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

[mdk]

Only the press I like should have Constitutional rights.

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[mdk]

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

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

Yes, actually, it would be a bad thing. I am not down for stripping the rights away from my fellow citizens just b/c they say crazy shit. Besides, remedies already exist if you believe you've been slandered or had your character defamed.

 

[mudwhistle]

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

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

Yes, actually, it would be a bad thing. I am not down for stripping the rights away from my fellow citizens just b/c they say crazy shit. Besides, remedies already exist if you believe you've been slandered or had your character defamed.

Remedies......like threatening their advertisers.....
That's how they got rid of O'Reilly.

 

[Tehon]

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.

corporations are not people.

 

[mdk]

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

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

Yes, actually, it would be a bad thing. I am not down for stripping the rights away from my fellow citizens just b/c they say crazy shit. Besides, remedies already exist if you believe you've been slandered or had your character defamed.

Remedies......like threatening their advertisers.....
That's how they got rid of O'Reilly.

Yes, one remedy is to vote with your wallet. You can also take them the court.

I feel bad for Bill. I believe he got railroaded. If he isn't free to sexually harness his co-workers than are any of us truly free?

 

[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.

corporations are not people.

Doesn't matter. They are given the same constitutional rights, and that was decided twice in the Supreme Court.

 

[mudwhistle]

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

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

Yes, actually, it would be a bad thing. I am not down for stripping the rights away from my fellow citizens just b/c they say crazy shit. Besides, remedies already exist if you believe you've been slandered or had your character defamed.

Remedies......like threatening their advertisers.....
That's how they got rid of O'Reilly.

Yes, one remedy is to vote with your wallet. You can also take them the court.

I feel bad for Bill. I believe he got railroaded. If he isn't free to sexually harness his co-workers than are any of us truly free?

Women seem to have a problem when men notice them......especially when they paint their faces and have their ass hanging out at work.
Imagine if men were to show off their bodies like women do.
If men dressed like women in America I don't know if there would be more sexual-harassment or more projectile vomiting at work...but I'm sure it wouldn't lead to a pleasant work experience.

 

[Toro]

What's your point?

That you don't understand the Constitution.

 

[mdk]

Women seem to have a problem when men notice them......especially when they paint their faces and have their ass hanging out at work.
Imagine if men were to show off their bodies like women do.
If men dressed like women in America I don't know if there would be more sexual-harassment or more projectile vomiting at work...but I'm sure it wouldn't lead to a pleasant work experience.

It would lead to a pleasant work experience for me.

 

[Tehon]

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.

corporations are not people.

Doesn't matter. They are given the same constitutional rights, and that was decided twice in the Supreme Court.

It matters. The courts have granted citizenship to artificial entities that undermine the authority of the true citizens of the United States.

 

[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.

corporations are not people.

Doesn't matter. They are given the same constitutional rights, and that was decided twice in the Supreme Court.

It matters. The courts have granted citizenship to artificial entities that undermine the authority of the true citizens of the United States.

And yet, the practice of giving illegals voting rights is ok?

 

[Tehon]

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.

corporations are not people.

Doesn't matter. They are given the same constitutional rights, and that was decided twice in the Supreme Court.

It matters. The courts have granted citizenship to artificial entities that undermine the authority of the true citizens of the United States.

And yet, the practice of giving illegals voting rights is ok?

Only citizens of these United States should be granted voting rights.

 

[mudwhistle]

What's your point?

That you don't understand the Constitution.

Nope.....you say we have something that we don't have.

So basically you don't understand how the Constitution is applied in court.

 

[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.

corporations are not people.

Doesn't matter. They are given the same constitutional rights, and that was decided twice in the Supreme Court.

It matters. The courts have granted citizenship to artificial entities that undermine the authority of the true citizens of the United States.

And yet, the practice of giving illegals voting rights is ok?

Only citizens of these United States should be granted voting rights.

Glad we're on the same page.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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.

You would think that, but some obscure rule was put into place where people in power can't sue for libel n slander sometime in the latter half of the 20th century. Something I don't agree with.

 

[Toro]

What's your point?

That you don't understand the Constitution.

Nope.....you say we have something that we don't have.

So basically you don't understand how the Constitution is applied in court.

Yeah, someone DARES criticize yoar messiah, Orange Jesus, and you are willing to shred the constitutional rights millions of people have died for because you are too sensitive to be criticized, snowflake.

We get it.

Your motives are transparent.

 

[mudwhistle]

What's your point?

That you don't understand the Constitution.

Nope.....you say we have something that we don't have.

So basically you don't understand how the Constitution is applied in court.

Yeah, someone DARES criticize yoar messiah, Orange Jesus, and you are willing to shred the constitutional rights millions of people have died for because you are too sensitive to be criticized, snowflake.

We get it.

Your motives are transparent.

Put it this way,......
If a private citizen had the same rights as the press there wouldn't be laws against slander and libel.

The press is afforded those rights because they're supposed to be impartial and essential for a free society.
Without a free press you get dictatorships.
The problem with that is because our press is bought and paid for by the left...we're quickly heading toward a totalitarian government in America.

 

[Tehon]

The press is afforded those rights because they're supposed to be impartial and essential for a free society.
Without a free press you get dictatorships.
The problem with that is because our press is bought and paid for by the left...we're quickly heading toward a totalitarian government in America.

It's already here, the totalitarian government. And it really doesn't have a left or right ideological bent, its only concern is economic.

Inverted totalitarianism - Wikipedia
According to Wolin, there are three main ways in which inverted totalitarianism is the inverted form of classical totalitarianism.

• Whereas in Nazi Germany the state dominated economic actors, in inverted totalitarianism, corporations through political contributions and lobbying, dominate the United States, with the government acting as the servant of large corporations. This is considered "normal" rather than corrupt.[9]
• While the Nazi regime aimed at the constant political mobilization of the populace, with its Nuremberg rallies, Hitler Youth, and so on, inverted totalitarianism aims for the mass of the populace to be in a persistent state of political apathy. The only type of political activity expected or desired from the citizenry is voting. Low electoral turnouts are favorably received as an indication that the bulk of the populace has given up hope that the government will ever help them.[10]
• While the Nazis openly mocked democracy, the United States maintains the conceit that it is the model of democracy for the whole world.[11] Wolin writes:

Inverted totalitarianism reverses things. It is all politics all of the time but a politics largely untempered by the political. Party squabbles are occasionally on public display, and there is a frantic and continuous politics among factions of the party, interest groups, competing corporate powers, and rival media concerns. And there is, of course, the culminating moment of national elections when the attention of the nation is required to make a choice of personalities rather than a choice between alternatives. What is absent is the political, the commitment to finding where the common good lies amidst the welter of well-financed, highly organized, single-minded interests rabidly seeking governmental favors and overwhelming the practices of representative government and public administration by a sea of cash.[12]

 

[Toro]

What's your point?

That you don't understand the Constitution.

Nope.....you say we have something that we don't have.

So basically you don't understand how the Constitution is applied in court.

Yeah, someone DARES criticize yoar messiah, Orange Jesus, and you are willing to shred the constitutional rights millions of people have died for because you are too sensitive to be criticized, snowflake.

We get it.

Your motives are transparent.

Put it this way,......
If a private citizen had the same rights as the press there wouldn't be laws against slander and libel.

The press is afforded those rights because they're supposed to be impartial and essential for a free society.
Without a free press you get dictatorships.
The problem with that is because our press is bought and paid for by the left...we're quickly heading toward a totalitarian government in America.

Private citizens have the same rights as the press.

I have no idea why you think otherwise.