First Century Record of Jesus by a non-Christian?

[Sparko]

The satire lies in the readiness of some Christians to uncritically endorse whatever supports their beliefs, regardless of accuracy. As tabibito has demonstrated! And your censorship instincts are noted.

Mr. "That's Fake News!" is now defending fake news because it is fooling Christians. Noted.

[One Bad Pig]

Same as the bible then?

Apparently this doesn't get old.

Apparently you're a dork.

[Sparko]

Maybe if you think consumer protection laws that ban misleading advertising constitute censorship as well.

He has countless posts complaining about Fox News and Breitbart being fake news and should be stopped, but when it fools Christians, then wanting it shut down is "censorship" and he defends it.

[One Bad Pig]

He has countless posts complaining about Fox News and Breitbart being fake news and should be stopped, but when it fools Christians, then wanting it shut down is "censorship" and he defends it.

You should know by now that Tassman has no shame.

[Sparko]

You should know by now that Tassman has no shame.

You mean he has no honor. He is a hypocrite.

[Doug Shaver]

But is having the freedom to speak lies desirable or undesirable?

Undesirable. But even more undesirable is a government empowered to decide what is and is not a lie.

[KingsGambit]

Consumer protection laws are to safeguard the public from exploitation and therefore desirable, whereas censorship is the suppression of speech and public communication and therefore undesirable.

And fake news sites like that do just that by exploiting the gullible public into getting clicks and earning advertising revenue. Likewise, if the government stops a company from making misleading claims in advertising, this is technically the suppression of speech, but most of us are okay with that.

[Tassman]

And fake news sites like that do just that by exploiting the gullible public into getting clicks and earning advertising revenue. Likewise, if the government stops a company from making misleading claims in advertising, this is technically the suppression of speech, but most of us are okay with that.

No, it's the difference between protecting the public from shysters and allowing the public the freedom to express opinions

[Tassman]

But is having the freedom to speak lies desirable or undesirable?.

Obviously undesirable, but preferable to censorship. Censorship endangers free speech just as Trump, with all his "Fake News" crap, is attempting to do by discrediting the free press. We can see from the more moronic posts by Trump supporters around here just how dangerously effective that can be.

[Starlight]

Undesirable. But even more undesirable is a government empowered to decide what is and is not a lie.

What if it's an independent judiciary deciding what is and isn't lies, rather than the government?

[Sparko]

Consumer protection laws are to safeguard the public from exploitation and therefore desirable, whereas censorship is the suppression of speech and public communication and therefore undesirable.

so you have no problem with Breitbart and Fox News then, which you always complain are fake news.

[tabibito]

Obviously undesirable, but preferable to censorship. Censorship endangers free speech just as Trump, with all his "Fake News" crap, is attempting to do by discrediting the free press..

Meh - the press doesn't need the help.

[One Bad Pig]

What if it's an independent judiciary deciding what is and isn't lies, rather than the government?

Federal judges are generally lawyers nominated by politicians. Independent?

[KingsGambit]

No, it's the difference between protecting the public from shysters and allowing the public the freedom to express opinions

Trying to pass off blatant falsehoods as fact is not "expressing an opinion".

[Tassman]

Trying to pass off blatant falsehoods as fact is not "expressing an opinion".