Sean

State Media

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Mickey Rat said:

Not to mention the other half of the duopoly. :rolleyes:

Oh, I also want a rational and responsible Democratic Party.  

TM is convinced I hate half of America and look forward to a political bloodbath.  

Maybe that is really how he feels.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TMSAIL said:

I always enjoy how the fringe of the right is not allowed to have a say in this country.

 

 

 

???

What the fuck planet do you live on? "The fringe of the right" is the loudest voice in the public square..... that's why you think you're "half" of America. You can't get the hate-spewing bastards to stop for breath. The farther right-wingers of the right are running the country now. And you think you're being silenced?

Paranoid much?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

You clearly did not read my post. 

I want a viable GOP. 

The current one is being run by the fringe. The result is the disaster in the WH. 

Try reading what I wrote and stop projecting hate onto me. 

You look like an idiot when you do that. 

My original post was not really directed at you more at the hatred expressed by others.   You don’t paint with the broad brush against the right that the posters I was addressing do. 

I appreciate your thoughts on what you view as a viable party   We would agree with most of what you said   My point was why shouldn’t the religious right vote as they chose?   It’s the same attitude that if David Duke supports Trump or Farrakhan supports Obama’s that automatically translates into trump agreeing with Duke  or Obama’s agreeing with the Nation of Islam   

We need to have elections and live with the results, not demonize the winners and their supporters starting within hours after the polls close.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Oh, I also want a rational and responsible Democratic Party.  

TM is convinced I hate half of America and look forward to a political bloodbath.  

Maybe that is really how he feels.

 

 

You chose the word bloodbath.  Sorry if I reacted to that choice.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TMSAIL said:

The last few posts of this thread are a clear indication how some on the left view Roughly half of America. The future of our country is in jeopardy because of people like that ON both sides that no longer see the other side as fellow Americans, with a different view instead they are inferior scum that need to be silenced and made irrelevant. 

Sadly I see no way out of this death spiral.  

Clearly you cheer the death spiral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TMSAIL said:

My original post was not really directed at you more at the hatred expressed by others.   You don’t paint with the broad brush against the right that the posters I was addressing do. 

I appreciate your thoughts on what you view as a viable party   We would agree with most of what you said   My point was why shouldn’t the religious right vote as they chose?   It’s the same attitude that if David Duke supports Trump or Farrakhan supports Obama’s that automatically translates into trump agreeing with Duke  or Obama’s agreeing with the Nation of Islam   

We need to have elections and live with the results, not demonize the winners and their supporters starting within hours after the polls close.  

 

 

Your last sentence is rich. That tradition started with Gingrich v Clinton and peaked with Obama-hate.  You know  the incessant calls for a 2nd amendment solution...

not the Dems fault that the republicans are investigating the president.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TMSAIL said:

My original post was not really directed at you more at the hatred expressed by others.   You don’t paint with the broad brush against the right that the posters I was addressing do. 

I appreciate your thoughts on what you view as a viable party   We would agree with most of what you said   My point was why shouldn’t the religious right vote as they chose?   It’s the same attitude that if David Duke supports Trump or Farrakhan supports Obama’s that automatically translates into trump agreeing with Duke  or Obama’s agreeing with the Nation of Islam   

We need to have elections and live with the results, not demonize the winners and their supporters starting within hours after the polls close.  

The Religious Right is certainly free to vote their conscience.  My issue is with a party (GOP) that caves to their calls to force the religious views of that crowd onto everyone.

Would you feel the same way if people of the Muslim faith gained a majority and we had Sharia law imposed?

That would be the will of the people, right?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, TMSAIL said:

We need to have elections and live with the results, not demonize the winners and their supporters starting within hours after the polls close.  

TMSAIL is on the record as not caring one single shit about legal abuses by Republicans. $20 the next Dem they'll call for blood?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

TMSAIL is on the record as not caring one single shit about legal abuses by Republicans. $20 the next Dem they'll call for blood?

More baseless acusations.   Each time you make such claims -  I ask for the post you are talking about - You never follow up with proof.  So fuck off you petulant little man-child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TMSAIL said:

More baseless acusations.   Each time you make such claims -  I ask for the post you are talking about - You never follow up with proof.  So fuck off you petulant little man-child.

when I provide proof you slink away. You spent 8 years trying everything you could to delegitimize Obama, so fuck off with your hypocritical bulshit. Fuck you with your rightwing "lefty hate" bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

when I provide proof you slink away. You spent 8 years trying everything you could to delegitimize Obama, so fuck off with your hypocritical bulshit. Fuck you with your rightwing "lefty hate" bullshit.

Once again you lash out rather than back up your accusations. You have never provided a single post that backs up Your claims.   I never tried to delegitimization President Obama,  not once.   My guess is you do not even know what that word means. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TMSAIL said:

Once again you lash out rather than back up your accusations. You have never provided a single post that backs up Your claims.   I never tried to delegitimization President Obama,  not once.   My guess is you do not even know what that word means. 

You’re becoming a POS as the days go by

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

You’re becoming a POS as the days go by

Why?  Because this puppy claims I was lying and can’t back it up.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TMSAIL said:

Once again you lash out rather than back up your accusations. You have never provided a single post that backs up Your claims.   I never tried to delegitimization President Obama,  not once.   My guess is you do not even know what that word means. 

Apparently you don't know what the term "tense" means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Apparently you don't know what the term "tense" means.

So FUCK YOU AND YOUR LYING BULLSHIT about "compassionate progressives".

You and your elk are nothing but FUCKING LYING COCKSUCKERS who need to suffer a mass shooting yourselves before you open your fucking lying cocksucking mouths one more time.

 

And if I didn't make myself clear - FUCK YOU AND YOUR LYING COCKSUCKING ELK.

 

Go away 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, not a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Sorry, not a chance.

 

SloopJonB:

 

So FUCK YOU AND YOUR LYING BULLSHIT about "compassionate progressives".

You and your elk are nothing but FUCKING LYING COCKSUCKERS who need to suffer a mass shooting yourselves before you open your fucking lying cocksucking mouths one more time.

 

And if I didn't make myself clear - FUCK YOU AND YOUR LYING COCKSUCKING ELK.

 

More screaming from a deranged hater. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

yet, I'm still more literate than your hero

 

 

Mixed up your logins?  So are you SloopJonB’s sock or is he yours. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the socks on this forum are right feet only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TMSAIL said:

More screaming from a deranged hater. 

lol- the reality is you asinine reich-wing fk-wits invite the 'hate', here and abroad, and that's no bull. 

you kooks are global laughing stocks, that's something you own, so why not just sit down and stfu. you barely even deserve to put up an argument here and you don't really have one, but yet you fools never cease to flail as if your lives depended on it. 

fuck the american right-wing.

 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2018 at 1:31 PM, Bus Driver said:

And, I think that was outrageous and spoke of that.

But, we are not talking about her.  She lost.  

We are talking about President Trump and his repeated attacks of the media.

At least, the media he doesn't like.

All of the MSM started last night with the same anti trump story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, warbird said:

All of the MSM started last night with the same anti trump story.

With one notable exception I presume. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, warbird said:

All of the MSM started last night with the same anti trump story.

by "anti-trump" you mean a story where Trump looks like an incompetent moron running a d-team circus of sycophants.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit of a tangent, but noteworthy -

Department Of Homeland Security Compiling Database Of Journalists And 'Media Influencers'

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michellefabio/2018/04/06/department-of-homeland-security-compiling-database-of-journalists-and-media-influencers/#57efd5d61218

Excerpt -

In today’s installment of "I’m Not Terrified, You Are," Bloomberg Law reports on a FedBizOpps.gov posting by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with the relatively benign-sounding subject “Media Monitoring Services.”

The details of the attached Request for Information, however, outline a plan to gather and monitor the public activities of media professionals and influencers and are enough to cause nightmares of constitutional proportions, particularly as the freedom of the press is under attack worldwide.

And "attack" is not hyperbolic.

Every day, journalists face serious consequences including physical violenceimprisonment and death. A few days ago, the Committee to Protect Journalists launched its annual Free The Press campaign to raise awareness about imprisoned journalists throughout the world. On May 3, UNESCO will once again mark World Press Freedom Day "to inform citizens of violations of press freedom — a reminder that in dozens of countries around the world, publications are censored, fined, suspended and closed down, while journalists, editors and publishers are harassed, attacked, detained and even murdered."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

by "anti-trump" you mean a story where Trump looks like an incompetent moron running a d-team circus of sycophants.

