> that they've been indoctrinated to accept without questioning.
Which is made easier when governments define and outlaw "fake" news. What separated us from totalitarian governments in the 20th century was we protected speech while hitler/stalin/mao/etc outlawed "fake news".
Do you really want Trump or Obama or Hillary or George Bush to have the power to limit speech? Do you really want either the republican or democratic party to define and outlaw "fake news"? Do you want corporate interests to ban "fake news"? Oil companies bribing politicians to label climate change as fake news? Drug companies bribing politicians to label the drug epidemic as fake news? I certainly don't.
> As Theo van Gogh said: a tolerant society can not be tolertant towards the intolerant.
And who, exactly, are these intolerant? Nazis? Communists? Black lives matter? All lives matter? NRA? PETA? Feminists? James Damore? Abolitionists? Abortionists?
No. It was called an election. Hitler and the nazis were banned in germany for a while. So banning "fake news" didn't keep hitler from power.
> The fake news Hitler banned was the “fake” according to the same standard as Trump: news he didn’t like.
That's the point. Do you want trump to be allowed to ban news he doesn't like? I don't. And what turn hitler from an elected official to a dictator was the german governments ability to ban "fake news". If hitler never had the ability to ban "fake news", then he would never have been able to cause the destruction he did because people would have been allowed to challenge, criticize and intellectually attack him.
> This issue is not as cut and dry as you think.
It is cut and dry. It's the foundational principle of all free society. It's why we never had a hitler, stalin or mao in the US and it's why we never will as long as free speech is guarded. Free speech is the only antidote to totalitarianism.
> a tolerant society can not be tolertant towards the intolerant.
That's an absurd contradictory logic fallacy. Think about it logically. If you are intolerant of the intolerant then you are the intolerant. Also, the US has 250 years track record debunking that logical fallacy. Besides, that's exactly what hitler said. That's exactly what stalin said. That's mao said. It's what all totalitarians say to justify stifling speech.
Which is made easier when governments define and outlaw "fake" news. What separated us from totalitarian governments in the 20th century was we protected speech while hitler/stalin/mao/etc outlawed "fake news".
Do you really want Trump or Obama or Hillary or George Bush to have the power to limit speech? Do you really want either the republican or democratic party to define and outlaw "fake news"? Do you want corporate interests to ban "fake news"? Oil companies bribing politicians to label climate change as fake news? Drug companies bribing politicians to label the drug epidemic as fake news? I certainly don't.