JD Vance on free speech

[Marener]

This was a service, and it's blatantly obvious when you see the edited and non edited versions.

That’s idiotic. Every episode of 60 minutes is edited. The standard is “but for” and it’s absolutely stupid to claim but for the campaign they wouldn’t have edited the show, because every show is edited.

Explain the difference between editorial decisions and “service”. Tell me how we differentiate those two.

 

[Marener]

If recall, you guys were arguing that suppressing speech (paying lying whores to keep their mouths shut) was a campaign contribution.

When you’re spending money to suppress the speech in coordination with the candidate, it is a campaign contribution.

FEC agreed.

FEC fines National Enquirer publisher over Trump hush-money payment

The Federal Election Commission on Tuesday said it had fined the publisher of the National Enquirer for its role in a "hush-money" payment made to quiet a woman who alleged an affair with former President Donald Trump during the 2016 election cycle, according to documents made public by Common...

www.cnn.com

 

[Rawley]

No, the argument was that paying out funds without disclosing it was illegal.

Air time on 60 minutes is worth tens of millions of dollars.

When you’re spending money to suppress the speech in coordination with the candidate, it is a campaign contribution.

FEC agreed.

FEC fines National Enquirer publisher over Trump hush-money payment

The Federal Election Commission on Tuesday said it had fined the publisher of the National Enquirer for its role in a "hush-money" payment made to quiet a woman who alleged an affair with former President Donald Trump during the 2016 election cycle, according to documents made public by Common...

www.cnn.com

So you do want it both ways.

 

[martybegan]

That’s idiotic. Every episode of 60 minutes is edited. The standard is “but for” and it’s absolutely stupid to claim but for the campaign they wouldn’t have edited the show, because every show is edited.

Explain the difference between editorial decisions and “service”. Tell me how we differentiate those two.

No, it's a matter for a civil jury or judge to decide.

The issue is usually these are edited for time, which is a neutral reason.

They edited it to make Harris look better.

 

[pknopp]

Air time on 60 minutes is worth tens of millions of dollars.

It sure is cold out today.

 

[Rawley]

It sure is cold out today.

The opposite sides of a die will always add up to seven.​

 

[Marener]

Air time on 60 minutes is worth tens of millions of dollars

Please tell me the name of someone who has paid any money to be on 60 minutes.

 

[Marener]

The issue is usually these are edited for time, which is a neutral reason.

They edited it to make Harris look better.

You would have a very hard time proving that, but even if you could, it's still irrelevant. Choosing what to air and what not to air is protected by the first amendment no matter the reason. You can't call free speech a campaign contribution. Don't you remember Citizens United?

 

[Rawley]

Please tell me the name of someone who has paid any money to be on 60 minutes.

CBS gave the Harris Campaign tens of millions of dollars by airing their propaganda.

This ain't rocket science.

 

[Marener]

CBS gave the Harris Campaign tens of millions of dollars by airing their propaganda.

This ain't rocket science.

Please tell me the name of someone who has paid any money to be on 60 minutes.

 

[Rawley]

Please tell me the name of someone who has paid any money to be on 60 minutes.

Kamala Harris

 

[Marener]

Kamala Harris

Troll.

 

[Rawley]

Troll.

True, but we humor you becasue your fits are entertaining.

 

[martybegan]

You would have a very hard time proving that, but even if you could, it's still irrelevant. Choosing what to air and what not to air is protected by the first amendment no matter the reason. You can't call free speech a campaign contribution. Don't you remember Citizens United?

It's not choosing to air it, it's editing it to make Harris look better, contributing to her campaign.

It's not their speech, it's hers. Their choice to edit it to make her look better contributed to her campaign.

 

[Marener]

It's not choosing to air it, it's editing it to make Harris look better, contributing to her campaign.

It's not their speech, it's hers. Their choice to edit it to make her look better contributed to her campaign.

You're speaking in contradictory nonsense. You're saying a campaign contribution is now their decision to NOT do something. You're also saying CBS is making a campaign contribution with speech that isn't even theirs.

None of this makes any fucking sense.

 

[berg80]

Does free speech lead to dictatorship as the Left is trying to convince people today?

No one is making that claim.

‘This is Orwellian’: JD Vance EXPOSES Germany's strict laws on free speech | Blaze Media

Vice President JD Vance isn’t afraid of ruffling any feathers, and he made this clear when he condemned Europe for its growing censorship laws. “Insulting someone is not a crime, and criminalizing speech is going to put real strain on European-U.S. relationships,” Vance posted on X. “This is...

www.theblaze.com

Does free speech lead to dictatorship as the Left is trying to convince people today?

Vice President JD Vance isn’t afraid of ruffling any feathers, and he made this clear when he condemned Europe for its growing censorship laws.

“Insulting someone is not a crime, and criminalizing speech is going to put real strain on European-U.S. relationships,” Vance posted on X. “This is Orwellian, and everyone in Europe and the U.S. must reject this lunacy.”

Vance wrote this on a quote tweet of a clip on "60 Minutes" that went viral, where German prosecutors calmly confirmed just how Orwellian their country really is.

“It’s illegal to display Nazi symbolism, a swastika, or deny the Holocaust, that’s clear,” the "60 Minutes" reporter told the prosecutors, before asking, “Is it a crime to insult somebody in public?”

“Yes,” the prosecutors answered in unison.

“And it’s a crime to insult them online as well?” the reporter asked.

“Yes, the fine could be even higher if you insult someone on the internet,” one prosecutor answered. “Because on the internet, it stays there. If we are talking here face to face, you insult me, I insult you, OK, finish. But if you are on the internet, if I insult you or a politician, that sticks around forever.”


The prosecutors also explained that under German law, the spread of malicious gossip, violent threats, and fake quotes are also grounds for punishment. When charged, the punishment is usually a steep fine.

“That’s pretty, pretty chilling,” Pat Gray of “Pat Gray Unleashed” comments, and Keith Malinak is in full agreement.

“Less than three generations, we went from one fascist to another,” Malinak says, shocked.

“They’re just sitting there like, ‘Hey, yeah, we’re proud of this. This is great,’ and laugh about it,” Gray continues, adding, “and she’s smiling as she’s asking them the questions.”

The subtext of Vance's objection comes from Germany's prohibition on Nazi propaganda.

Ever since placing restrictions on hate speech and demonstrable lies became an issue for social media platforms here the Right has conflated free speech with the unrestricted ability to do harm to society without accountability through rhetoric.

 

[martybegan]

You're speaking in contradictory nonsense. You're saying a campaign contribution is now their decision to NOT do something. You're also saying CBS is making a campaign contribution with speech that isn't even theirs.

None of this makes any fucking sense.

Of course you can't figure it out, you are a fucking moron.

I've seen toddlers and dogs with more intellect than you show here.

 

[martybegan]

T

No one is making that claim.

The subtext of Vance's objection comes from Germany's prohibition on Nazi propaganda.

Ever since placing restrictions on hate speech and demonstrable lies became an issue for social media platforms here the Right has conflated free speech with the unrestricted ability to do harm to society without accountability through rhetoric.

Typical weasel term to justify using government and criminal law to suppress opinions you don't like.

 

[Marener]

Of course you can't figure it out, you are a fucking moron.

I've seen toddlers and dogs with more intellect than you show here.

The only reason this makes sense to you is indoctrination.

No one thinks Sean Hannity is making a campaign donation by praising Trump and doing softball interviews. That's what you'd be suggesting.

Editorial decisions made by 60 minutes to produce their show can't be considered campaign contributions. It just doesn't work.

 

[martybegan]

The only reason this makes sense to you is indoctrination.

No one thinks Sean Hannity is making a campaign donation by praising Trump and doing softball interviews. That's what you'd be suggesting.

Editorial decisions made by 60 minutes to produce their show can't be considered campaign contributions. It just doesn't work.

60 minutes likes to pretend they are non-partisan. Then they edit the Harris interview to make her look better.