Our country is facing a Free Speech crisis.

[Luckyone]

ROFLMAO! what a completely ridiculous assertion, you think Donald Trump has been on the side of the major broadcast networks? Apparently you forgot, the whole premise of your own argument was complaining about Donald Trump going after the broadcast networks as first amendment infringement.

For cryin' out loud if you're clueless enough to actually post this, I can't see taking anything that follows from you on the subject seriously.

We can start with FOX, then Breibart, but it is not only the media that I am talking about, it is a list of big companies that Trump has not only supported but given help to as well.

List of American Companies That Support President Donald Trump​

Campaign financing plays a crucial role in shaping political strategies, policy priorities and even administrative appointments.

Trump's fundraising efforts reflect the support of influential donors who may expect favorable policies in return. The financial backing from corporate and billionaire donors signals key industry interests in a potential second Trump presidency. It also shows which companies are rushing to support the incoming administration by donating to its inaugural fund.

Trump has raised substantial sums from high-profile corporations and business leaders. According to Rolling Stone, major companies such as Chevron, ExxonMobil and Occidental Petroleum have contributed to Trump's inauguration committee. Tech giants Amazon and Meta also donated $1 million each, along with Uber and Qualcomm. The cryptocurrency industry has also emerged as a major donor, with Coinbase, Kraken, Galaxy Digital Holdings, Crypto.com and Paradigm Operations each contributing $1 million.

 

[BlindBoo]

they've essentially become nothing more than propaganda arms for one political party and not just because of what they broadcast but also because of what they refuse to broadcast,

So what if they have, not saying they have, but so what and what to you expect? The fairness doctrine was done away with nearly 40 years ago. There are a huge number of licensed broadcasters who broadcast one political perspective all day everyday. All because they stopped enforcing the fairness doctrine. Now you want to enforce it in a draconian way because of Benedict Donald? But only on TV, not radio broadcasters.

Public interest and alert systems are the public interests not the politics of the party in power.

 

[Luckyone]

No, you said nothing. Thats not my opinion.

You mean "it did not enter your eyes, right"?

 

[Darkwind]

Prove it then. You make big statements and say it is determined by the law and the FCC but then again, that is Trump's OPINION.

Here is the reality (according to AI)

AI Overview

It is a subjective and politically charged question whether the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) is the "worst ever," and there is no broad consensus on the matter. Critics point to stagnant student performance and rising costs as evidence of its failure, while supporters emphasize its role in protecting civil rights and providing financial aid.

That is not Trump's opinion.

It's the truth.

Who did you think was going to make the determiation of 'The public interest"?

The left?

 

[Mac1958]

"Two total losers".

This is a child. He has the mind of a spoiled 15 year old brat.

And anyone in his flock who can't see that is, at very best, only marginally more mature.

 

[martybegan]

"Two total losers".

This is a child. He has the mind of a spoiled 15 year old brat.

And anyone in his flock who can't see that is, at best, only marginally more mature.

 

[NetJedi]

We can start with FOX, then Breibart, but it is not only the media that I am talking about, it is a list of big companies that Trump has not only supported but given help to as well.

Apparently, you're unaware that Fox and Breitbart are not federally licensed broadcast networks, so they're not involved in the public process for broadcast licensure.

Congratulations on first invalidating your own argument and then providing further evidence supporting my theory that you're completely clueless on the subject matter you're attempting to argue.

 

[Fang]

Here is Trump just yesterday saying that 97% of the media is against him and since they all need licenses to stay open, their licenses should be revoked. In addition, it is not just the media he is trying to shut down. It is every company, institution and Federal departments that oppose him.

What is even worse is that a large number of all Republicans support him on this issue!



This all suggests that Freedom of Speech is no longer important and that being loyal to one man (Trump - no matter what he does), is now a requirement to stay in business, or even for an individual person to stay out of harm's way, simply by voicing his mind and his concerns.

The funniest comments I hear on the internet these days is Liberals complaining about losing free speech when their entire playbook is about shutting down speech.

 

[Luckyone]

That is not Trump's opinion.

It's the truth.

Who did you think was going to make the determiation of 'The public interest"?

The left?

No, the Constitution and the law determine what is public interest. Trump took an oath of office to protect the Constitution, and yet he is doing the opposite.

Ever hear of the First Amendment?

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents Congress from making laws respecting an establishment of religion; prohibiting the free exercise of religion; or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. In the original draft of the Bill of Rights, what is now the First Amendment occupied third place. The first two articles were not ratified by the states, so the article on disestablishment and free speech ended up being first.

When that is broken, this is a decision for the Courts not make, and not for Trump to make.

 

[MarathonMike]

Here is Trump just yesterday saying that 97% of the media is against him and since they all need licenses to stay open, their licenses should be revoked. In addition, it is not just the media he is trying to shut down. It is every company, institution and Federal departments that oppose him.

What is even worse is that a large number of all Republicans support him on this issue!



