Page 1 of 24 1 2 3 4 5 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 235
  1. #1

    Licensing for the 2nd Amendment is bad, but for the 1st?

    Not that it matters to many ('cept me and a few others) but I find a president uttering the words below, as extremely troubling. A siting president directly talking about restricting the freedom of the press, openly suggesting that speech can be, and should be, revoked. Absolutely crazy.
    It is frankly disgusting the press is able to write whatever it wants to write
    With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!
    Network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked. Not fair to public!
    -President Donald J. Trump (United States of America?)



    Well some others find it troubling, as well.
    Mr. President: Words spoke by the President of the United States matter. Are you tonight recanting of the oath you took on January 20 to preserve, protect, and defend the First Amendment?
    -Sen. Ben Sass Nebraska (R)




    So, INGO, what says you? Do you find a president saying such things concerning, even dangerous, or are some attacks on rights more acceptable to others? Should, at President Donald J. Trump's suggestion, we take a look at the licensing of our (free?) press?
    Here's what some other thought about the issue:
    The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state: it ought not, therefore, to be restrained in this commonwealth.
    -John Adams
    Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.
    -Thomas Jefferson
    Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of every thing, and in no instance is this more true than in that of the press. It has accordingly been decided by the practice of the States, that it is better to leave a few of its noxious branches to their luxuriant growth, than, by pruning them away, to injure the vigour of those yielding the proper fruits.
    -JamesMadison




    Bonus quote: Do these words seem familiar?
    All over the world, wherever there are capitalists, freedom of the press means freedom to buy up newspapers, to buy writers, to bribe, buy and fake “public opinion” for the benefit of the bourgeoisie.
    -Vladimir Lenin

    Kut (asks, when does this become a problem?... it's a problem if someone even whispers something about restricting the Second Amendment, but this?)

    Disclaimer: I'm not going to start threads based on every bad action by the president, but this subject definitely deserved it's own thread, as it's an explicit attack on an institution that is a cornerstone to our democracy.
    There's a special place in hell for Carolyn and Roy Bryant.

  2. #2
    Oh yes, almost forgot. If you can... comment on the subject, not the poster.
    There's a special place in hell for Carolyn and Roy Bryant.

  3. #3
    Grandmaster BugI02's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    8,238
    [Virtual teal] Trump is talking about a television network, which is already licensed by the FCC in order to broadcast. I believe one of the criteria to obtain/maintain that license is to serve the public interest, and to be found in violation can rezult in fines or broadcast license revocation. I think he is on solid ground as I believe he is de facto head of the FCC, so he's not covering any new ground since at least the profanity actions by the FCC in the last 10yrs.

    By using the formulation that speaking in whispers about restricting the second amendment is verboten, you are minimizing what is a full-throated cry from Clinton and her ilk in favor of confiscation (the love affair with Australian style gun control). I would like to grant your second post request, but you would need to present the two subjects in a much less agenda-driven manner

    Do I think leaning on NBC about standards and licensing is an attempt to muzzle the free press, No. No presses are involved and no one is suggesting licensing print journalism. Do you really think if NBC was brought to heel there would be no other Trump critics left? This is not existential no matter how much hyperventilating goes on. The licensing standards date from probably the 50s, its not something Trump wants to initiate, its a tool he is signaling he might be willing to use

    On the other hand, the types of new restrictions advocated by the likes of Pelosi and Clinton on the second amendment are much more dangerous to freedom, IMO

    What you choose to minimize and what you choose to overamplify causes me to question the motive/agenda of the poster. Fake Ingo News (hereafter to be abbreviated FIN)
    [end virtual teal]
    Socialism produces bad music, bad art, social stagnation and really unhappy people

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by BugI02 View Post
    I think he is on solid ground as I believe he is de facto head of the FCC...
    He may very well be, legally.

    But for a sitting president to use, or talk about using, his power to silence any organization because they are critical of him is NEVER a good thing. It is a slippery slope in the same way that incremental gun control measures are. If we shouldn't give an inch where our 2A rights are concerned, we shouldn't be willing to do so for the 1A.

    Quote Originally Posted by BugI02 View Post
    Do I think leaning on NBC about standards and licensing is an attempt to muzzle the free press, No. No presses are involved...
    That's like saying our freedom of speech only applies to actual "speech".
    Necessity is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

  5. #5
    Grandmaster indiucky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Indiucky, Across the river from Kentuckiana
    Posts
    12,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Kutnupe14 View Post
    Oh yes, almost forgot. If you can... comment on the subject, not the poster.
    This is a true classic from the 1970's...I kept mine right above my bed and would reach up and tousle her curls periodically....Unlike Johnny Buzzkill here any of you can feel free to comment on the poster.....

    Quote Originally Posted by patience0830 View Post
    Thread killing historian.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by indiucky View Post
    This is a true classic from the 1970's...I kept mine right above my bed and would reach up and tousle her curls periodically....Unlike Johnny Buzzkill here any of you can feel free to comment on the poster.....
    I approve of the subject and the poster.
    Necessity is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

  7. #7
    Grandmaster indiucky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Indiucky, Across the river from Kentuckiana
    Posts
    12,368
    Here is another classic poster from the same era...Notice the angelic like poses with just a hint of naughtiness in the smiles...The photographer knew he was going for the teenage boy's and it's no surprise that this image was the pose on the pinball machine we played the most....

    Quote Originally Posted by patience0830 View Post
    Thread killing historian.

  8. #8
    Grandmaster eldirector's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Brownsburg, IN
    Posts
    12,403
    https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides...ast-journalism
    What can the FCC do?

    The FCC cannot interfere with a broadcaster's selection and presentation of material for the news and/or its commentary. However, the FCC does regulate content in some narrow areas. Federal law prohibits or limits the broadcast of obscene, indecent or profane language as defined by U.S. courts. Also, the FCC may issue penalties for knowingly broadcasting false information.
    What responsibilities do broadcasters have?

    As public trustees, broadcasters may not intentionally distort the news. The FCC has stated publicly that "rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest." The FCC may act to protect the public interest when it has received documented evidence, such as testimony from persons who have direct personal knowledge of an intentional falsification of the news. Without such documented evidence, the FCC generally cannot intervene.
    Ryan "ElDirector"
    _(O|||||||O)_

    Danville Conservation Club | JPFrog Offroaders
    Indiana Four Wheel Drive Assoc.
    I make my own luck.
    Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.

    “The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.”
    ― Dante Alighieri, Inferno

  9. #9
    So we don't view the 1st Amendment in the say way we the 2nd? How is the FCC different from that of the BATFE? Reasonable restrictions on speech, I guess.
    There's a special place in hell for Carolyn and Roy Bryant.

  10. #10
    Grandmaster HoughMade's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Valparaiso
    Posts
    18,908
    There is no license to exercise the 1st Amendment. A broadcast license is a license to use a certain portion of the airwaves which, for some reason, it was decided long ago and accepted by both ends of the (official) political spectrum should be controlled by the government. At one time, broadcast licenses may have directly implicated the ability to reach an audience (which is not necessarily a 1st Am. issue), but in 2017? Not really.

    That being said- it was a dumb thing for the President to say and a stupid attitude to have.


       
    Like Harvey Weinstein, but with a broken moral compass.

Page 1 of 24 1 2 3 4 5 11 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •