• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Media versus Freedom Of Speech

F

Flanders

Member
Joined
May 1, 2018
Messages
173
Reaction score
17
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Just imagine virtually every newspaper across the nation owned by one person. Or television stations, or radio stations.

They’d all carry exactly the same political perspective, set by the owner.

That’s why there are rules and regulations governing how many stations one person can own, or how many newspapers can be controlled by a single entity.

But the web has no such restrictions yet, and so massive swaths of online content reflect the priorities of just one, or a few, billionaires.​

Web giants need to explain censorship, coalition urges
Posted By Bob Unruh On 05/07/2018 @ 8:18 pm

Web giants need to explain censorship, coalition urges​

Print press is the only mass communications industry that is protected by the First Amendment.

Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one. A. J. Liebling​

Press barons always engaged in censorship. Not only what they published but what they omitted.

The same is true of the people who own electronic transmitters. So the question should be “How hard can it be to rein in a few Internet billionaires? Answer: Very hard if a look at what billionaire George Soros gets away with.

Basically, freedom of speech is a misnomer to begin with. It is always about who controls speech. Proof: Democrats in high places who wrap themselves in free speech whenever they defend it never, never, admit there is NO constitutional Right to be heard. It all made me wonder if the lady would die for the Right to be heard:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Evelyn Beatrice Hall​

When all is said and done, private sector freedoms can live very well without freedom of the press, but they will die without ABSOLUTE political freedom of speech.

If conservative Americans want to protect the First Amendment I suggest eliminating these four words ——“or of the press” —— so that it reads:

First Amendment​

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

Under my suggested change the press would still enjoy freedom of speech like the rest of us, but they would have to defend freedom of speech as a matter of self-interest instead of only defending a constitutional privilege while they feed the rest us to Socialist/Communist wolves.

As I said many times, the government had nothing to fear so long as freedom of speech was limited to soapbox orators and barroom pundits. Freedom of speech on the Internet exposed government’s tyrannical objectives to more Americans than the federal government can live with; hence, they are reacting like cornered rats.

Note that television began replacing print in the 1960s. The government had it all until disaster struck in the form of free speech. The Internet replaced soap boxes and coffeehouse pundits. For the first time in history free speech for everyone had a tool; a tool the government fears because free speech is a real threat to totalitarian government.

Folks in the government, and in the media fear free speech, more than they fear cancer. Free speech gives away the very product government journalists are paid for NOT saying. On top of that the government never stops trying to regulate free speech, while freedom of the press was untouchable from the day it became an instrument of government propaganda. Think about that in relation to the AP/FOX scandals. It matters not that a free press and free speech are both guaranteed by the First Amendment; freedom of speech is the government’s enemy.

Journalism’s vested interested in limiting free speech notwithstanding, every government loves protecting meaningless speech, while every government claims the absolute Right to define “clear and present danger.” In every form of government “Do not falsely shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater” becomes “Do not falsely shout ‘Fire!’ in an empty theater.” Then “Do not shout ‘Fire!’” and finally “Do not speak at all.”
 
Flanders said:

If conservative Americans want to protect the First Amendment I suggest eliminating these four words ——“or of the press” —— so that it reads:[/B]


”[/B]​
Click to expand...


Are you kidding me talking about Liberals doing this? Ever hear of Sinclair Group spreading propaganda on local networks that they have been buying up and forcing stations to read propaganda messages?

Oh yeah, billionaires who own media are more likely conservatives than liberal.

Jesus christ you conservatives with your constant fictional victimhood is ridiculous. Sorry don't have facts, logic and reasoning on your side so you pretend all facts are biased against you because you refuse to acknowledge your ideology is wrong more often than not​
 
Flanders said:
Just imagine virtually every newspaper across the nation owned by one person. Or television stations, or radio stations.

They’d all carry exactly the same political perspective, set by the owner.

