Current Events > redhats: defend your dear threatening free speech

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-nbc-license-ban-tweet-cnn-shut-down-fake-news-threat-latest-a7994861.html

he is LITERALLY threatening the first amendment

he is LITERALLY threatening your rights as an american citizen

defend these fascist tactics
---

"Butt Hillary! Fake news!"
---

Tag
---

There's nothing to defend here. Luckily the FCC isn't bound to follow the president's orders so nothing will come from it. It's just an old man shouting into the wind.
---

dont liberals maintain that purposely spreading misinformation and hatred is not free speech

Bad for country!
---

LolTownz posted...

dont liberals maintain that purposely spreading misinformation and hatred is not free speech

Ive never heard a liberal make that argument, no
---

If I were a Trump supporter I'd be pretty damn tired from defending every word that comes out of his dumb ass mouth
---

Mr_Biscuit posted...

LolTownz posted...

dont liberals maintain that purposely spreading misinformation and hatred is not free speech

Ive never heard a liberal make that argument, no

they do it all the time, esp here

s0nicfan posted...

There's nothing to defend here. Luckily the FCC isn't bound to follow the president's orders so nothing will come from it. It's just an old man shouting into the wind.

that "just an old man" is the president of the united states

the president of the united states is threatening the free press

let that sink in
---

Smashingpmkns posted...

If I were a Trump supporter I'd be pretty damn tired from defending every word that comes out of his dumb ass mouth

Here's a little secret: If you're not a ideologically blinded piece of shit you don't have to. You can condemn him when he does something stupid, and point out when he does something good. You neither have to defend every word, nor condemn every one.
---

mario2000 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

There's nothing to defend here. Luckily the FCC isn't bound to follow the president's orders so nothing will come from it. It's just an old man shouting into the wind.

that "just an old man" is the president of the united states

the president of the united states is threatening the free press

let that sink in

Sorry... what is your point here? I'm already not defending him. Can you just make a short list of demands so we can get this over with?
---

s0nicfan posted...

mario2000 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

There's nothing to defend here. Luckily the FCC isn't bound to follow the president's orders so nothing will come from it. It's just an old man shouting into the wind.

that "just an old man" is the president of the united states

the president of the united states is threatening the free press

let that sink in

Sorry... what is your point here? I'm already not defending him. Can you just make a short list of demands so we can get this over with?

its fine dude, take all the time you need, i'm not in a hurry
---

mario2000 posted...

its fine dude, take all the time you need, i'm not in a hurry

Good, then you'll have plenty of time to sulk when you realize your grand plan to have an argument with a "redhat" over this completely fell through because most people aren't so ideologically blinded that they defend or condemn every single thing the man says and does.
---

Unless you're arguing that news organizations are allowed to lie under the First Amendment, the 'free speech' argument doesn't hold water.

Also, where was this righteous indignation every time someone attacked the Second Amendment?
---

darkjedilink posted...

Unless you're arguing that news organizations are allowed to lie under the First Amendment,

They absolutely are.
---

LolTownz posted...

dont liberals maintain that purposely spreading misinformation and hatred is not free speech

Not only is it not free speech to them (apparently unless it's them doing it), they should be allowed to publicly assault you for having a haircut that suggests you might feel that way.
---

Antifar posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Unless you're arguing that news organizations are allowed to lie under the First Amendment,

They absolutely are.

So slander and libel laws are unconstitutional?
---

darkjedilink posted...

So slander and libel laws are unconstitutional?

They have been ruled as such at times in our country's history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

"Actual malice" is a purposefully hard standard to prove so as to comply with the first amendment and to prevent things not too dissimilar to this.

Before this decision, there were nearly US $300 million in libel actions from the Southern states outstanding against news organizations, as part of a focused effort by Southern officials to use defamation lawsuits as a means of preventing critical coverage of civil rights issues in out-of-state publications. The Supreme Court's decision, and its adoption of the actual malice standard, reduced the financial hazard from potential defamation claims, and thus countered the efforts by public officials to use these claims to suppress political criticism.

Do you think you could show "actual malice" on NBC's behalf?
---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

This singlehandedly destroyed the federalist party.

Any of it sound familiar to you?
---

mario2000 posted...

he is LITERALLY threatening the first amendment

Doesn't apply to over-the-air broadcasts, because we've given the FCC legal ownership of radio frequencies for some reason.

LolTownz posted...

Mr_Biscuit posted...

LolTownz posted...

dont liberals maintain that purposely spreading misinformation and hatred is not free speech

Ive never heard a liberal make that argument, no

they do it all the time, esp here

Example?
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Doesn't apply to over-the-air broadcasts, because we've given the FCC legal ownership of radio frequencies for some reason.

Even so, there are limits to how the FCC's control can be applied
---

https://hollywoodhatesme.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/redhat.jpg
---

Antifar posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Doesn't apply to over-the-air broadcasts, because we've given the FCC legal ownership of radio frequencies for some reason.

Even so, there are limits to how the FCC's control can be applied

So long as "public interest" is involved, not really, no.
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/piac/novmtg/pubint.htm

Trump supporters are traitors and should be shamed
---

Antifar posted...

darkjedilink posted...

So slander and libel laws are unconstitutional?

They have been ruled as such at times in our country's history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

"Actual malice" is a purposefully hard standard to prove so as to comply with the first amendment and to prevent things not too dissimilar to this.