The left state owned MSM all opened with "Trump talk publicly for the first time about (porn star) today". Every news reader had nearly the same wording and delivery. Coincidence? I think not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, warbird said:

The left state owned MSM all opened with "Trump talk publicly for the first time about (porn star) today". Every news reader had nearly the same wording and delivery. Coincidence? I think not.

you better go raid a pizza parlor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

by "anti-trump" you mean a story where Trump looks like an incompetent moron running a d-team circus of sycophants.

That's exactly it - if they merely report his latest idiocies they are Ipso Facto anti-Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, warbird said:

The left state owned MSM all opened with "Trump talk publicly for the first time about (porn star) today". Every news reader had nearly the same wording and delivery. Coincidence? I think not.

Deep State.

Or have you been talking to Randumb?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Deep State.

Or have you been talking to Randumb?

Why is the wording all exactly the same? DO NOT TELL ME THEY ALL WENT TO THE SAME JOURNALISM SCHOOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, warbird said:

Why is the wording all exactly the same? DO NOT TELL ME THEY ALL WENT TO THE SAME JOURNALISM SCHOOL!

Um, it WAS the first time he’s spoken about it. There are incredibly few ways to say that other than “President Trump spoke for the first time about the Stormy Daniels affair.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a deeply disturbing story, I hope it is not true.

Department Of Homeland Security Compiling Database Of Journalists And 'Media Influencers'

In today’s installment of "I’m Not Terrified, You Are," Bloomberg Law reports on a FedBizOpps.gov posting by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with the relatively benign-sounding subject “Media Monitoring Services.” 

The details of the attached Request for Information, however, outline a plan to gather and monitor the public activities of media professionals and influencers and are enough to cause nightmares of constitutional proportions, particularly as the freedom of the press is under attack worldwide. 

And "attack" is not hyperbolic. 

Every day, journalists face serious consequences including physical violence, imprisonment and death. A few days ago, the Committee to Protect Journalists launched its annual Free The Press campaign to raise awareness about imprisoned journalists throughout the world. On May 3, UNESCO will once again mark World Press Freedom Day "to inform citizens of violations of press freedom — a reminder that in dozens of countries around the world, publications are censored, fined, suspended and closed down, while journalists, editors and publishers are harassed, attacked, detained and even murdered." 


Meanwhile, the United States government, traditionally one of the bastions of press freedom, is about to compile a list of professional journalists and "top media influencers," which would seem to include bloggers and podcasters, and monitor what they're putting out to the public. 

What could possibly go wrong? A lot. . . .

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michellefabio/2018/04/06/department-of-homeland-security-compiling-database-of-journalists-and-media-influencers/#796d09716121

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am terrified by media collusion? Are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, warbird said:

I am terrified by media collusion? Are you?

No, I'm terrified of enemy lists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, warbird said:

I am terrified by media collusion? Are you?

You've been visiting Stormfront again, haven't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

This is a deeply disturbing story, I hope it is not true.

Department Of Homeland Security Compiling Database Of Journalists And 'Media Influencers'

In today’s installment of "I’m Not Terrified, You Are," Bloomberg Law reports on a FedBizOpps.gov posting by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with the relatively benign-sounding subject “Media Monitoring Services.” 

The details of the attached Request for Information, however, outline a plan to gather and monitor the public activities of media professionals and influencers and are enough to cause nightmares of constitutional proportions, particularly as the freedom of the press is under attack worldwide. 

And "attack" is not hyperbolic. 

Every day, journalists face serious consequences including physical violence, imprisonment and death. A few days ago, the Committee to Protect Journalists launched its annual Free The Press campaign to raise awareness about imprisoned journalists throughout the world. On May 3, UNESCO will once again mark World Press Freedom Day "to inform citizens of violations of press freedom — a reminder that in dozens of countries around the world, publications are censored, fined, suspended and closed down, while journalists, editors and publishers are harassed, attacked, detained and even murdered." 


Meanwhile, the United States government, traditionally one of the bastions of press freedom, is about to compile a list of professional journalists and "top media influencers," which would seem to include bloggers and podcasters, and monitor what they're putting out to the public. 

What could possibly go wrong? A lot. . . .

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michellefabio/2018/04/06/department-of-homeland-security-compiling-database-of-journalists-and-media-influencers/#796d09716121

 

 

Sean beat you to it in the same thread a few posts up.  Seems to happen a lot lately. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TMSAIL said:

Sean beat you to it in the same thread a few posts up.  Seems to happen a lot lately. 

