Is the 6th floor museum losing its touch?

[Louis Earl]

I've been to the museum 4x.  Each visit I spend some time just sitting there and trying to imaging what it was like that day.  Imagine (if you want) Oswald firing from the window, running with his rifle across the expanse of the 6th floor, dropping the rifle and going down the stairs.  I know, maybe that's all fiction but it's an incredible exercise to imagine what it would have looked like.

My only real complaint is the jewelry store exhibit of LHO's wedding band.  I don't know why that is there. 

I would like a red line in the floor showing the path he "might" have taken from the window to the elevator.  But that's just me.

[Charles Collins]

I've been to the museum 4x.  Each visit I spend some time just sitting there and trying to imaging what it was like that day.  Imagine (if you want) Oswald firing from the window, running with his rifle across the expanse of the 6th floor, dropping the rifle and going down the stairs.  I know, maybe that's all fiction but it's an incredible exercise to imagine what it would have looked like.

My only real complaint is the jewelry store exhibit of LHO's wedding band.  I don't know why that is there. 

I would like a red line in the floor showing the path he "might" have taken from the window to the elevator.  But that's just me.

My only real complaint is the jewelry store exhibit of LHO's wedding band.  I don't know why that is there. 

Maybe Marina didn’t want it anymore...

Just making a bad joke. Couldn’t help it...

[Jerry Freeman]

Oswald was the assassin of JFK.  The facts and evidence prove this beyond any doubt. 

"Doubt" huh?-----Then why do you keep feeling compelled to remove it?  [which you haven't even remotely]
                                       

[Andrew Mason]

"Doubt" huh?-----Then why do you keep feeling compelled to remove it?  [which you haven't even remotely]
                                       

Because it is so easy to do. 

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Oswald was the assassin of JFK.  The facts and evidence prove this beyond any doubt.  We are 50 plus years down the road and there is no credible evidence of the involvement of any other person.  At best CTers now nitpick the evidence against Oswald or attempt to apply an impossible standard of proof to imply false doubt.  It is weak sauce.  Just because these are vocal nuts doesn't mean that the 6th floor should entertain their baseless fantasy or be neutral about Oswald's guilt.  He is not the "alleged" assassin of JFK anymore that John Wilkes Booth is the "alleged" assassin of Lincoln.

Your problem - and ours - is that most Americans disagree with this (our) view about the assassination. The 6th floor museum just can't ignore this fact. We can lament it, curse it, scream about it but that doesn't make it go away. They need to consider this fact and include it in their exhibits.

There's an increasing desire in the US at this time to suppress dissenting views. We see it all around as mostly the liberal/left is joining up with corporations to stifle views they don't like. And we know about academia. I don't like some of these views either - e.g., the election wasn't stolen from Trump and Trump didn't steal the election in 2016 - but the answer to bad speech is indeed more speech. The alternatives simply don't work.

As with the 6th Floor Museum, the response to conspiracy theories is not to ignore them but answer them with more speech. After all, isn't that what we're trying to do here? I used to be a conspiracy believer (the single bullet explanation didn't make sense but I was misled) and over time changed my mind. I can't point to an article or a book that did this; but it's clear that the more "speech" on the assassination I was exposed to made me change my mind. That's how it works.

[Andrew Mason]

There's an increasing desire in the US at this time to suppress dissenting views. We see it all around as mostly the liberal/left is joining up with corporations to stifle views they don't like. And we know about academia. I don't like some of these views either - e.g., the election wasn't stolen from Trump and Trump didn't steal the election in 2016 - but the answer to bad speech is indeed more speech. The alternatives simply don't work.

I don't see social media trying to stifle views they don't like. They are trying not to participate in disseminating false statements of fact that are harmful to the public.  Before the internet that was done by news organizations.  It was done voluntarily, and in most  cases, with few notable exceptions, continues.  It is done for a variety of reasons, such as not wanting to alienate one's customers or wanting to avoid legal liability.

