Why Is Freedom Of The Press Automatic If They Aren't Independent And Are Corporately Owned?

[mudwhistle]

Why do we have to give the press freedoms that the rest of us don't have?
They're owned by corporations.....they're in the tank for the Democratic Party....and they aren't even remotely independent anymore. That part is painfully obvious.


Why should they be allowed to say whatever they want about anyone and not have to prove it's accurate???

 

[debbiedowner]

The stock holders might have a say in those NOT privately owned companies.

Let me take a stab at really the first reason, Constitution maybe?

 

[mudwhistle]

The stock holders might have a say in those NOT privately owned companies.

Let me take a stab at really the first reason, Constitution maybe?

The Constitution doesn't give them the right to slander or liable anyone they want to.
Fact is they're going around the law and demanding special privileges that you and I don't have.

 

[debbiedowner]

The stock holders might have a say in those NOT privately owned companies.

Let me take a stab at really the first reason, Constitution maybe?

The Constitution doesn't give them the right to slander or liable anyone they want to.
Fact is they're going around the law and demanding special privileges that you and I don't have.

But you're referring to only the Liberal press, what about the Right? You think info wars and breitbart don't slander?

 

[JGalt]

Corporations are granted constitutional rights basically because of the 14th Amendment. There was also the 1978 Supreme Court ruling that corporations covered by the First Amendment, and the 2010 "Citizens United" that allowed corporations unlimited campaign spending. The libs really came unglued about that.

 

[mudwhistle]

The stock holders might have a say in those NOT privately owned companies.

Let me take a stab at really the first reason, Constitution maybe?

The Constitution doesn't give them the right to slander or liable anyone they want to.
Fact is they're going around the law and demanding special privileges that you and I don't have.

But you're referring to only the Liberal press, what about the Right? You think info wars and breitbart don't slander?

I think the same rules should apply to everyone. The primary beef I have is the obvious double-standards.
If anyone on the right says anything that is total BS they pay a price for it. They at least try to be honest.....because they can't afford not to be. Their viewers and listeners expect honesty.
It's clear that making shit up is lucrative for the legacy media. Being nasty and over the top pays in better viewership for CNN and MSNBC.
They really don't have to watch what they say very much.

 

[mudwhistle]

Corporations are granted constitutional rights basically because of the 14th Amendment. There was also the 1978 Supreme Court ruling that corporations covered by the First Amendment, and the 2010 "Citizens United" that allowed corporations unlimited campaign spending. The libs really came unglued about that.

I don't think it allows the owner of Amazon to simply make shit up about Trump.

 

[depotoo]

I actually think it cuts their viewership down, thus the reason for their lower numbers. But their bosses have an agenda to push. They don't seem concerned with viewership so much, for some reason. I would imagine someone is helping finance certain agendas.

The stock holders might have a say in those NOT privately owned companies.

Let me take a stab at really the first reason, Constitution maybe?

The Constitution doesn't give them the right to slander or liable anyone they want to.
Fact is they're going around the law and demanding special privileges that you and I don't have.

But you're referring to only the Liberal press, what about the Right? You think info wars and breitbart don't slander?

I think the same rules should apply to everyone. The primary beef I have is the obvious double-standards.
If anyone on the right says anything that is total BS they pay a price for it. They at least try to be honest.....because they can't afford not to be. Their viewers and listeners expect honesty.
It's clear that making shit up is lucrative for the legacy media. Being nasty and over the top pays in better viewership for CNN and MSNBC.
They really don't have to watch what they say very much.

 

[cnelsen]

I actually think it cuts their viewership down, thus the reason for their lower numbers. But their bosses have an agenda to push. They don't seem concerned with viewership so much, for some reason. I would imagine someone is helping finance certain agendas.

The stock holders might have a say in those NOT privately owned companies.

Let me take a stab at really the first reason, Constitution maybe?

The Constitution doesn't give them the right to slander or liable anyone they want to.
Fact is they're going around the law and demanding special privileges that you and I don't have.

But you're referring to only the Liberal press, what about the Right? You think info wars and breitbart don't slander?

I think the same rules should apply to everyone. The primary beef I have is the obvious double-standards.
If anyone on the right says anything that is total BS they pay a price for it. They at least try to be honest.....because they can't afford not to be. Their viewers and listeners expect honesty.
It's clear that making shit up is lucrative for the legacy media. Being nasty and over the top pays in better viewership for CNN and MSNBC.
They really don't have to watch what they say very much.

(((someone)))

 

[cnelsen]

This would be a good place for...

 

[Toro]

Why do we have to give the press freedoms that the rest of us don't have?
They're owned by corporations.....they're in the tank for the Democratic Party....and they aren't even remotely independent anymore. That part is painfully obvious.


Why should they be allowed to say whatever they want about anyone and not have to prove it's accurate???

The First Amendment of the Constitution

The Constitution of the United States is awesome.

 

[Toro]

I don't think it allows the owner of Amazon to simply make shit up about Trump.

If Trump feels like he is being slandered, he is free to sue in a court of law.

Constitution, baby!

 

[Toro]

It's pretty funny that the same people complaining about Trump being lied about are the same people who propagated the nonsense that Obama was born in Kenya.

 

[Camp]

I saw a few moments of that Judge Jeanine Piro nonsense on FOX last night. You guys got no business whining about the news media when you have that kind of garbage representing you.

 

[mudwhistle]

I don't think it allows the owner of Amazon to simply make shit up about Trump.

If Trump feels like he is being slandered, he is free to sue in a court of law.

Constitution, baby!

Where is the separation between church and state in the Constitution?

Actually, the Constitution doesn't give you the rights you claim. You just think it does.

 

[mdk]

Jim Hoft and Alex Jones would be out of business using Mud's standard.

 

[Toro]

I don't think it allows the owner of Amazon to simply make shit up about Trump.

If Trump feels like he is being slandered, he is free to sue in a court of law.

Constitution, baby!

Where is the separation between church and state in the Constitution?

Actually, the Constitution doesn't give you the rights you claim. You just think it does.

I'm pretty confident that the Awesome Constitution of the United States gives every citizen Freedom of Speech, and that President Trump is within his rights to sue if he is being slandered.

Feel free to take the Washington Post to court if you think I'm wrong.

 

[mudwhistle]

I remember the good ole days under Obama...........

 

[mudwhistle]

I don't think it allows the owner of Amazon to simply make shit up about Trump.

If Trump feels like he is being slandered, he is free to sue in a court of law.

Constitution, baby!

Where is the separation between church and state in the Constitution?

Actually, the Constitution doesn't give you the rights you claim. You just think it does.

I'm pretty confident that the Awesome Constitution of the United States gives every citizen Freedom of Speech, and that President Trump is within his rights to sue if he is being slandered.

Feel free to take the Washington Post to court if you think I'm wrong.

What's your point?

 

[mudwhistle]

Jim Hoft and Alex Jones would be out of business using Mud's standard.

And this is supposed to be a bad thing???