- #1
- 195
- 2
Yes, the wacky inkers of the elite Ashcroft Redaction Force are http://www.thememoryhole.org/feds/justice_redaction.htm to save you, the American public, from those masters of subversion: the U.S. Supreme Court.
Justice Dept censors a Supreme Court decision?
- Context: News
- Thread starter plover
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Decision
Click For Summary
Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the censorship of a Supreme Court decision by the Justice Department, with references to the website "The Memory Hole" and its implications. Participants explore the credibility of sources and the nature of the claims being made, with a focus on the reactions to the information presented.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested, Meta-discussion
Main Points Raised
- One participant expresses skepticism about the Justice Department's actions, referring to the "Ashcroft Redaction Force" as overly protective of the public from the Supreme Court.
- Another participant acknowledges a shared interest in the work of Russ Kick, suggesting a connection to the topic's credibility.
- A question is raised about the legitimacy of the term "ludicrosity," indicating a playful engagement with language in the context of the discussion.
- Concerns are voiced about the reliability of "The Memory Hole" as a source, with one participant pointing out that a complete court document was not linked.
- There is a challenge regarding the reading comprehension of another participant, suggesting that responses may not fully engage with the material presented.
- A participant clarifies that "ludicrosity" was a coined term to describe the situation, indicating a subjective interpretation of events.
- Another participant speculates on the motivations behind dismissing "The Memory Hole," suggesting that it may stem from a lack of familiarity with the site or its perceived bias.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants exhibit disagreement regarding the credibility of "The Memory Hole" and the interpretation of the Justice Department's actions. There is no consensus on the validity of the claims made or the reliability of the sources cited.
Contextual Notes
Limitations include the lack of direct evidence or links to the complete court document, as well as varying interpretations of the term "ludicrosity." The discussion reflects differing levels of familiarity with the sources mentioned.
Who May Find This Useful
Readers interested in legal discourse, media credibility, and the implications of government censorship may find this discussion relevant.
- #2
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 7,213
- 25
Aha ! I see another fan of Russ Kick ! 
- #3
Dissident Dan
- 244
- 1
Is ludicrosity a word?
- #4
JohnDubYa
- 468
- 1
If the Memory Hole says it...
- #5
- 195
- 2
Missed the link to the complete court document dincha?JohnDubYa said:
This makes how many times you've responded to my posts in ways that indicate you didn't read the material all the way through? I should start keeping count...
- #6
Dissident Dan
- 244
- 1
JohnDubYa said:
That word did not appear in the link. I just made it up to describe the situation.
- #7
- 195
- 2
I suppose JohnDubYa could have been responding to your post. From my experience with him, I thought it more likely that either never having heard of the site, or aware of their slant, he was dismissing the Memory Hole as a source.Dissident Dan said: