Trump's 46 minutes....To Censor or not to Censor?...

[Walker]

The question is to whether there is a point at which censorship SHOULD occur in light of my own disapproval of it normally.

...whether given something you can imagine one can say can be so affective in a way that misleads others to harm?

I do not like censorship either. But I DO think there are times that it is OBVIOUSLY better to apply censorship and control than not to.

Why would we be willing to hand a microphone and broad media coverage over to an obvious liar who incites rage and violence? How is that necessary or constructive?

Why is protecting/promoting THAT person's freedom more important than protecting other people's well-being?

A position of "no censorship" is an extremist position, just as total censorship would be.

There is no censorship here in any sense.

CNN or any of the other News Agencies are not under any obligation to give Trump a platform. That's freedom of speech too.

If the rancid fat orange jellyfish wants to bleat like a baby, he can always post on Facebook, and Twitter to the twittering loons.

If they broadcast with a license, oh yes they do have an obligation.

The government can and often does interrupt normal broadcasting with messages.

FCC. Federal regulation.

[Sculptor]

I do not like censorship either. But I DO think there are times that it is OBVIOUSLY better to apply censorship and control than not to.

Why would we be willing to hand a microphone and broad media coverage over to an obvious liar who incites rage and violence? How is that necessary or constructive?

Why is protecting/promoting THAT person's freedom more important than protecting other people's well-being?

A position of "no censorship" is an extremist position, just as total censorship would be.

There is no censorship here in any sense.

CNN or any of the other News Agencies are not under any obligation to give Trump a platform. That's freedom of speech too.

If the rancid fat orange jellyfish wants to bleat like a baby, he can always post on Facebook, and Twitter to the twittering loons.

If they broadcast with a license, oh yes they do have an obligation.

The government can and often does interrupt normal broadcasting with messages.

FCC. Federal regulation.

A 46 minute lying rant is not a public information film.

There are some messages that are validated by the wider government. The Whitehouse does not have the power, not YET, at least, to control the media.
When it does you might as well kiss your arse goodbye.

But I'd like to see your actual evidence that a news service is under obligation to let the "government interrupt broadcasts"
Show me the regs!

[Walker]

If you have energy to spew nonsense, you have the energy to do research.

It's not like I have some special, secret source material.

I want to see Biden in front of a camera every day talking policy.
I want the world to see him, too.

Transparency.

[henry quirk]

these various organizations, these news outlets (print, broadcast, electronic) are private endeavors

each ought to be condemned when they claim to be fair or objective or neutral when each is really a propaganda machine, and not a one ought to be shielded from the results of slander, libel, and fightin' words, but-- as private endeavors -- each ought to do as they see fit without interference (untill it's proven they've slandered, libeled, or incited by way of fightin' words)

the burden, you see, is not on them but on us, on you and me and him and her

we, each of us, have to gate-keep our own heads

in context: my ORANGE pitbull can speak his mind as he chooses...he may offend, disgust, repel but if he doesn't provably besmirch or incite, the only option the offended/disgusted/repelled have is to turn away, pay no attention, and go about their business

in context: no privately-owned outlet, licensed or not, has an obligation to print or air anything, or to provide a soapbox for anyone

in context: censorship, as a condemnation, is only applicable if a man is not allowed to speak his mind, not allowed to write his words...lack of outlet access, or the refusal of outlets to give access, is not censorship

[Walker]

The press is not like any other private company or private citizen because the press is singled out in the constitution.

“The obligations of the private media are far fewer. The essence of a free media environment is that broadcasters and journalists are not told what they may or may not say or write. The best guarantee that the variety of political ideas are communicated freely and accurately is often understood to be for the media to be allowed to get on with their job unhampered. But this does not mean that private media have no obligations at all. Professional journalistic standards will demand accurate and balanced reporting, as well as a clear separation of fact and comment.

“Broadcasting stations usually have their licences allocated by a public body. This will often come with terms attached about whether they are allowed to support any political party; what, if any, news coverage they are allowed to broadcast; and other conditions such as whether they have an obligation, for example, to broadcast public service announcements such as voter education spots.

“Likewise, any general laws or regulations relating to media reporting will probably apply equally to both public or private media: for example, provisions relating to "blackout" periods before the vote or the coverage of opinion polls. Similarly, general legal provisions such as the law of defamation - although they may be somewhat modified in their effect during the campaign period - will still apply equally to both public and private media.”
http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/me/mea/mec03

[tillingborn]

AG: The swamp is deep and wide.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that William Barr is part of the coup?

