Antiquated Freedom Of The Press

[Flanders]

The Founders provided the method to abolish the Electoral Collage, but I have yet to hear a liberal call for a constitutional amendment:

New York Times: End 'antiquated' Electoral College
By Eddie Scarry
12/20/16 9:08 AM

New York Times: End 'antiquated' Electoral College​

Frankly, the country would improve immensely if freedom of the press was removed from the First Amendment. The press (print and electronic) does more harm to this country every week than the Electoral Collage did in over 200 years.

 

[fncceo]

The Founders provided the method to abolish the Electoral Collage, but I have yet to hear a liberal call for a constitutional amendment:

New York Times: End 'antiquated' Electoral College
By Eddie Scarry
12/20/16 9:08 AM

New York Times: End 'antiquated' Electoral College​

Frankly, the country would improve immensely if freedom of the press was removed from the First Amendment. The press (print and electronic) does more harm to this country every week than the Electoral Collage did in over 200 years.

I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong.

Freedoms are inherently risky ... the right to bear arms means that people can and will be hurt. The right to free speech can mean people can and will be misinformed.

But, removal of those freedoms comes at a greater risk. An unarmed populace is at the mercy of evil men and women and a populace with only a single, sanctioned, source of news are only drones.

 

[Flanders]

The right to free speech can mean people can and will be misinformed.

To fncceo: You are mixing oranges and apples:

America’s freedoms can live very well without freedom of the press, but the country 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 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.

XXXXX​

My point. The press would have to defend freedom of speech for everybody in every venue as a matter of self-interest instead of only defending press protection while feeding freedom of speech to Democrat wolves.​

a populace with only a single, sanctioned, source of news are only drones.

To fncceo: That is exactly what Americans had before freedom of speech took off on the Internet:

My point. The press would have to defend freedom of speech for everybody in every venue as a matter of self-interest instead of only defending press protection while feeding freedom of speech to Democrat wolves.

As I’ve said many times, Democrats had nothing to fear so long as freedom of speech was limited to soapbox orators and barroom pundits. Freedom of speech on the Internet is informing the public about the Democrat party’s tyrannical agenda, and about top Democrats, to more Americans than Democrats can live with.

Bottom line: Freedom of speech’s continued growth on the Internet is a frightening prospect to Democrats; hence, they are reacting like cornered rats. Their hostile reaction is akin to Muslims learning on the Internet that Allah is not in their camp.

Hillary Clinton Proves Fake News Is Newspeak​

 

[fncceo]

The right to free speech can mean people can and will be misinformed.

To fncceo: You are mixing oranges and apples:

America’s freedoms can live very well without freedom of the press, but the country 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 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.

XXXXX​

My point. The press would have to defend freedom of speech for everybody in every venue as a matter of self-interest instead of only defending press protection while feeding freedom of speech to Democrat wolves.​

a populace with only a single, sanctioned, source of news are only drones.

To fncceo: That is exactly what Americans had before freedom of speech took off on the Internet:

My point. The press would have to defend freedom of speech for everybody in every venue as a matter of self-interest instead of only defending press protection while feeding freedom of speech to Democrat wolves.

As I’ve said many times, Democrats had nothing to fear so long as freedom of speech was limited to soapbox orators and barroom pundits. Freedom of speech on the Internet is informing the public about the Democrat party’s tyrannical agenda, and about top Democrats, to more Americans than Democrats can live with.

Bottom line: Freedom of speech’s continued growth on the Internet is a frightening prospect to Democrats; hence, they are reacting like cornered rats. Their hostile reaction is akin to Muslims learning on the Internet that Allah is not in their camp.

Hillary Clinton Proves Fake News Is Newspeak​

Freedom of Speech is synonymous with Freedom of the Press. If you curtail one, you curtail the other. Letting someone (the someone in charge) decide what constitutes speech and what constitutes press is tantamount to censorship.

 

[Flanders]

Freedom of Speech is synonymous with Freedom of the Press. If you curtail one, you curtail the other.

To fncceo: Your understanding of the difference is sorely lacking.

Letting someone (the someone in charge) decide what constitutes speech and what constitutes press is tantamount to censorship.

To fncceo: Your response is a standard liberal talking point —— broad without substance. It needs clarification which I am happy to provide.

NOTE: Politically correct speech is censorship.

I assume you missed this in the link I provided:

Ms. Geller is talking about censorship. The problem is that censorship is a polite way of violating the First Amendment’s freedom of speech protection.

XXXXX​

The public airwaves is a different matter. The airwaves is the difference between censorship and freedom of speech. Even there the owners of television transmitters decide what they will censor on the public airwaves. Pamela Geller’s piece shows that the Internet appears to be going down the same road.​

Hillary Clinton Proves Fake News Is Newspeak

Before the Internet the government controlled freedom of speech and freedom of the press with an iron hand. The press barons who owned the printing presses and the transmitters in their glory years censored the public with newspeak and omission. Even with the Internet just about every news story remains newspeak. This is a classic example of omission:

Liberal media organizations like the Washington Post, New York Times and CNN have nevertheless kept their readers in the dark. By publishing time, none of the three had even acknowledged the appointments, much less their impact or the blowback from critics.​

Media Blackout On Obama’s Last-Minute Civil Rights Appointments
Peter Hasson
Reporter, Associate Editor
11:22 PM 12/20/2016

Media Blackout On Obama’s Last-Minute Civil Rights Appointments​

Let me close with Bill O’Reilly talking about abolishing the Electoral College:

“Talking points believes this is all about race.”

XXXXX​

Very few commentators will tell you that the heart of liberalism in America is based on race.”​

​

To be accurate the Democrat party is the Black party thriving on black racism thanks to the MSM:

Black racists live for any reason that allows them to cite racism as the problem —— real or imagined. Black race hustlers of every stripe sell “We’s all God’s chillun.” as their best chance to take power short of violent revolution. Make no mistake about it. Absolute political power is what black racists are after; hence, every issue, every policy, every spoken word must be decided by black Americans. The truth is that black Americans represent just over 12 percent of the total population, yet they pretend they defend every non-white against those hate-filled white Americans.

Confirmation Circus​

 

[regent]

Just before Jefferson took office the conservative party, the Federalists, passed laws restricting freedom of speech. That was the end of the first conservative political party.

 

[miketx]

The Founders provided the method to abolish the Electoral Collage, but I have yet to hear a liberal call for a constitutional amendment:

New York Times: End 'antiquated' Electoral College
By Eddie Scarry
12/20/16 9:08 AM

New York Times: End 'antiquated' Electoral College​

Frankly, the country would improve immensely if freedom of the press was removed from the First Amendment. The press (print and electronic) does more harm to this country every week than the Electoral Collage did in over 200 years.

I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong.

Freedoms are inherently risky ... the right to bear arms means that people can and will be hurt. The right to free speech can mean people can and will be misinformed.

But, removal of those freedoms comes at a greater risk. An unarmed populace is at the mercy of evil men and women and a populace with only a single, sanctioned, source of news are only drones.

The right to keep and bear arms means no such thing.

 

[Flanders]

Just before Jefferson took office the conservative party, the Federalists, passed laws restricting freedom of speech. That was the end of the first conservative political party.

To regent: How in hell do you get conservative out of this?

The Federalists called for a strong national government that promoted economic growth and fostered friendly relationships with Great Britain, as well as opposition to revolutionary France. The party controlled the federal government until 1801, when it was overwhelmed by the Democratic-Republican opposition led by Thomas Jefferson.

Federalist Party - Wikipedia​

Jefferson proved that limited government promoted economic growth as well as promoting:

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. Thomas Jefferson

XXXXX​

I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance, or joining in the confederacy of Kings to war against the principles of liberty. Thomas Jefferson​

You went all the way back to the 1790s to mischaracterize conservatives. So it should be easy for you to characterize today’s Democrat party? Here is this conservative's characterization should you care to disagree:

To be accurate the Democrat party is the Black party thriving on black racism thanks to the MSM:

They are coming out of the closet:

. . . the congressman’s bid has been complicated by questions about his views on Louis Farrakhan, the politics of Israel and black nationalism.

XXXXX​

Additionally, he’s faced criticism for the lead role he played as a member of a Black Law Students Association, inviting black nationalist speakers to the University of Minnesota . . .

