PLEASE NOTE:
Lest I be considered an insurrectionist or a domestic terrorist, in this post and succeeding posts, I do not intend to run afoul of those in charge of "truth and accuracy," this is the era of crimes against the state.
Nonetheless, I am asking questions until I am told I am not allowed to ask any questions, however, currently there is no official source to query re whether a question is approved by a "reality/truth committee."
It is my understanding that the host of this blog, Google, has announced a ban on YouTube for speech that would create a "conflict." I am not certain about what Google feels is not in the best interest of their policy and the public policy, however, I do hope that Google launches a "badge" program to show that published Blogspot posts have been approved, then like a Good Housekeeping Seal I can proudly display it.
Does the word, PRIVACY, have a certain connotation?
I copied this from the list offered by Google when I put the word "privacy" into the search slot:
"Privacy is the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves or information about themselves, and thereby express themselves selectively. ... The domain of privacy partially overlaps with security, which can include the concepts of appropriate use, as well as protection of information."
And in the case of a candidate for office, here is a published opinion by a scholar in a prestigious public law college:
"CANDIDATE PRIVACY Rebecca Green*Abstract: In the United States, we have long accepted that candidates for public office who have voluntarily stepped into the public eye sacrifice claims to privacy. This refrain is rooted deep within the American enterprise, emanating from the Framers' concept of the informed citizen as a bedrock of democracy. Voters must have full information about candidates to make their choices at the ballot box. Even as privacy rights for ordinary citizens have expanded privacy theorists and courts continue to exempt candidates from privacy protections. This Article suggests that two disruptions warrant revisiting the privacy interests of candidates. The first is a changing information architecture brought on by the rise of the internet and digital media that drastically alters how information about candidates is collected and circulated. The second is a shift in who runs for office. As women and minorities-targets of the worst forms of harassment-increasingly throw their hats in the ring, this Article argues that competing democratic values should challenge previous assumptions about candidate privacy. Far from suggesting easy answers, this Article offers a framework for courts to weigh candidate privacy interests in a more nuanced way, drawing on vetting principles for aspirants to other positions of public trust. While there are good reasons candidates should have far less privacy than ordinary citizens, the reflexive denial of candidate privacy must have its limits if we care about nourishing our evolving democracy..."
I leave my readers with some questions:
· Do specific words used by approved media in headlines define what we think?
· Can "approved major media sources" use specifically targeted words in headlines and repeated in articles from an "official government source" to influence our thoughts?
· Does the government of our country have the right to refuse to acknowledge an observable fact, that the leader of the free world lacks the mental fitness to hold the office he has been allowed to occupy by the entire establishments of both American political parties/corporations/business leaders, and upon pain of being held in jail for insurrection mandate that everyone with a social platform and the ability to hold a news conference say nothing about what is an observable fact?
· Does the American public have the right to know if the man who holds the highest office in the world knows what he is signing when he is given a sheaf of papers that his handler puts in front of him?
No comments:
Post a Comment