It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Officials attack Websites spreading alternate info on shooting: Is ATS in the crosshairs?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:00 PM
Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere... There is so much info on the Connecticut shooting right now that I hesitate to add yet another thread. But I think this is a very important matter as it potentially impacts ATS and its users.

In the video above, the policeman blasts "social media websites" (a vague and confusing term if ever there was one) spreading what he considers "disinformation" on the topic of the shooting. He states that the official story must come from the police and theatens prosecution of those spreading what he considers disinformation.

It is not clear what he means by this, but it seems to me it could be interpreted to include sites like ATS and any speculation deemed unorthodox by the authorities.

A paranoid mind might even wonder if the shooting will be used as a pretext for clamping down on Internet freedom...After all who decides what is "disinformation" and what is speculation? Are we no longer allowed to question the official story? Keep a close eye on this.

edit on 12/16/2012 by silent thunder because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:04 PM
reply to post by silent thunder

why is this thread posted 3 times now....isn't once enough....


posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:06 PM
reply to post by Destinyone

Sorry about that... My smartphone seized up on me while I was posting this. The other two threads should be closed, this one is the real deal.

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:06 PM
Well, this is a Lieutenant and spokesperson for a state patrol. he really has no authority, nor does the Connecticut State Patrol, to limit freedom of expression. He's expressing a sentiment, surely, but bumped up the chain of command his own rant would go nowhere.

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:06 PM
I'm sorry, but did he just say they would Federally charge people for misinformation??

Are they really using this event as a double-edged sword, AND swinging it around at everyone??

Who determines what is misinformation or what is simply bad reporting?

Will the Media organizations be the ones to bear the brunt of this since they were the ones to report the misinfo first?

Or is this just an excuse to attack everyone else now?

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:06 PM
I think there's a difference between speculation and misinformation.

What I've seen here is speculative. It's developing theories that explain the situation. Is something that's common after an event like this. ATS is more about the conspiracy behind things, but its still speculative.

The misinformation he was talking about seems to be people actively presenting false information as the truth. There's no speculative value in this at all, it's purely meant to mislead people.

Right now ATS may be n the radar, but I doubt it's the prime target.

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:08 PM
Figured I'd post to this thread so that it moves up on the recent posts. I've done the same myself. The most frustrating thing when it happens is when numbskulls post to the obviously erroneous one.

Now to watch the statement. I'm pretty sure there isn't too much they can prosecute unless someone is saying something that is either threatening or meant to induce a panic.

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:10 PM
reply to post by silent thunder

Well, it will be interesting, at least, to see how the state of Connecticut plans to prosecute the crime of free speech. This could be a game-changer....

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:12 PM
Wow, not sure what to think, makes ya wonder
thats for sure.

I cant see it being ATS since its all speculation,
and information they gathered online, not like anyone
is digging up secret notes or info.

It would be very sad if he was referring to us,
it would be a battle of free speech thats for

Although with our govt, that is probably limited as well...

So in other words, we cant make things up that are not real,
the govt has that covered *lol*
edit on 16-12-2012 by severdsoul because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:13 PM
So free speech is in jeopardy IMO.. So quick fix is to add IMO IMHO in every thread and reply.

Websites are international and have people all over the World discussing.. they can´t judge inviduals all over the World IMO

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:15 PM
Jeesh considering the contradictory things I've been seeing and reading in the msm maybe they need to start looking at how journalist are writing premature stories. First the guy used two handguns and left the rifle in his vehicle, to another story in a main stream newspaper claiming the guy had two rifles. Someone is getting sloppy.

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:15 PM
So now a cop decides what is free speech and what the official story is going to be? Nice way to attempt being the ONLY story and not to have it questioned. How convenient.

I see a bloated ego from way over here.

Power Trip at its finest.

By the way officer...I'm in Canada. Come and get me.


edit on 16-12-2012 by jude11 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:17 PM
reply to post by hangedman13

The worst thing was accusing his brother. I feel so sorry for that young man. One can only imagine the horror he is experiencing. I've yet to see any form of apology issued.

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:23 PM
I happened to turn it over to CNN and they were talking about this. As a journalist, when i first heard it, i too was WTF, what exactly do they plan on doing, and what *can* they legally do? Not a whole lot without infringing on certain basic rights of free speech, unless, god help us, they can get the courts to redefine what is acceptable speech.

There was also a law professor from Harvard, or somewhere else (i forget exactly), who basically said the same thing: Unless these people are purposefully spreading misinformation to impede the investigation, intentionally trying to cause panic or unrest, inciting violence, threatening to do something similar, or perhaps even using the identity of someone else to spread this (mis)information, there is not whole lot they *can* do, legally.

Then again, we do not know what exactly they are talking about, what information or misinformation, where it is being posted, for what purpose, etc.

On our part, it's purely speculation, but i do actually have pretty strong faith in the courts regarding free speech, but this incident *could* begin a slow shift in what is permitted and acceptable speech.

edit on 16-12-2012 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:30 PM
Look folks, the facts are what we say they are.
Don't go thinking for yourselves. You aren't authorized.

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:31 PM
Well.... When Captain America there can cite code and section to these State and Federal Laws broken by "Disinformation", I might consider him something other than my entertainment for power trippers gone wild. Until then? Well..... He's made himself a laughing stalk by basically implying some wrong doing by people speculating out of ignorance.

Stupidity isn't a crime......It's just called being American. He's living proof of it himself and he can even quote me.

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:37 PM
reply to post by silent thunder

gimme a break
what's the source of "misinfo"/conflicting and changing details regarding this case?

that's right officer blowhard & co.

TRANSLATION: "stop posting all our mistakes/f-ups and the conflicting and changing details regarding this case
we are giving out, WAIT UNTIL WE"VE GOT OUR OFFICIAL STORY IRONED OUT and then, you can parrot it"

reminds me of cops that don't like being filmed by civilians, unless it's the news, of course.

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:40 PM
ahhh the local cops are just jelous
ATS crew is cracking the info before
they are...

who'd a thunk to actually look and read...

pass the doughnut....

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:42 PM

Originally posted by silent thunder
He states that the official story must come from the police and theatens prosecution of those spreading what he considers disinformation.

So are they going to prosecute CNN et all for spreading word that Ryan Lanza was the shooter?

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:43 PM
Reminds me of Bush saying how we shouldn't tolerate conspiracy theories about 9/11. It's just a way for them to try and control people's thoughts.

edit on 16-12-2012 by CudiTheKid because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in