Keith Ellison’s black nationalist past haunts bid to lead DNC
By Seth McLaughlin
Wednesday, December 21, 2016

Keith Ellison’s black nationalist past haunts bid to lead DNC​

I would put this question to Ellison: How come black nationalism is a good thing while white nationalism is pure evil to global government Democrats?

nationalism (noun)

1. Devotion to the interests or culture of a particular nation.

2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.

3. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.

nationalist (noun)
nationalistic (adjective)
nationalistically (adverb)​

p.s. Ellison is forcing black racism out into the open. Should he get the job he can make black racism the Democrat party’s official policy. So hang in there bro! I would vote for you if I could.

 

[eflatminor]

The right to free speech can mean people can and will be misinformed.

To fncceo: You are mixing oranges and apples:

America’s freedoms can live very well without freedom of the press, but the country 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 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.

XXXXX​

My point. The press would have to defend freedom of speech for everybody in every venue as a matter of self-interest instead of only defending press protection while feeding freedom of speech to Democrat wolves.​

a populace with only a single, sanctioned, source of news are only drones.

To fncceo: That is exactly what Americans had before freedom of speech took off on the Internet:

My point. The press would have to defend freedom of speech for everybody in every venue as a matter of self-interest instead of only defending press protection while feeding freedom of speech to Democrat wolves.

As I’ve said many times, Democrats had nothing to fear so long as freedom of speech was limited to soapbox orators and barroom pundits. Freedom of speech on the Internet is informing the public about the Democrat party’s tyrannical agenda, and about top Democrats, to more Americans than Democrats can live with.

Bottom line: Freedom of speech’s continued growth on the Internet is a frightening prospect to Democrats; hence, they are reacting like cornered rats. Their hostile reaction is akin to Muslims learning on the Internet that Allah is not in their camp.

Hillary Clinton Proves Fake News Is Newspeak​

Freedom of Speech is synonymous with Freedom of the Press. If you curtail one, you curtail the other. Letting someone (the someone in charge) decide what constitutes speech and what constitutes press is tantamount to censorship.

^ This

I agree you cannot have freedom of speech while government suppresses the press. Whether I call myself a reporter or just citizen, I should have the right to speak freely...if we are to be a free nation that is.

 

[Flanders]

The press (print and electronic) does more harm to this country every week than the Electoral Collage did in over 200 years.

My gal Judi wrote a nice piece about freedom much broader than the questionable freedom of the press. Judi reminded us that Madeleine Lebeau died this year:

​

“If anyone needs to know what it means to lose your freedom, just look at that face, those eyes. That’s all you need to know.”

Madeleine Lebeau, was so much more than a flickering image on a long ago film. Her New York Times obituary stated that she had “attained movie immortality with one scene, when the camera zoomed in on her tear-stained face as she sang “La Marseillaise” in “Casablanca”.

But Ms. Lebeau, being real, attained so much more than “movie mortality”, immortalizing the very meaning of ‘Freedom’.​

“Only those who have not had freedom truly cherish it”
By Judi McLeod
December 23, 2016

“Only those who have not had freedom truly cherish it”​

 

[ScienceRocks]

Freedom of speech for me and the media is total and complete. Fuck anyone that thinks otherwise.

 

[HenryBHough]

Given enough time liberals will institute licensing of journalists.

But not if President Trump beats them to it.......

 

[Flanders]

Frankly, the country would improve immensely if freedom of the press was removed from the First Amendment.

The press would have to defend freedom of speech for everybody in every venue as a matter of self-interest instead of only defending press protection while feeding freedom of speech to Democrat wolves.

I wonder how strong freedom of speech is in the UK?

Majority of British public do NOT want draconian libel laws that put the freedom of Britain's Press in peril
By Martin Robinson, Uk Chief Reporter For Mailonline
Published: 08:50 EST, 11 January 2017 | Updated: 08:59 EST, 11 January 2017

Majority of British public voted to oppose implementation of unfair new libel laws | Daily Mail Online​

 

[ScienceRocks]

It is extremely important to maintaining our democracy that our press is free to report and hold our government accountable.

 

[Flanders]

It is extremely important to maintaining our democracy

To Matthew: A press promoting democracy should be abolished.

that our press is free to report and hold our government accountable.