Sean is very good at gathering newsworthy articles, I wish we had more like him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, warbird said:

I am terrified by media collusion? Are you?

I'm not as terrified by some reporters talking to each other as I am by the concept of the government "monitoring" the press.

Your idea of media collusion is just more right wing fake news bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Monitoring the press is bad ...

 

sometimes

 https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/opinion/sunday/if-donald-trump-targets-journalists-thank-obama.html

Under Mr. Obama, the Justice Department and the F.B.I. have spied on reporters by monitoring their phone records, labeled one journalist an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal case for simply doing reporting and issued subpoenas to other reporters to try to force them to reveal their sources and testify in criminal cases.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TMSAIL said:

Monitoring the press is bad sometimes

 https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/opinion/sunday/if-donald-trump-targets-journalists-thank-obama.html

Under Mr. Obama, the Justice Department and the F.B.I. have spied on reporters by monitoring their phone records, labeled one journalist an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal case for simply doing reporting and issued subpoenas to other reporters to try to force them to reveal their sources and testify in criminal cases.

 

"Obama did it too" is not a very good defense. In any event, I think that's one of the shitty things he did while in office and said so at the time.

And FWIW Obama did not ban news agencies from the White House based on their unflattering reports on him, nor accuse them of making up "Fake News." If anything, Obama was more dangerous to the 1st Amendment because 1- he was a hell of a lot smarter & more capable and 2- he was more subtle and patient

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

"Obama did it too" is not a very good defense. In any event, I think that's one of the shitty things he did while in office and said so at the time.

And FWIW Obama did not ban news agencies from the White House based on their unflattering reports on him, nor accuse them of making up "Fake News." If anything, Obama was more dangerous to the 1st Amendment because 1- he was a hell of a lot smarter & more capable and 2- he was more subtle and patient

-DSK

Read the title of the NYT’s article 

If Donald Trump Targets Journalists, Thank Obama

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TMSAIL said:

Read the title of the article 

If Donald Trump Targets Journalists, Thank Obama

 

It's still not a good defense. You can repeat it all you want, until you decide to BENGHAZI some more

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

It's still not a good defense. You can repeat it all you want, until you decide to BENGHAZI some more

-DSK

It’s not a Obama did it too.  It’s that Obama set a precedent.   That is the point the NYT’s was making. 

“In a scathing 2013 report for the Committee to Protect Journalists, Leonard Downie, a former executive editor of The Washington Post who now teaches at Arizona State University, said the war on leaks and other efforts to control information was “the most aggressive I’ve seen since the Nixon administration, when I was one of the editors involved in The Washington Post’s investigation of Watergate”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, TMSAIL said:

It’s not a Obama did it too.  It’s that Obama set a precedent.   That is the point the NYT’s was making. 

“In a scathing 2013 report for the Committee to Protect Journalists, Leonard Downie, a former executive editor of The Washington Post who now teaches at Arizona State University, said the war on leaks and other efforts to control information was “the most aggressive I’ve seen since the Nixon administration, when I was one of the editors involved in The Washington Post’s investigation of Watergate”

Well, did Obama set a precedent, or did Nixon?

A lot of Presidents have had troubled relations with the press. That includes attempts to criminalize keeping anonymous sources anonymous, publishing classified info (which is often a real problem, to be sure), but no other President that I know of has taken all the steps that President Trump has taken to try and muzzle news coverage.

What makes it especially ludicrous is the way he does so many outrageous things to call attention to himself.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TMSAIL said:

Monitoring the press is bad ...

sometimes

 https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/opinion/sunday/if-donald-trump-targets-journalists-thank-obama.html

Under Mr. Obama, the Justice Department and the F.B.I. have spied on reporters by monitoring their phone records, labeled one journalist an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal case for simply doing reporting and issued subpoenas to other reporters to try to force them to reveal their sources and testify in criminal cases.

Always

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sean said:

Bit of a tangent, but noteworthy -

Department Of Homeland Security Compiling Database Of Journalists And 'Media Influencers'

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michellefabio/2018/04/06/department-of-homeland-security-compiling-database-of-journalists-and-media-influencers/#57efd5d61218

...

