Thanks so much for this," a Twitter official says in an April 16, 2021, >>> email to the CDC. "We actioned (by labeling or removing) the Tweets in
violation of our Rules." The message, which is headed "Request for
problem accounts," is signed with "warmest" regards.

The government also got fast service from Instagram. In a July 20, 2021, >>> email, Clarke Humphrey, digital director for the White House COVID-19
Response Team, requests the deletion of an Instagram parody of Anthony
Fauci, Biden's top medical adviser. "Any way we can get this pulled
down?" Humphrey asks. "It is not actually one of ours." Less than a
minute later, he gets his answer: "Yep, on it!"

Twitter's desperation to please the Biden administration likewise went
beyond deleting specific messages. Landry and Schmitt note "internal
Twitter communications" indicating that senior White House officials
"specifically pressured Twitter to deplatform" anti-vaccine writer Alex
Berenson, "which Twitter did." In an April 16, 2021, email about a
"Twitter VaccineMisinfo Briefing" on Zoom, Deputy Assistant to the
President Rob Flaherty tells colleagues that Twitter will inform "White
House staff" about "the tangible effects seen from recent policy
changes, what interventions are currently being implemented in addition
to previous policy changes, and ways the White House (and our COVID
experts) can partner in product work."

Like Twitter, Facebook was thirsty for government guidance. In a July
28, 2021, email to the CDC headed "FB Misinformation Claims_Help
Debunking," a Facebook official says, "I have been talking about in
addition to our weekly meetings, doing a monthly disinfo/debunking
meeting, with maybe claim topics communicated a few days prior so that
you can bring in the matching experts and chat casually for 30 minutes
or so. Is that something you'd be interested in?" The CDC's response is
enthusiastic: "Yes, we would love to do that."

The communications uncovered so far mainly involved anti-vaccine
messages, many of which are verifiably false. But Americans have a First >>> Amendment right to express their opinions, no matter how misguided or
ill-informed. That does not mean social media platforms are obligated to >>> host those opinions. To the contrary, they have a First Amendment right
to exercise editorial discretion. But that's not what is really
happening when their decisions are shaped by implicit or explicit
threats from the government. Notwithstanding all the friendly words,
Facebook et al. have strong incentives to cooperate with a government
that otherwise might punish them in various ways.

Ostensibly, the Biden administration is merely asking social media
companies to enforce their own rules. But those rules are open to
interpretation, and the government is encouraging the companies to read
them more broadly than they otherwise might.

Maybe Twitter would have banished Alex Berenson even if White House
officials had not intervened, but maybe not. Multiply that question
across the myriad moderation decisions that social media platforms make
every day, and you have a situation where it is increasingly difficult
to tell whether they are exercising independent judgment or taking
orders from the government.

"Although a 'private entity is not ordinarily constrained by the First
Amendment,'" Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas noted in a 2021
concurrence, "it is if the government coerces or induces it to take
action the government itself would not be permitted to do, such as
censor expression of a lawful viewpoint�.The government cannot
accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the
Constitution prohibits it from doing directly." That is the gist of the
argument that Landry and Schmitt are making in their lawsuit.

The danger posed by the Biden administration's creepy crusade against
"misinformation" is magnified by its broad definition of that concept,
which encompasses speech that the government deems "misleading," even
when it is arguably or demonstrably true. "Claims can be highly
misleading and harmful even if the science on an issue isn't yet
settled," Murthy says, and "what counts as misinformation can change
over time with new evidence and scientific consensus."

In other words, the "scientific consensus," however Murthy defines it,
can be wrong, as illustrated by the federal government's ever-evolving
advice about the utility of face masks in preventing COVID-19
transmission. The CDC initially dismissed the value of general masking,
then embraced it as "the most important, powerful public health tool we
have." More recently, it has conceded that commonly used cloth masks do
little, if anything, to stop coronavirus transmission.

"Twitter's 'COVID-19 misleading information policy,' as of December
2021, noted that Twitter will censor (label or remove) speech claiming
that 'face masks�do not work to reduce transmission or to protect
against COVID-19,'" Schmitt says. "Other platforms had similar policies. >>> Both Senator Rand Paul and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis were censored
by Youtube for questioning the efficacy of masks." Twitter even removed
a mask-skeptical tweet by Scott Atlas, a member of the Trump
administration's coronavirus task force. But "now," Schmitt says, "a
growing body of science shows that masks, especially cloth masks, are
ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, and can impose negative
impacts on children."

Landry and Schmitt's lawsuit also notes Twitter's blocking of the New
York Post's story about Hunter Biden's laptop, which was deemed
"disinformation" prior to the 2020 presidential election but turned out
to be accurate. Social media companies have made similarly questionable
decisions regarding discussion of the COVID-19 "lab leak" theory, which
remains contested but has not been disproven.

Even acting on their own, social media platforms are bound to make bad
calls. But when the government demands that they all hew to an
officially recognized "consensus," the threat to free inquiry and open
debate is far graver.

The only healthy way to stop the "misinformation" (aka lies) is to
choose instead to http://tinyurl.com/TrulyLove (John 15:12) our
neighbor.

Here was a conversation about the media in 1994.

Well I have to look that up for myself. I�m just going by what I
see/read in the news media.

� Darryl Hamilton

That�s an interesting approach, kind of like trying to determine the actual >intelligence and character of Black people by watching �Birth of a Nation��.

� Christopher Charles Morton

Again, the only healthy way to stop the "misinformation" (aka lies) is
to choose instead to http://tinyurl.com/TrulyLove (John 15:12) our
neighbor (instead of arguing with them).

Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry ( http://tinyurl.com/RapidOmicronTest
) and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.

So how are you ?

I am wonderfully hungry!

While wonderfully hungry in the Holy Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy
8:3) us to hunger, I note that you, Michael, are rapture ready (Luke
17:37 means no COVID just as eagles circling over food don't have
COVID) and pray (2 Chronicles 7:14) that our Everlasting (Isaiah 9:6)
Father in Heaven continues to give us "much more" (Luke 11:13) Holy
Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) so that we'd have much more of His Help to
always say/write that we're "wonderfully hungry" in **all** ways
including especially caring to http://tinyurl.com/ConvinceItForward
(John 15:12 as shown by http://tinyurl.com/RapidOmicronTest ) with all
glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD (aka HaShem, Elohim, Abba,
DEO), in the name (John 16:23) of LORD Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Amen.

Laus DEO !

Suggested further reading: https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/5EWtT4CwCOg/m/QjNF57xRBAAJ

Shorter link:
http://bit.ly/StatCOVID-19Test

Be hungrier, which really is wonderfully healthier especially for
diabetics and other heart disease patients:

http://bit.ly/HeartDocAndrew touts hunger (Luke 6:21a) with all glory
( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD, Who causes us to hunger
(Deuteronomy 8:3) when He blesses us right now (Luke 6:21a) thereby
removing the http://tinyurl.com/HeartVAT from around the heart

...because we mindfully choose to openly care with our heart,

HeartDoc Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Cardiologist with an http://bit.ly/EternalMedicalLicense
2024 & upwards non-partisan candidate for U.S. President: http://WonderfullyHungry.org
and author of the 2PD-OMER Approach:
http://bit.ly/HeartDocAndrewCare
which is the only **healthy** cure for the U.S. healthcare crisis

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)