To Matthew: When was our government ever been held accountable for anything they did to this country? There is only one reason for a constitutionally protected free press. MAINTAIN AN ANTAGONISTIC RELATIONSHIP TOWARD THE GOVERNMENT. The minute a press is biased they are promoting big government. Try to grasp this. The press’ well-documented liberal bias means A GOVERNMENT BIAS.

Government liberals laughed out the other side of their lying faces every time they were accused of having a liberal bias. They would not have been laughing had the press (MAINLY TELEVISION) been correctly defined as the government press, nor would they have fed at the public trough for so many decades.

Finally, freedom of the press is the one Right I would NOT fight for should it be abolished. Communist countries, and dictatorships of every stripe, control their presses. In short: Worldwide journalism contributes absolutely nothing to individual liberties, limited government, or anything that is worth having. So I see no reason to fight for freedom of a press that is dominated by big government thinkers. More to the point, America’s press would not change the way it operates one bit in a full-blown Communist country.

Did Pravda’s Reporters Spy For Us?​

Incidentally, non-Communist Russians always knew what Pravda was. Americans are just learning what journalism is in this country. Proof: Contempt for the our media is on par with contempt for Congress. One reason is that you will never read this in our wonderful free press newspapers or hear it on television:

This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons -- from swords and spears to pistols, rifles, and shotguns -- were common items. People carried them concealed or holstered. Daggers were a prominent part of many traditional attires.

Various armies -- the Poles, Napoleon, or the Germans -- found out that holding Russian lands was much harder than invading them, as every occupier faced a well-armed and aggressive population, hell-bent on driving out the aggressor.

This well-armed population was what allowed the various groups to rise up in 1918 and wage a brutal civil war against the Red Army. Disorganized politically and militarily, many factions of the White Army were mostly armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own property.

When the Reds approached Moscow, the city was a home to over 30,000 active and retired military officers, all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of armed citizens. The Communists promised to leave them alone if there would be no armed resistance. The Muscovites believed them and didn't intervene when a few hundred White military cadets and their instructors died defending the city against ten thousand Reds. Shortly afterwards, the Communists asked everyone to register their weapons. Those who showed up, where promptly shot.

Once they won the civil war, the Reds disarmed the entire population. From that point on, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, and mass famine were a safe game. The worst the Communists had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts, a knife in the back, or the occasional hunting rifle.

For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare source of light in the ever darkening world.

If politicians really believe that our society is full of incompetent adolescents who can't be trusted with weapons, let them explain why we should trust them or the police, who also come from the same society and grew up in this culture.

While various governments try to limit gun ownership so as to protect the people from lunatics and criminals, what they really protect is their own power. Everywhere the guns are banned, gun-related crime increases. If lunatics want to kill, they can use cars (NYC, Chapel Hill NC), swords (Japan), knives (China), or home-made bombs (world over). They can throw acid (Pakistan, UK), or fire bombs (France). Often times the only way to stop a raging maniac on a killing spree is a bullet to the head fired by an armed citizen.

Do not believe for a moment that progressives and other leftists hate guns. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who will not march in lockstep with their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves, refuse to comply, and eventually will have to be scheduled for a bullet behind the ear.

Do not fall for their false promises. Do not extinguish the last remaining light that allows humanity a measure of self-respect.

XXXXX​

For many years now, the "imperialist" America was being quietly transformed, under our noses, into a socialist country through mind conditioning of at least three complete K-12 generations of public-school students. USSR is dead; long live the USSA.​

And you thought Pravda turning anti-communist was a big deal!​

January 11, 2013
Pravda, Guns, and America
By Oleg Atbashian

Articles: Pravda, Guns, and America​

 

[Manonthestreet]

Just like we are the militia....We are also the press...,...

 

[Divine Wind]

...
Frankly, the country would improve immensely if freedom of the press was removed from the First Amendment. The press (print and electronic) does more harm to this country every week than the Electoral Collage did in over 200 years.

The first step to a strong authoritarian regime is to control the media. Russia does it. China does it. North Korea does it. Iran does it and now you want the US to do it? I strongly disagree. Freedom of the Press is like a prickly cactus, but it's worth to maintaining freedom outweighs it's annoying characteristics. Watergate would never have existed without Freedom of the Press.