That’s why there are rules and regulations governing how many stations one person can own, or how many newspapers can be controlled by a single entity.

But the web has no such restrictions yet, and so massive swaths of online content reflect the priorities of just one, or a few, billionaires.​

Web giants need to explain censorship, coalition urges
Posted By Bob Unruh On 05/07/2018 @ 8:18 pm

Web giants need to explain censorship, coalition urges​

Print press is the only mass communications industry that is protected by the First Amendment.

Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one. A. J. Liebling​

Press barons always engaged in censorship. Not only what they published but what they omitted.

The same is true of the people who own electronic transmitters. So the question should be “How hard can it be to rein in a few Internet billionaires? Answer: Very hard if a look at what billionaire George Soros gets away with.

Basically, freedom of speech is a misnomer to begin with. It is always about who controls speech. Proof: Democrats in high places who wrap themselves in free speech whenever they defend it never, never, admit there is NO constitutional Right to be heard. It all made me wonder if the lady would die for the Right to be heard:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Evelyn Beatrice Hall​

When all is said and done, private sector freedoms can live very well without freedom of the press, but they will die without ABSOLUTE political freedom of speech.

If conservative Americans want to protect the First Amendment I suggest eliminating these four words ——“or of the press” —— so that it reads:

First Amendment​

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

Under my suggested change the press would still enjoy freedom of speech like the rest of us, but they would have to defend freedom of speech as a matter of self-interest instead of only defending a constitutional privilege while they feed the rest us to Socialist/Communist wolves.

As I said many times, the government had nothing to fear so long as freedom of speech was limited to soapbox orators and barroom pundits. Freedom of speech on the Internet exposed government’s tyrannical objectives to more Americans than the federal government can live with; hence, they are reacting like cornered rats.

Note that television began replacing print in the 1960s. The government had it all until disaster struck in the form of free speech. The Internet replaced soap boxes and coffeehouse pundits. For the first time in history free speech for everyone had a tool; a tool the government fears because free speech is a real threat to totalitarian government.

Folks in the government, and in the media fear free speech, more than they fear cancer. Free speech gives away the very product government journalists are paid for NOT saying. On top of that the government never stops trying to regulate free speech, while freedom of the press was untouchable from the day it became an instrument of government propaganda. Think about that in relation to the AP/FOX scandals. It matters not that a free press and free speech are both guaranteed by the First Amendment; freedom of speech is the government’s enemy.

Journalism’s vested interested in limiting free speech notwithstanding, every government loves protecting meaningless speech, while every government claims the absolute Right to define “clear and present danger.” In every form of government “Do not falsely shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater” becomes “Do not falsely shout ‘Fire!’ in an empty theater.” Then “Do not shout ‘Fire!’” and finally “Do not speak at all.”
Click to expand...

our First Amendment protects speech regarding public affairs, not private affairs.
 
danielpalos said:
our First Amendment protects speech regarding public affairs, not private affairs.
Click to expand...

To danielpalos: Where did you get that idea?

Do not answer. It has been a year since I last heard from you on another board and you have not learned anything since then.
 
Flanders said:
Just imagine virtually every newspaper across the nation owned by one person. Or television stations, or radio stations.

They’d all carry exactly the same political perspective, set by the owner.

That’s why there are rules and regulations governing how many stations one person can own, or how many newspapers can be controlled by a single entity.

But the web has no such restrictions yet, and so massive swaths of online content reflect the priorities of just one, or a few, billionaires.​

Web giants need to explain censorship, coalition urges
Posted By Bob Unruh On 05/07/2018 @ 8:18 pm

Web giants need to explain censorship, coalition urges​

Print press is the only mass communications industry that is protected by the First Amendment.

Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one. A. J. Liebling​

Press barons always engaged in censorship. Not only what they published but what they omitted.

The same is true of the people who own electronic transmitters. So the question should be “How hard can it be to rein in a few Internet billionaires? Answer: Very hard if a look at what billionaire George Soros gets away with.

