Anytime there is a factual dispute, the Department of Information would render a decision on what the facts are. Those parties who come out on the short end of those decisions would not be allowed to use their "facts" any longer (just like having potentially dangerous drugs or products taken off the shelf). If they do, there would be fines levied to punish the transgressors. This system would not only make clear what the facts are and empower those who want the facts to be known, but it would also discredit the lunatic fringe and reduce the influence of their views on the majority of people.And we all know how fair, impartial, unbiased and politically unmotivated government "facts" can be...
Just like socialists (national and scientific) and elitists throughout history, the author sees the free flow of information as dangerous. We are just too stupid to decide for ourselves - especially when we don't decide the way the author and his elitist friends want. For our own good, information must controlled by government, and distribution limited to a single set of "facts". Just like in those other freedom loving places - North Korea, Iran, Cuba, the old Soviet Union, China, Nazi Germany, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Fascist Italy, and sometimes Canada.
Hattip: Maggie's Farm.
2 comments:
You can always sue for libel. But of course if you do, you run the risk of paying for the farce up front. And you run the risk of having your case being heard by a jury of your peers.
I reckon in San Francisco there are still those who regret no longer being able to tattle to teacher about all the mean things little Sarah said about them.
I think the persons best able to comment on the merits of this idea are Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant. They know all about dealing with Minitru, err Human Rights Commissions, err Departments of Information.
Did this guy even read Orwell, ever?
I think Orwell would be one of the "facts" this guy would want declared out of bounds. And Payne, and Hayak, and Locke, and Adam Smith, and...
Post a Comment