Trump promises to remove Freedom of the Press from the Constitution
- Thread starter The Tradition
- Start date
"Vote for me...I'll set you free!"
a line from "Psychedelic Shack", THe Temptations.......circa 1969
So it would be a bad thing to have real journalism? Liberals lie every time they open their mouths.
It would be one thing to sue a newspaper for printing a knowingly false "news" story that maliciously harms a politician (e.g., "Trump found with teenaged boy in bed!") but in the realm of opinion and editorial cartoons, nothing should be off limits.
If you believe that, than you are as lost as the Trump supporters.
Last edited:
Do you feel Fox does a good job showing a distinction between their opinion and their News?
Yes. It's quite clear when they're doing "news" segments and "people yelling" segments.
They publish whatever they want and most don't give a crap how much of it is the truth. I'm for 1st Amendment rights but geez they cross the damn line way too often.
The only think I disagree with is that he's a buffoon, as I don't think he is. I actually think he's extremely smart in a sick way very few are. However, I spent a good bit of time watching CNN this morning, and was just amazed, particularly considering there was a Democratic primary today....
My viewing experience:
1. A show called "smerconish" paraded anti-Trump folks out for interviews, beginning with a Harvard Professor urging democrats to change parties and vote for Marco Rubio in order to stop Trump, then a couple others. The crazy thing is, even though they all made fairly valid points, they came across as total douchebags, and really only hurt themselves...
2. They went to a split screen of Marco Rubio stumping in Georgia, and the other half showing trumps plane approaching in Arkansas. The sound was fixed to the loud music playing at Trump's reception rally at the airport, with the anchors talking about Trump, so Rubio was speaking live on screen, but you couldn't hear a word he said, it was all Trump.
3. When Trump, and Chris Christie started speaking, they aired it for about 40 minutes, live.
All of this was happening as I played with my sons and had this on in the room, but I just can't believe how the media sticks with him, and how somehow, even when they're trying to attack him, it makes the attackers look like whining losers. It's unlike anything I've ever seen, and I think the only way to knock him off before the General election is for Cruz or Rubio to quit ASAP.
My primary (VA, Open) is Tuesday, and right now, it looks like I'll be voting Kasich, unless I go Hillary at the last minute (but I think she's safe), I have to choose either D or R, can't vote both. I've been vocal on this board in by belief that Bernie and Trump are the two most dangerous by far.
Freedom of Speech is absolute. There's no "line" to cross. Telling lies and falsehoods with malicious intent has it's consequences. You NEVER compromise, or draw a line, or censor speech and ideas.
Like Orwell said "If Liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they don't want to hear."
That is often tough to prove and more often than not courts protect them. It is the veiled implications and the innuendos all geared towards the indoctrination of a public who they view as "suckers". They suffer few if any consequences...Brian Williams is still working and the frauds who wrote the UVA libel still have their jobs. I'm with Trump on this one...
This was your post. "Dismantled". What ridiculously pointless hyperbole, especially when you apparently don't believe it to be true.
And once again you've just demonstrated your cognitive limitations.
It seems like every one of your posts is completely moronic. It must be difficult to be so consistently stupid. One would think that by sheer law of averages you'd post something reasonable.
Kudos for such a streak of ineptitude.
OK, call me stupid or uninformed here, but I think this indicated Trump does not understand the law. For one, I believe you can sue now and there have been lawsuits against media that have been won. I know the National Enquirer has lost suits and I'm certain there have been many suits against other legit publications.
Am I not correct that if you say (write) something with malice or intended defamation a person can sue? Of course your lawyer will ask what damages you have incurred. (Which may or may not be relevant.)
I don't think The Donald will find anything that can be changed.
What did I miss?
Am I not correct that if you say (write) something with malice or intended defamation a person can sue? Of course your lawyer will ask what damages you have incurred. (Which may or may not be relevant.)
I don't think The Donald will find anything that can be changed.
What did I miss?