This all suggests that Freedom of Speech is no longer important and that being loyal to one man (Trump - no matter what he does), is now a requirement to stay in business, or even for an individual person to stay out of harm's way, simply by voicing his mind and his concerns.

See my thread in Flame Zone about all of you PHONY Free Speech Leftists.

 

[Fang]

One question for you based on your response:

"WHO decides whether it is in the public interest or not? Trump?"

I personally believe that Steven Colbert and more so, Jon Stewart serve the public interest well. They bring up the issues that are facing the country and do it in a humorous way that drives it deeper and more understandable for the public.

Trump already got rid of Colbert and is targeting Stewart.

In addition, and forgetting comedians and the media, he already got rid of the Department of Education and USAID, both of which served the public interest. So where does that leave your argument?

Comedians serve the public interest? Good Lord. smh

 

[Luckyone]

Comedians serve the public interest? Good Lord. smh

AI Overview

Comedians serve the public interest by acting as modern-day public intellectuals, using humor to foster social change, challenge authority, and facilitate conversations around complex or difficult topics. By creating a safe space for people to engage with and absorb challenging ideas, they can unify and inspire their audience.

 

[NetJedi]

So what if they have, not saying they have, but so what and what to you expect?

I expect licensees to comply with terms of licensure which clearly states that "news distortion" is a violation of that license and cites "one-sided news reports" as an example of "news distortion". The FCC's own public documentation goes on to state that “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.”, If it cannot or will not comply with this commonsense standard, then they should lose their broadcast license whether they be left slanted or right slanted.

Of course, the FCC promises to investigate complaints of this practice but oddly enough they never seem to do anything about it, might be those big corporate donations and the revolving door of regulators going to work at big broadcast corporations that has something to do with that.

 

[Rawley]

You get rid of a bad president!

Admitting they are broadcasting partisan political propaganda is hot helpful to your case.

 

[Mac1958]

We can start with FOX, then Breibart, but it is not only the media that I am talking about, it is a list of big companies that Trump has not only supported but given help to as well.

Yeah, they'll back what's happening, they'll call the press liars, and then they'll use Alex Jones, Breitbart, Fox News and NewsMax, et al, as "sources".

This is all getting pretty close to hopeless. These are two separate realities.

 

[Fang]

AI Overview

Comedians serve the public interest by acting as modern-day public intellectuals, using humor to foster social change, challenge authority, and facilitate conversations around complex or difficult topics. By creating a safe space for people to engage with and absorb challenging ideas, they can unify and inspire their audience.

Additional AI Overview
Comedians can be entertaining and thought-provoking, but relying on them as a primary source for news or political insight is risky. Their job is not to inform—it’s to entertain. That means their takes are shaped by what will get laughs, not necessarily what will give people a balanced or factual view.

• One-Sided Commentary
• No Obligation to Accuracy
• Simplification of Complex Issues
• Entertainment Incentives

 

[BlindBoo]

That is not Trump's opinion.

It's the truth.

Who did you think was going to make the determiation of 'The public interest"?

The left?

It is the emergency broadcast service, local emergencies,and things like that. Not speech that is critical of the current government or party in power. Not in giving the political opposition time on their networks. Hasn't been that way for decades thanks to Ronnie Raygun.

 

[Dorian Mode]

No, the Constitution and the law determine what is public interest. Trump took an oath of office to protect the Constitution, and yet he is doing the opposite.

Ever hear of the First Amendment?

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents Congress from making laws respecting an establishment of religion; prohibiting the free exercise of religion; or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. In the original draft of the Bill of Rights, what is now the First Amendment occupied third place. The first two articles were not ratified by the states, so the article on disestablishment and free speech ended up being first.

When that is broken, this is a decision for the Courts not make, and not for Trump to make.

There is an extremely easy way to know if the left's position that this is an assault on the first amendment. Have any notable lawsuits been filed as result of ABC cancelling this show? If there is a free speech problem there would be free speech legal cases springing up everywhere. I don't see them. Can you point me to anything?

 

[Darkwind]

It is the emergency broadcast service, local emergencies,and things like that. Not speech that is critical of the current government or party in power. Not in giving the political opposition time on their networks. Hasn't been that way for decades thanks to Ronnie Raygun.

Who the **** cares?

The LEFT promotes the mutilation of children as young as three years old in the name of ideology.

There is no ******* way the left gets to determine the public interest. You clowns cannot even look after the public interest of our children.

 

[Luckyone]

The funniest comments I hear on the internet these days is Liberals complaining about losing free speech when their entire playbook is about shutting down speech.

Liberalism - Wikipedia​

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Liberalism

Do libertarians support freedom of speech?

Libertarians advocate the expansion of individual autonomy and political self-determination, emphasizing the principles of equality before the law and the protection of civil rights, including the rights to freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of choice.

Having said that, it is true that SOME liberals on the left have been accused (and likely guilty) of trying to keep Free Speech controlled. Nonetheless, that is the exception and not the rule for liberals in general. These days exceptions-to-the-rule have grown on both sides. By the same token, on the left that has been used more for protection than for trying to rule. The right has been doing it for power alone!