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

[Hermit Philosopher]

I avoided most direct discussions on this guy other than when I tried hard to get people to vote for Hillary before he got in power. But this particular speech of his (unseen except in news clips) made me wonder about the issue of "free speech limitations". I'm a strong advocate of free speech but believe that it should come with the caveate of consequences when or where one uses it to intentionally decieve or harm others (with clear concern).

This is one case where I happen to agree that he needed to be censored. It isn't that he was completely censored given the CNN and other reports DID assert where one can find it. If you have Facebook, you can find it. I don't and only checked to see where else it might be published, like YouTube.

I DO think that it should be archived and presented eventually AFTER he is clearly out of office.

What do others think about this in light of free speech? Given many feel that it is alright to use rhetoric and expression that intentionally lie, like advertising misdirection etc, what is the fair limits to censor? How can it be done that doesn't lead to other forms of abuses given SOMEONE has to be relatively privileged to decide...(ie, the censors)?

Here's a link to the topic as discussed by New York Times...https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/02/us/p ... video.html

Dear Scott,
I watched Trump’s video on YouTube.

My take is that one ought not legitimise obvious lies but possibly not censor them either.

And, I believe that is what has been done in this case, as - to my knowledge - the video was not aired by any established news channels (which would have legitimised it) but can be viewed on social media, which means one can still see what this very powerful man is up to (that is important, I’d say).

Although many will believe anything Trump says - and yes, that is dangerous -, when it comes to powerful people (that’s powerful ppl; not necessarily ppl in power), I will always favour legal repercussion to censorship.

In my opinion, it is quite possible that this - and lots of other information on social media - could contain aspects that are illegal. For, besides our beloved freedom of speech, we do also have laws against the spreading of dangerous [social] rumours and lies for example. The question is however: who should report things like this video and take it to court? Also, is it the video, the channels that air it, Donald Trump himself or the Republican Party one should be suing? You need a solicitor to answer such questions, I expect - perhaps there are some on here...?

Humbly
Hermit

[Walker]

If anyone other than Congress censors the President's voice, it's a mob action.

Any broadcast media that was supposed to broadcast his message, and didn't, should have their valuable license to broadcast, yanked.

It doesn't matter who the president is.

It doesn't even matter if he is senile and babbling.

Who's the censor, btw? A freak with a Gandalf beard? Nobody voted for him. He doesn't represent the people.

The censorship this time was the most extreme I've ever seen it. I think that given he had been inciting his crowds to hate the media as cheats at all cost, the media recognized that they had to give him what he wanted by 'cheating' that he existed universally across all media on the day of his most 'important' speech against them. I mean, this is HIS Machivellian behavior backfiring on him. So why should he not now RESPECT the very media for putting their foot down just as he has proven it most effective!?

Too bad for the media. Time to put on their big boy pants. They deserve all the grief they can get, and more, for being complicit in a 4 year coup.

[tillingborn]

The censorship this time was the most extreme I've ever seen it.

Is it censorship if a news channel decides not to report something that isn't newsworthy? President Trump is making unfounded claims about election fraud. Again.

[Walker]

The censorship this time was the most extreme I've ever seen it.

Is it censorship if a news channel decides not to report something that isn't newsworthy? President Trump is making unfounded claims about election fraud. Again.

So says you, after 4 years of unfounded claims against the president that received 24/7 media coverage.

Such a level of hypocrisy is enough to make a grown man puke.

Media companies have a license to print money at the largess of the government.

The government also has the power to break up monopolies. Do it.

[Walker]

Ibid

[FlashDangerpants]

Media companies have a license to print money at the largess of the government.

The government also has the power to break up monopolies. Do it.

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

Somebody might be able to name some markets other than media where this principle should be applied, so it's good of you to open that door.

[Walker]

How wonderful for you. You can keep muddling around the edges.

*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fABhgq1tdQk

There was never any evidence against Trump.

The liars knew it and the media reporting the lies, thousands and thousands of times, knew it.

The media is obviously corrupt. The only newsworthy topic is destroy Trump, by any means necessary.

Only a blind idiot or a willful fool can't see it.

I say wipe all the bastards out and start with a clean slate.

Call it a glitch.

Too damn bad I'm not King of the World, with commensurate Powers of Censorship to proclaim ... and enforce ... when citizens have the right to hear the elected president speak.

[tillingborn]

President Trump is making unfounded claims about election fraud. Again.

So says you

And the Attorney General.

...after 4 years of unfounded claims against the president that received 24/7 media coverage.

That's how news works, people pay attention to stuff they want to hear.

Such a level of hypocrisy is enough to make a grown man puke.

After the 2016 election concerns were raised about the integrity of the polls, the Democratic Party were urged to petition of a recount in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. They refused. Instead the Green Party did so and the Republicans filed to prevent the recount in all three states. From the outside, that looks very much like hypocrisy.

Media companies have a license to print money at the largess of the government.

How does that work?

The government also has the power to break up monopolies. Do it.

Do you think it is the governments business to decide what people see on the news?

[tillingborn]

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.

[Walker]

AG: The swamp is deep and wide. Threats were made against General Flynn's family.
Use your intelligence and extrapolate.

The government has the power to break up monopolies.

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

Money is printed with advertising revenue.

[Sculptor]

I avoided most direct discussions on this guy other than when I tried hard to get people to vote for Hillary before he got in power. But this particular speech of his (unseen except in news clips) made me wonder about the issue of "free speech limitations". I'm a strong advocate of free speech but believe that it should come with the caveate of consequences when or where one uses it to intentionally decieve or harm others (with clear concern).

This is one case where I happen to agree that he needed to be censored. It isn't that he was completely censored given the CNN and other reports DID assert where one can find it. If you have Facebook, you can find it. I don't and only checked to see where else it might be published, like YouTube.

I DO think that it should be archived and presented eventually AFTER he is clearly out of office.

What do others think about this in light of free speech? Given many feel that it is alright to use rhetoric and expression that intentionally lie, like advertising misdirection etc, what is the fair limits to censor? How can it be done that doesn't lead to other forms of abuses given SOMEONE has to be relatively privileged to decide...(ie, the censors)?

Here's a link to the topic as discussed by New York Times...https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/02/us/p ... video.html

Freedom of Speech works BOTH ways.
Trump can say what the fuck he wants, and he does, he does like a burst drain pipe.
But CNN, ABC, and all the other News media have the right to repeat the sewerage or to ignore it. In fact they also have the right to editorialise, criticise, and point point out the numerous shortcomings of Trump's failing mind too.

[Walker]

Nope.

The media has no right to be complicit in a coup.

[Sculptor]

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.

[Sculptor]

Nope.

The media has no right to be complicit in a coup.

It's called a election.
Get used to it!

[Walker]

Nope.

It's the culmination of a four-year coup.