With the internet, Congress in its wisdom exempted internet site owners from liability for third-party content, including defamatory content.  But internet site owners can still be legally liable for harm caused by information disseminated on their sites that they know about, and which a reasonable person would conclude could cause harm to members of the public or the public at large, in countries other than the U.S.  And they still have a business interest in not being party to disseminating material that is harmful to the public.  They are not doing anything that legitimate news organizations do not already do.  U.S. law (also recognized in the USMCA trade agreement) protects them from liability for removing third-party content that the site owner considers harmful to the public interest.

[Richard Smith]

I don't see social media trying to stifle views they don't like. They are trying not to participate in disseminating false statements of fact that are harmful to the public.  Before the internet that was done by news organizations.  It was done voluntarily, and in most  cases, with few notable exceptions, continues.  It is done for a variety of reasons, such as not wanting to alienate one's customers or wanting to avoid legal liability.

With the internet, Congress in its wisdom exempted internet site owners from liability for third-party content, including defamatory content.  But internet site owners can still be legal liable for harm caused by information disseminated on their sites that they know about, and which a reasonable person would conclude could cause harm to members of the public or the public at large, in countries other than the U.S.  And they still have a business interest in not being party to disseminating material that is harmful to the public.  They are not doing anything that legitimate news organizations do not already do.  U.S. law (also recognized in the USMCA trade agreement) protects them from liability from removing third-party content that the site owner considers harmful to the public interest.

The problem is that what is "true" or "false" in a political context is often in the eye of the beholder.  And it is clear that social media platforms are run by folks that are biased in their views against conservatives.  The suppression of the Hunter Biden story is a classic example.  There was censorship of that story that would have made Big Brother blush.  If these social media platforms are going to decide what is permissible to be discussed, then they are no longer just platforms but publishers that should be subject to the same rules as everyone else.  There was a time when liberals were at the forefront in the fight against censorship.  Sadly that day has passed.  Now they are advocates not only for censorship of stories that they do not like for political reasons but actually want to destroy the lives and careers who anyone who voices an opinion that they do not share.  A Stalinist-like approach with the full cooperation of social media and the mainstream media.  It is a very frightening time for free speech advocates.

[Andrew Mason]

The problem is that what is "true" or "false" in a political context is often in the eye of the beholder.  And it is clear that social media platforms are run by folks that are biased in their views against conservatives.  The suppression of the Hunter Biden story is a classic example.  There was censorship of that story that would have made Big Brother blush.

I hate to break it to you Richard but Fox News does not always present the truth. The reason responsible news media is not covering the Hunter Biden story is because there is no story and there may never be one.  It is not censorship.  You are talking like a CT.

The state must not engage in fishing expeditions to see if it can dig up evidence against a person that someone suspects did something wrong.  They may do that in Russia.  If the FBI receives a specific complaint with evidence that Hunter Biden did something illegal, the FBI will decide whether the complain merits serious investigation. If it does, it will investigate and if sufficient evidence is found charges will be laid.  Responsible news organizations don't talk about FBI investigations until a charge is laid.

If these social media platforms are going to decide what is permissible to be discussed, then they are no longer just platforms but publishers that should be subject to the same rules as everyone else.  There was a time when liberals were at the forefront in the fight against censorship.  Sadly that day has passed.  Now they are advocates not only for censorship of stories that they do not like for political reasons but actually want to destroy the lives and careers who anyone who voices an opinion that they do not share.  A Stalinist-like approach with the full cooperation of social media and the mainstream media.  It is a very frightening time for free speech advocates.

You have it backwards.  A free but responsible public media is an essential component of democracy.  Otherwise, media platforms become instruments of propaganda.  This is why Congress was all over Facebook and other social media platforms for not policing their data and allowing their platforms to be used for promulgating Russian hoaxes.  Congress was hinting that in return for Safe Harbour laws given to internet service providers the public is expecting some level of control over abuse.  What is wrong with holding mass social media platforms to a minimal level of responsible journalism?  Or do you think that the internet equivalent of screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre should be protected free speech?