 

Quote

Last October, an Indiana lawmaker proposed that journalists be licensed. Representative Jim Lucas's bill was mostly a publicity stunt, but could this DHS action be a way for the government to keep track of American and foreign journalists as well as “citizen journalists," threatening not only the freedom of the press but also individual freedom of speech?

Freedom of the press is individual (or collective, or corporate) freedom to publish.

That's like saying, "Not only rabbits, but also bunnies."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, badlatitude said:

This is a deeply disturbing story, I hope it is not true.

Department Of Homeland Security Compiling Database Of Journalists And 'Media Influencers'

In today’s installment of "I’m Not Terrified, You Are," Bloomberg Law reports on a FedBizOpps.gov posting by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with the relatively benign-sounding subject “Media Monitoring Services.” 

The details of the attached Request for Information, however, outline a plan to gather and monitor the public activities of media professionals and influencers and are enough to cause nightmares of constitutional proportions, particularly as the freedom of the press is under attack worldwide. 

And "attack" is not hyperbolic. 

Every day, journalists face serious consequences including physical violence, imprisonment and death. A few days ago, the Committee to Protect Journalists launched its annual Free The Press campaign to raise awareness about imprisoned journalists throughout the world. On May 3, UNESCO will once again mark World Press Freedom Day "to inform citizens of violations of press freedom — a reminder that in dozens of countries around the world, publications are censored, fined, suspended and closed down, while journalists, editors and publishers are harassed, attacked, detained and even murdered." 


Meanwhile, the United States government, traditionally one of the bastions of press freedom, is about to compile a list of professional journalists and "top media influencers," which would seem to include bloggers and podcasters, and monitor what they're putting out to the public. 

What could possibly go wrong? A lot. . . .

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michellefabio/2018/04/06/department-of-homeland-security-compiling-database-of-journalists-and-media-influencers/#796d09716121

 

 

look at the rfi delivery dates

this is obviously a follow on contract

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hermetic said:

look at the rfi delivery dates

this is obviously a follow on contract

Forbes is getting a reputation for its article solicitation and it's sad that they are building a business model on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2018 at 6:29 AM, Sean said:

From the article:

Quote

Not that any of it matters to Sinclair, which, with the help of a friendly federal government, is about to swallow up another 40 television stations

That's actually true, but doesn't really send quite the message about regulatory capture that was probably intended.

5 things everyone is getting wrong about Sinclair
 

Quote

 

I hand the floor over to former FCC Chief Economist Thomas W. Hazlett:

tation limits do virtually nothing to stop "media concentration." And, ironically, the very existence of Sinclair as the country's largest TV station group owner is a product, to a very large degree, of just these rules.

Sinclair arises in the niche carved out by the limits imposed by the FCC on broadcast networks. Those companies fund far more quality journalism in both national and local news markets. But with FCC rules limiting their transmissions, firms like Sinclair rush in, protected from "Big Media" competition.

In reality, broadcast networks pump their shows all across the U.S.A. CBS owns no broadcast outlet in Greenville, S.C.—or Seattle or Houston or Washington, D.C. Yet its shows, from "The Big Bang Theory" to "60 Minutes," reach TV sets everywhere. They travel through CBS broadcast affiliates, cable, and satellite where they compete with the programs of national cable networks: CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, C-SPAN, Bloomberg, BBC America and Vice. What matters to consumers is the variety of their program choices, not where they get it.

So who cares about the station cap? Private equity funds and Wall Street deal-makers. They create "station group owners" that fill the void when networks are barred from owning their affiliates. Then they lobby to get the rules relaxed, inviting more bidding, pushing up station prices. It's an insider's game in an intra-industry skirmish.


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"State Media" is about to occur, if these folks get their way.

No less than 26 percent of Americans say they agree that "the president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

"State Media" is about to occur, if these folks get their way.

No less than 26 percent of Americans say they agree that "the president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior."