Basically, freedom of speech is a misnomer to begin with. It is always about who controls speech. Proof: Democrats in high places who wrap themselves in free speech whenever they defend it never, never, admit there is NO constitutional Right to be heard. It all made me wonder if the lady would die for the Right to be heard:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Evelyn Beatrice Hall​

When all is said and done, private sector freedoms can live very well without freedom of the press, but they will die without ABSOLUTE political freedom of speech.

If conservative Americans want to protect the First Amendment I suggest eliminating these four words ——“or of the press” —— so that it reads:

First Amendment​

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

Under my suggested change the press would still enjoy freedom of speech like the rest of us, but they would have to defend freedom of speech as a matter of self-interest instead of only defending a constitutional privilege while they feed the rest us to Socialist/Communist wolves.

As I said many times, the government had nothing to fear so long as freedom of speech was limited to soapbox orators and barroom pundits. Freedom of speech on the Internet exposed government’s tyrannical objectives to more Americans than the federal government can live with; hence, they are reacting like cornered rats.

Note that television began replacing print in the 1960s. The government had it all until disaster struck in the form of free speech. The Internet replaced soap boxes and coffeehouse pundits. For the first time in history free speech for everyone had a tool; a tool the government fears because free speech is a real threat to totalitarian government.

Folks in the government, and in the media fear free speech, more than they fear cancer. Free speech gives away the very product government journalists are paid for NOT saying. On top of that the government never stops trying to regulate free speech, while freedom of the press was untouchable from the day it became an instrument of government propaganda. Think about that in relation to the AP/FOX scandals. It matters not that a free press and free speech are both guaranteed by the First Amendment; freedom of speech is the government’s enemy.

Journalism’s vested interested in limiting free speech notwithstanding, every government loves protecting meaningless speech, while every government claims the absolute Right to define “clear and present danger.” In every form of government “Do not falsely shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater” becomes “Do not falsely shout ‘Fire!’ in an empty theater.” Then “Do not shout ‘Fire!’” and finally “Do not speak at all.”
Click to expand...


In your defense, the market power of near monopoly of the big three media giants, there is not economic blowback for fake news. NBC for example has several leading prime time and off-prime shows, cable, etc., so the bad actions of one is too small compared to the overall programming footprint in the parent company.

Media giants need to be disassembled smaller chunks.
 
Flanders said:
To danielpalos: Where did you get that idea?

Do not answer. It has been a year since I last heard from you on another board and you have not learned anything since then.
Click to expand...

Our federal Constitution is also a compact among States. Not everything is about the Individual.
 
Flanders said:
Just imagine virtually every newspaper across the nation owned by one person. Or television stations, or radio stations.

They’d all carry exactly the same political perspective, set by the owner.

That’s why there are rules and regulations governing how many stations one person can own, or how many newspapers can be controlled by a single entity.

But the web has no such restrictions yet, and so massive swaths of online content reflect the priorities of just one, or a few, billionaires.​

Web giants need to explain censorship, coalition urges
Posted By Bob Unruh On 05/07/2018 @ 8:18 pm

Web giants need to explain censorship, coalition urges​

Print press is the only mass communications industry that is protected by the First Amendment.

Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one. A. J. Liebling​

Press barons always engaged in censorship. Not only what they published but what they omitted.

The same is true of the people who own electronic transmitters. So the question should be “How hard can it be to rein in a few Internet billionaires? Answer: Very hard if a look at what billionaire George Soros gets away with.

Basically, freedom of speech is a misnomer to begin with. It is always about who controls speech. Proof: Democrats in high places who wrap themselves in free speech whenever they defend it never, never, admit there is NO constitutional Right to be heard. It all made me wonder if the lady would die for the Right to be heard:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Evelyn Beatrice Hall​

When all is said and done, private sector freedoms can live very well without freedom of the press, but they will die without ABSOLUTE political freedom of speech.