Threats were made against General Flynn's family.
Use your intelligence and extrapolate.

I would need to know what the threats were.

The government has the power to break up monopolies.

How many news organisations are there in the US? Why do you talk about monopolies in that context?

A media company complicit in a coup?
Burn 'em down. They are abdicating and have abdicated their constitutional responsibility of fourth estate.

Isn't part of that responsibility to challenge the government?

Money is printed with advertising revenue.

That's certainly one part of the business model.

[Walker]

I'm not sure what you mean.

Not my problem.

[henry quirk]

The press is not like any other private company or private citizen because the press is singled out in the constitution.

“The obligations of the private media are far fewer. The essence of a free media environment is that broadcasters and journalists are not told what they may or may not say or write. The best guarantee that the variety of political ideas are communicated freely and accurately is often understood to be for the media to be allowed to get on with their job unhampered. But this does not mean that private media have no obligations at all. Professional journalistic standards will demand accurate and balanced reporting, as well as a clear separation of fact and comment.

“Broadcasting stations usually have their licences allocated by a public body. This will often come with terms attached about whether they are allowed to support any political party; what, if any, news coverage they are allowed to broadcast; and other conditions such as whether they have an obligation, for example, to broadcast public service announcements such as voter education spots.

“Likewise, any general laws or regulations relating to media reporting will probably apply equally to both public or private media: for example, provisions relating to "blackout" periods before the vote or the coverage of opinion polls. Similarly, general legal provisions such as the law of defamation - although they may be somewhat modified in their effect during the campaign period - will still apply equally to both public and private media.”
http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/me/mea/mec03

I'm a natural rights libertarian, W, not a constitutional interpretivist or elaborist

insofar as the declaration of independence lists grievances, and the constitution offers remedy for those grievances: great...but interpretations & elaborations of either leave me cold

the first is stark: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

only in matters of proven libel, slander, or incitement ought restriction be applied

remedies come after, never before

[Walker]

The constitution doesn't guarantee a license to broadcast that free speech.

Free speech comes with responsibilities.

A coup to subvert the constitution isn't one of them.

[henry quirk]

The constitution doesn't guarantee a license to broadcast that free speech.

Free speech comes with responsibilities.

A coup to subvert the constitution isn't one of them.

no, it doesn't cuz there should be no license to broadcast, to print, to speak

yes, it does: slander, libel, fightin' words aren't protected

I agree...we have two remedies, of the four, currently available: the jury box & and the ammo box

I suggest we let the third play out before movin' to the fourth

[FlashDangerpants]

Are you actually saying that the state should break up monopolies and and enforce competition for the public interest because of market failure?

Ah, you beat me to it.

we should probably cut these guys some slack. The day after the count went against Trump they were all "it doesn't matter, the GOP won all the down ballot races, congressional gridlock will prevent any leftist agenda". But since then, they have been going through the stages of grief anyway. There's been bargaining (wishing for democracy to be suspended and faithless electors to pick trump as president anyway), denial all over the place as witnessed in so many threads. They even have taken to speculating about leftists doing all that rounding up and herding into concentration camps that was supposedly impossible due to gridlock just a few weeks ago.

In theory it might be best to just let them work this out of their systems. Sadly, left to their own devices they do seem to prefer to egg each other on to new and ever more splendid bouts of insanity. One of them is busy insisting "THE LEFT" has some monopoly on political violence... while one of the others has been writing "I see dead leftists" on a daily basis, and another is workign his way down the list of boxes (soap box, ballot box, some other box, ammo box) and has been suggesting that the time for the shooty box is soon.

[FlashDangerpants]

Oh, apparently the other one was "jury box"

[Walker]

This was totally predictable, not at all a surprise.

Don't be so naive.

The corruption sewn into the election was well known by everyone paying attention.

Trump pointed it out months ago. The Democratic Party has spent the last year altering election laws to make it possible. This was done in plain sight.

Now that the process of constitution vs election corruption is continuing to unfold, as much light as possible should be put upon it.

*


Actually, once the process plays out, if Trump should be declared the loser, then he should resign and make Pence the president.

Pence should then pardon him and his family.

Because ... the savages are going to try and grind them all into the dust, just as an exercise in power and a warning to anyone else who gets any notions.

[henry quirk]

Oh, apparently the other one was "jury box"

the shooty box

[FlashDangerpants]

Pence should then pardon him and his family.

You do understand that by law, accepting a pardon entails accepting guilt? That was explicitly why Roger Stone went for a commuted sentence.

Anyway, he probably has to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell first because he might not want her to name names in the dock.