What he said is that he's going to expand the definition of unlawful libel and make it easier to sue newspapers and win.
Yes, but what I'm saying is there's nothing to expand. At least from the Executive Branch. The Courts have been defining this since 1776 and each case is independent of the others. Defamation, malice, and intent are the defining factors.
And the bar is extremely high for politicians and public officials. However, if he's president, he gets to nominate judges that would look more favorably on Trump's point of view on this.
Look, Trump is one of America's most litigious citizens. His view of the law isn't even close to most of ours and I would question that his view is honorable in most of our views. He uses the law suits to bully and get his way.
I'm not a lawyer but I have way more experience than the average guy. I don't think any judge at a high level is going to ignore the law at the direction of a politician. You can call me crazy, but I don' think it's that simple.
Yea, I know and I was thinking that as I typed. But if you will, Roberts really turned and bit his owner in the hand so to speak. Which in my mind validates my point.
When we all know it should have been upheld for its legitimate regulation of interstate commerce.
Didn't follow you on that Tipper. Can you expound? You're saying Obummercare was the right thing due to interstate commerce?
The individual mandate is about as far from interstate commerce as you can get, because you can't buy an insurance policy across state lines.
The precedent set here is that Congress can now impose a tax penalty for the failure to purchase something. So, Congress forces you to engage in commerce or be penalized. Welcome to the anti-America.
The only people who think that are a small number of those who like their bias. Most of those who like their bias aren't aware of the bleed through - which is abundant.
Obviously those who don't like their bias feel differently, but most of them probably don't recognize this fictional separation either. And that's surely intentional on the part of Fox.
Sure, as Trad points out, everyone can tell the screaming food fights from the rest. But people still expect they are being told the truth by anchors and other main on-screen figures. So when they present one side and not the other, most viewers think that's the whole story. And when their "sources" are "some people say..." most are not skilled enough to filter out the garbage.
The idea that people don't take what O'Reily or Hannity say seriously because "everybody knows they are just entertainment" is facile. Of course people think they are telling them the truth. Not merely the truth, either - but what's important. So when they talk about the need to be energy independent and dismiss or never discuss climate change, that's feeding a narrative that viewers accept as a factual and relevant reflection of what's important in the world.
And, no, it's not just FOX. But FOX does it the most and does the deception part more seemlessly than then rest.
This is part of why we need to have a national conversation about what counts as "press" in the constitutional sense.
A shame you cons didn't object to it when the right wing Heritage folks thought it up, or when Romney passed it in Mass. Or when it was revealed in Obamacare around this time in 2009.
What were you thinking? And why should we pay attention to you now? That's sort of like thinking Hillary is anti-war because 5 years later she decided maybe the Iraq war wasn't a good idea after all. Not credible.
If you think the "news" (any news) has something like telling the truth as a main priority, then lawsuits aren't going to help you. In fact, you're probably better off in a fascist state. You're about as programmed as you can get anyway. It's an industry, a business, first and foremost. That BS about "reporting the truth" is a leprechaun.
Spoken like someone who has already decided it's OK to let the FOXes run the hen house (pun intended) and now only criticizes those who remind him that he has sold out.
It's the only industry specifically protected in the constitution by name. We should be asking why. What was the point of explicitly protecting that industry and no others? What function does that serve? And is what we call "press" today serving that function?
That's the national conversation I'd like to see.
I would argue that Wikileaks performs the press function better than FOX - and perhaps better than WaPo and other less obviously dishonest media.
I've decided not to put my faith in what they have to say. I'm not going to censor them or insist that they not be allowed to LIE! I don't want my voice censored or denied. I maintain that by not censoring and denying others their voice. What they have to say isn't the point. Being allowed TO say it, is. If you, or anyone else, chooses to base your beliefs and perspective on society as a whole on what these shills have to say, then be my guest. I don't. But, I'm not about to force them to stop.
And, I want efforts like Wikileaks to always be there, too! I'm not "letting" anyone run the hen house. That metaphor doesn't work.