Before this decision, there were nearly US $300 million in libel actions from the Southern states outstanding against news organizations, as part of a focused effort by Southern officials to use defamation lawsuits as a means of preventing critical coverage of civil rights issues in out-of-state publications. The Supreme Court's decision, and its adoption of the actual malice standard, reduced the financial hazard from potential defamation claims, and thus countered the efforts by public officials to use these claims to suppress political criticism.

Do you think you could show "actual malice" on NBC's behalf?

Between Wikileaks, Brian Williams, election coverage, and their history of inventing racism claims, I think that's the easy part.
---

Mr_Biscuit posted...

LolTownz posted...

Mr_Biscuit posted...

LolTownz posted...

dont liberals maintain that purposely spreading misinformation and hatred is not free speech

Ive never heard a liberal make that argument, no

they do it all the time, esp here

Example?

Literally arguing 'hate speech isn't free speech.'
---

Lies and and negative speech against Trump are not actually speech, but rather violence. It's obviously okay to put an end to violence.
---

Hitler called it "lying press."
Trump calls it "fake news."

They say history tends to repeat itself.
---

This would be a good time to revisit the Fairness Doctrine, a past policy which was ended under Reagan and HW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
---

DirkDiggles posted...

Hitler called it "lying press."
Trump calls it "fake news."

They say history tends to repeat itself.

Obama called Fox News 'lying press,' too...
---

darkjedilink posted...

Mr_Biscuit posted...

LolTownz posted...

Mr_Biscuit posted...

LolTownz posted...

dont liberals maintain that purposely spreading misinformation and hatred is not free speech

Ive never heard a liberal make that argument, no

they do it all the time, esp here

Example?

Literally arguing 'hate speech isn't free speech.'

There was big deal a few years ago about shutting down "talk radio", which also went nowhere, and also served no purpose other than appealing to the uneducated and/or irrational segment of the party base.

s0nicfan posted...

mario2000 posted...

its fine dude, take all the time you need, i'm not in a hurry

Good, then you'll have plenty of time to sulk when you realize your grand plan to have an argument with a "redhat" over this completely fell through because most people aren't so ideologically blinded that they defend or condemn every single thing the man says and does.

imagine seeing the president of your country threatening "unfavorable" press, shrugging your shoulders, and going "meh whatever"

imagine being s0nicfan
---

darkjedilink posted...

Obama called Fox News 'lying press,' too...

[citation needed]
---

Antifar posted...

This would be a good time to revisit the Fairness Doctrine, a past policy which was ended under Reagan and HW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

Or reduce the FCC's authority to little more than mitigating bandwidth collision, and the threat of revoking licenses for heresy becomes impossible.

That would also work.
---

mario2000 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

mario2000 posted...

its fine dude, take all the time you need, i'm not in a hurry

Good, then you'll have plenty of time to sulk when you realize your grand plan to have an argument with a "redhat" over this completely fell through because most people aren't so ideologically blinded that they defend or condemn every single thing the man says and does.

imagine seeing the president of your country threatening "unfavorable" press, shrugging your shoulders, and going "meh whatever"

imagine being s0nicfan

I recognize that our country is built on a series of checks and balances that 1: would prevent one branch from unilaterally eliminating a constitutional right, and also that 2: that Trump says a lot of things on twitter but rarely acts on what he says.

I say "meh, whatever" because I'm not so stupid as to believe anything is going to come from this.
---

If Trump wants to put a stop to fake news, he'd try to shut down Breitbart and Infowars, then quit his job and go live in a cave.
---

Bullet_Wing posted...

s0nicfan posted...

mario2000 posted...

its fine dude, take all the time you need, i'm not in a hurry

Good, then you'll have plenty of time to sulk when you realize your grand plan to have an argument with a "redhat" over this completely fell through because most people aren't so ideologically blinded that they defend or condemn every single thing the man says and does.

Most of his cultists are, actually.

---

s0nicfan posted...

I recognize that our country is built on a series of checks and balances that 1: would prevent one branch from unilaterally eliminating a constitutional right, and also that 2: that Trump says a lot of things on twitter but rarely acts on what he says.

1. I can't imagine the Supreme Court would look fondly on a move like this, but the FCC is an executive branch agency which affords Trump significant control over this specific action.
2. Surely you recognize Trump's habit of toothless threats as a bad thing in and of itself, even if nothing comes from it?
---

DirkDiggles posted...

Hitler called it "lying press."
Trump calls it "fake news."

They say history tends to repeat itself.

No wonder Trump's supporters look up to him

http://bit.ly/2wOQNQe

ninjarobot_22 posted...

http://bit.ly/2wOQNQe

...the hell is that other flag?

darkjedilink posted...

Brian Williams

Who did Brian Williams slander?
---

I'm sure there's specific categories they're licensed under. Maybe they just need to get rebranded as entertainment or something.
---

Antifar posted...

s0nicfan posted...

I recognize that our country is built on a series of checks and balances that 1: would prevent one branch from unilaterally eliminating a constitutional right, and also that 2: that Trump says a lot of things on twitter but rarely acts on what he says.

1. I can't imagine the Supreme Court would look fondly on a move like this, but the FCC is an executive branch agency which affords Trump significant control over this specific action.
2. Surely you recognize Trump's habit of toothless threats as a bad thing in and of itself, even if nothing comes from it?

In regards to 2, of course it's a bad thing. However, how we as a people respond to a real threat versus a toothless one is extremely different, so recognizing the category of threat is important. It's the reason why we don't prosecute every single "I'll kill you" as attempted murder. As far as I can tell, the TC is expecting this to be some sort of "oh gee, you got us! He's totally Hitler and everything ever done to defend him is awful and wrong" response from people who voted for him, which is just as stupid and crazy as Trump's own comments.
---