Authoritarian Theory
Authoritarian theory describe that all forms of communications are under the control of the governing elite or authorities or influential bureaucrats.

Authoritarians are necessary to control the media to protect and prevent the people from the national threats through any form communication (information or news). The press is an instrument to enhance the ruler’s power in the country rather than any threats. The authorities have all rights to permit any media and control it by providing license to the media and make certain censorship.

If any media violate the government policies against license, then the authority has all right to cancel the license and revoke it. The government have all right to restrict any sensitive issues from press to maintain peace and security in the nation.

Censorship:
Censorship is a suppression of any communication which may consider as harmful to the people, King, government and its nation. Especially these censorship methods are much familiar in press which against the freedom of speech and freedom of expression. In some other cases, the censorship helps to protect the rulers and authorities from sensitive issues.

There are different types of censors like

• Political censor

• Moral censor

• Religious censor

• Military censor

• Corporate censor

 

[SeaGal]

Freedom of Speech is synonymous with Freedom of the Press. If you curtail one, you curtail the other. Letting someone (the someone in charge) decide what constitutes speech and what constitutes press is tantamount to censorship.

X 2

So much of the establishment media seem to have willingly turned themselves into propaganda machines - printing half-truths, burying uncomfortable truths, and apparently engaging in lazy or biased 'journalism'. Frustrating and alarming as that should be - we cannot allow elected officials to determine what is and what is not 'fit to print' when it comes to informing the public.

I heard an interesting comment not long ago - 'The Fourth Estate has become the Fifth Column' - appears to be true - but part of our duty as citizens is to sift through and discard the chaff ourselves, not hire others to do it for us.

 

[Flanders]

The first step to a strong authoritarian regime is to control the media.

To Divine.Wind: Obviously. It is also obvious that freedom of speech is the best, and only, defense against a tyrannical government. In the same vain see the Eric Hoffer quotation following my signature.

Iran does it and now you want the US to do it?

To Divine.Wind: Double-speaking the need for a free press and pretending you favor freedom of speech is the only way you could make such an accusation.

Watergate would never have existed without Freedom of the Press.

To Divine.Wind: Watergate abandoned a free press’ responsibility AGAIN. The first time was when the press stood by in 1960 when JFK stole the election from Richard Nixon:

Nixon was crucified by the Washington Post for nothing more than engaging in political dirty tricks.

In the mundane world of journalism Ben Bradlee is akin to John Wayne’s screen persona; a straight shooter; a rock of honesty who never did a wrong thing in his life. Frankly, I never believed it.

Back when Watergate was happening I thought Bradlee’s motive was less than pure. Even today, detractors fail to mention the fact that he was JFK’s pal on top of hating Richard Nixon for his role in bringing down Alger Hiss. It’s not difficult to visualize how hatred must have consumed Bradlee after Nixon rose from the dead and won the presidency in 1968. Hence, at the first opportunity Bradlee gave Woodward and Bernstein free rein to do whatever was necessary to destroy Nixon over nothing more than political dirty tricks.

Woodward has been discredited although his fellow journalists still hang on every word he says when he appears on TV panels. Nor will you find the MSM looking at Ben Bradlee with a jaundiced eye. Happily, his John Wayne image is occasionally examined on the Internet:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/281186-a-tiny-kerfuffle.html​

Pat Buchanan put Watergate in perspective:

The Unraveling Myth of Watergate
Pat Buchanan
May 25, 2012

The Unraveling Myth of Watergate​

The authorities have all rights to permit any media and control it by providing license to the media and make certain censorship.

To Divine.Wind: Your merry-go-round is out of control. Print press does not require a license. Television and radio do.

See this thread for some observations about censorship:

Hillary Clinton Proves Fake News Is Newspeak

So much of the establishment media seem to have willingly turned themselves into propaganda machines - printing half-truths, burying uncomfortable truths, and apparently engaging in lazy or biased 'journalism'. Frustrating and alarming as that should be - we cannot allow elected officials to determine what is and what is not 'fit to print' when it comes to informing the public.

To SeaGal: Well said and deadly accurate.

 

[Divine Wind]

To Divine.Wind: Your merry-go-round is out of control. ...

LOL. Okey-dokey. Nonetheless, I strongly disagree with your idea to shred the Constitution either partially or wholly.