Who decides? Both require forms of intent. What if the intent of the information is wrongly labeled disinformation? What if the information is later found to be true that was earlier labeled disinformation for purposes of state or corporate propaganda as a way to smear the disseminator. The government working with big tech like Facebook, Google and Twitter to censor information violates the 1st amendment. Governments, including ours, are the greatest disseminators of disinformation. Are they the ones to trust to regulate it? I appreciate your illustration, and it stands alone as wonderful. I'd be curious to know if in regard to the intent of your editorial art you think speech should be regulated somehow or as just a comment on the vast amount of shit people peddle on the internet.
Everything you said has been debunked. It is false. How many Trump judges rejected those claims in courtrooms? Do you know? No wonder this cartoon touched a nerve. Please don't respond without info. Not disinfo.
Who decides? Both require forms of intent. What if the intent of the information is wrongly labeled disinformation? What if the information is later found to be true that was earlier labeled disinformation for purposes of state or corporate propaganda as a way to smear the disseminator. The government working with big tech like Facebook, Google and Twitter to censor information violates the 1st amendment. Governments, including ours, are the greatest disseminators of disinformation. Are they the ones to trust to regulate it? I appreciate your illustration, and it stands alone as wonderful. I'd be curious to know if in regard to the intent of your editorial art you think speech should be regulated somehow or as just a comment on the vast amount of shit people peddle on the internet.
Everything you said has been debunked. It is false. How many Trump judges rejected those claims in courtrooms? Do you know? No wonder this cartoon touched a nerve. Please don't respond without info. Not disinfo.