If conservative Americans want to protect the First Amendment I suggest eliminating these four words ——“or of the press” —— so that it reads:

First Amendment​

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

Under my suggested change the press would still enjoy freedom of speech like the rest of us, but they would have to defend freedom of speech as a matter of self-interest instead of only defending a constitutional privilege while they feed the rest us to Socialist/Communist wolves.

As I said many times, the government had nothing to fear so long as freedom of speech was limited to soapbox orators and barroom pundits. Freedom of speech on the Internet exposed government’s tyrannical objectives to more Americans than the federal government can live with; hence, they are reacting like cornered rats.

Note that television began replacing print in the 1960s. The government had it all until disaster struck in the form of free speech. The Internet replaced soap boxes and coffeehouse pundits. For the first time in history free speech for everyone had a tool; a tool the government fears because free speech is a real threat to totalitarian government.

Folks in the government, and in the media fear free speech, more than they fear cancer. Free speech gives away the very product government journalists are paid for NOT saying. On top of that the government never stops trying to regulate free speech, while freedom of the press was untouchable from the day it became an instrument of government propaganda. Think about that in relation to the AP/FOX scandals. It matters not that a free press and free speech are both guaranteed by the First Amendment; freedom of speech is the government’s enemy.

Journalism’s vested interested in limiting free speech notwithstanding, every government loves protecting meaningless speech, while every government claims the absolute Right to define “clear and present danger.” In every form of government “Do not falsely shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater” becomes “Do not falsely shout ‘Fire!’ in an empty theater.” Then “Do not shout ‘Fire!’” and finally “Do not speak at all.”
Click to expand...


TLDR; But i did see the WND link:lamo
 
Flanders said:
To madman: Another bumper sticker mentality heard from.
Click to expand...

hey! you were the one that posted a link to WND.
That tells me all that I need to know.

You obviously find WND credible :roll:
 
Flanders said:
It all made me wonder if the lady would die for the Right to be heard:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Evelyn Beatrice Hall​
Click to expand...

This image says it all:

wills051218.jpg

Progressivism or Liberalism: What’s the difference?
By Charles Wills
May 12, 2018

https://canadafreepress.com/article/progressivism-or-liberalism-whats-the-difference
​
 
Last edited:
UPDATE​

Flanders said:
When all is said and done, private sector freedoms can live very well without freedom of the press, but they will die without ABSOLUTE political freedom of speech.

If conservative Americans want to protect the First Amendment I suggest eliminating these four words ——“or of the press” —— so that it reads:
Click to expand...

Outnumbered and without supporting evidence or facts to back up its globalist, anti-American rhetoric, the left relies entirely on the full support of the media. Today, the media in the United States are not objective seekers and disseminators of truth. In truth, the media serve as the propagandist and protector of the forces that want to change America from a constitutional republic to a socialist state. The evidence is clear and overwhelming of the countless times the media have selectively covered what promotes leftist ideals and ignored or altered the facts of what exposes the sinister leftist agenda. The clear examples of media bias, misinformation, and deceit are inescapable.

It's hard to imagine that the news organizations we have all grown up with and trusted all our lives are now actively undermining our system of government and using their far-reaching influence to divide the population in their effort to control better. With the full assistance of the media, the leftist plan to alter America's course from a free to a significantly oppressed society has become more of a reality. Continuous and relentless leftist propaganda distributed by the media most certainly has an impact on the American psyche. It is the deliberate intention of the media to successfully elevate the fringe leftist element in America and demonize all types of speech and opinion that run counter to the leftist program.

The media can no longer hide behind the benign image of a sometimes left-leaning communications entity because they have exposed themselves for what indeed they are: active participants in the dismantling of traditional American values. Anything short of acknowledging this realization is dealing with the self-defeating activity of self-deception.

