Discussion in 'US Constitution' started by Flanders, Dec 21, 2016.
Freedom of speech for me and the media is total and complete. Fuck anyone that thinks otherwise.
Given enough time liberals will institute licensing of journalists.
But not if President Trump beats them to it.......
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
It is extremely important to maintaining our democracy that our press is free to report and hold our government accountable.
To Matthew: A press promoting democracy should be abolished.
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.
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
Just like we are the militia....We are also the press...,...
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 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 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
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.
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.
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.
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:
Pat Buchanan put Watergate in perspective:
The Unraveling Myth of Watergate
May 25, 2012
The Unraveling Myth of Watergate
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
To SeaGal: Well said and deadly accurate.
LOL. Okey-dokey. Nonetheless, I strongly disagree with your idea to shred the Constitution either partially or wholly.
Separate names with a comma.