They need to be educated about the intent of the 1st amendment, and shown examples of what has happened when other less benevolent governments have restricted speech.    I hate memes, but, a buddy sent one today that I think's appropriate to this thread. Paraphrasing:

"The right to free speech means the government can't arrest you for what you say. It doesn't mean that anyone ELSE has to listen to your bullshit, or host you while you share it. The 1st amendment doesn't shield you from criticism or consequences. If you're yelled at, boycotted, booed, have your show cancelled, or are banned from an internet community, your 1A rights aren't being violated, it's just that the people listening to you think you're an asshole and are showing you the door. " 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

They need to be educated about the intent of the 1st amendment, and shown examples of what has happened when other less benevolent governments have restricted speech.    I hate memes, but, a buddy sent one today that I think's appropriate to this thread. Paraphrasing:

"The right to free speech means the government can't arrest you for what you say. It doesn't mean that anyone ELSE has to listen to your bullshit, or host you while you share it. The 1st amendment doesn't shield you from criticism or consequences. If you're yelled at, boycotted, booed, have your show cancelled, or are banned from an internet community, your 1A rights aren't being violated, it's just that the people listening to you think you're an asshole and are showing you the door. " 

Exactly. Whenever I hear uninformed people (what they are advocating illustrates they are uninformed) invoke any parts of the 1st, I ask them to recite the first 5 words. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Exactly. Whenever I hear uninformed people (what they are advocating illustrates they are uninformed) invoke any parts of the 1st, I ask them to recite the first 5 words. 

Oooh Ooooh Mr Kotter!!!!!!  
 

"Congress shall make no law" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Oooh Ooooh Mr Kotter!!!!!!  
 

"Congress shall make no law" 

Thank you, Horshack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

They need to be educated about the intent of the 1st amendment

:lol: Yeah - good luck with that.

Maybe Fox News or Breitbart will take care of that for you.

Or Betsy DeVos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
11 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

"State Media" is about to occur, if these folks get their way.

No less than 26 percent of Americans say they agree that "the president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior."

They need to be educated about the intent of the 1st amendment

 

11 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Exactly. Whenever I hear uninformed people (what they are advocating illustrates they are uninformed) invoke any parts of the 1st, I ask them to recite the first 5 words. 

When I hear them advocating first amendment coverage for "news outlets" I can't resist asking whether such corporations are people.

Because I seem to recall that the very notion that the first amendment covered corporations was pretty toxic a few years ago. And even more recently it was viewed as laughable.

On 6/3/2015 at 6:27 PM, Bus Driver said:

Saw a great bumper sticker this evening -

 

"I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one."

But let's forget all that and use it on corporations as if we've always thought that was OK, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

 

When I hear them advocating first amendment coverage for "news outlets" I can't resist asking whether such corporations are people.

Because I seem to recall that the very notion that the first amendment covered corporations was pretty toxic a few years ago. And even more recently it was viewed as laughable.

But let's forget all that and use it on corporations as if we've always thought that was OK, right?

Are you part of the 26%?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

 

When I hear them advocating first amendment coverage for "news outlets" I can't resist asking whether such corporations are people.

Because I seem to recall that the very notion that the first amendment covered corporations was pretty toxic a few years ago. And even more recently it was viewed as laughable.

But let's forget all that and use it on corporations as if we've always thought that was OK, right?

Are you part of the 26%?

I can't imagine there's a basis for that question in anything I've said, so I guess I'm anything you imagine me to be.

As for what I've said on that topic, it's

On 4/13/2018 at 5:36 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

A dangerous and stupid idea coming from Trump.

And equally dangerous and stupid coming from Bernie and Liz Warren, for the same reasons.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, I saw a great bumper sticker this morning -

 

"I'll believe corporations are people when the first amendment prevents Trump from Cen$oring one."

Funny stuff I tells ya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I thought it was good enough for a tshirt.

I wonder how many I should have made?

speechtshirt.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/9/2018 at 4:31 PM, Bus Driver said:

"State Media" is about to occur, if these folks get their way.

No less than 26 percent of Americans say they agree that "the president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior."

This part:
 

Quote

 

I wasn’t prepared for this Ipsos poll.

No less than 26 percent of Americans say they agree that "the president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior."

To shut them down. To put them out of business. Just like in a totalitarian society.

How much do you have to despise the media to believe that a president should have the dictatorial power to disband a company?

Fifty-three percent disagreed, and here's the partisan breakdown:

Some 43 percent of Republicans say yeah, let the president shut down media operations he doesn't like.

And 12 percent of Democrats agree, along with 21 percent of independents.

Now this is a theoretical exercise. The First Amendment protects even the worst media offender from government interference

 

Just shows a general knowledge of which half of the Duopoly holds the White House at the moment. The same question would show the opposite partisan bias if TeamD were in the WH.

That last line reveals the reporter to be a diehard Romney man. Do you tell your students that Mitt was right about this?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now