The pervasively destructive demand for politically correct language extinguishes the essential means of communication. It is a fundamental part of liberty that Americans need to speak freely and openly without concern regarding hurting the feelings of others. Political correctness is a weapon in the arsenal of the left, and free-thinking Americans should resist legitimizing such a tactic and refrain from using that weapon against themselves.

It is not hyperbolic to say today's mainstream media are an enemy of truth, conservative thought, and the authority of the United States Constitution. Many young, as well as some seasoned journalists in today's media are not capable of reporting the truth, either because of their leftist indoctrination in liberal universities or out of fear of the consequences from the leftist editorial boards of most media outlets.

There is no question that the left aims at changing America in the worst possible way, but its efforts would go largely unnoticed if not for the sympathetic and like-minded media.

May 23, 2018
The Biggest Threat to America's Future Is the Media
By Rick Hayes

https://www.americanthinker.com/art...t_threat_to_americas_future_is_the_media.html​
 
Pro tip.

You arent going to get a lot of replies with your posting style.​
 
Flanders said:
Just imagine virtually every newspaper across the nation owned by one person. Or television stations, or radio stations.

They’d all carry exactly the same political perspective, set by the owner.

That’s why there are rules and regulations governing how many stations one person can own, or how many newspapers can be controlled by a single entity.

But the web has no such restrictions yet, and so massive swaths of online content reflect the priorities of just one, or a few, billionaires.​

Web giants need to explain censorship, coalition urges
Posted By Bob Unruh On 05/07/2018 @ 8:18 pm

Web giants need to explain censorship, coalition urges​

Print press is the only mass communications industry that is protected by the First Amendment.

Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one. A. J. Liebling​

Press barons always engaged in censorship. Not only what they published but what they omitted.

The same is true of the people who own electronic transmitters. So the question should be “How hard can it be to rein in a few Internet billionaires? Answer: Very hard if a look at what billionaire George Soros gets away with.

Basically, freedom of speech is a misnomer to begin with. It is always about who controls speech. Proof: Democrats in high places who wrap themselves in free speech whenever they defend it never, never, admit there is NO constitutional Right to be heard. It all made me wonder if the lady would die for the Right to be heard:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Evelyn Beatrice Hall​

When all is said and done, private sector freedoms can live very well without freedom of the press, but they will die without ABSOLUTE political freedom of speech.

If conservative Americans want to protect the First Amendment I suggest eliminating these four words ——“or of the press” —— so that it reads:

First Amendment​

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

Under my suggested change the press would still enjoy freedom of speech like the rest of us, but they would have to defend freedom of speech as a matter of self-interest instead of only defending a constitutional privilege while they feed the rest us to Socialist/Communist wolves.

As I said many times, the government had nothing to fear so long as freedom of speech was limited to soapbox orators and barroom pundits. Freedom of speech on the Internet exposed government’s tyrannical objectives to more Americans than the federal government can live with; hence, they are reacting like cornered rats.

Note that television began replacing print in the 1960s. The government had it all until disaster struck in the form of free speech. The Internet replaced soap boxes and coffeehouse pundits. For the first time in history free speech for everyone had a tool; a tool the government fears because free speech is a real threat to totalitarian government.

Folks in the government, and in the media fear free speech, more than they fear cancer. Free speech gives away the very product government journalists are paid for NOT saying. On top of that the government never stops trying to regulate free speech, while freedom of the press was untouchable from the day it became an instrument of government propaganda. Think about that in relation to the AP/FOX scandals. It matters not that a free press and free speech are both guaranteed by the First Amendment; freedom of speech is the government’s enemy.

Journalism’s vested interested in limiting free speech notwithstanding, every government loves protecting meaningless speech, while every government claims the absolute Right to define “clear and present danger.” In every form of government “Do not falsely shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater” becomes “Do not falsely shout ‘Fire!’ in an empty theater.” Then “Do not shout ‘Fire!’” and finally “Do not speak at all.”
Click to expand...

Would that one person be David Koch?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom