House Democrats, Targeting Right-Wing Cable Outlets, Are Assaulting Core Press Freedoms

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Jack Hays, Feb 27, 2021.

  1. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is the kind of specific charge that, in my view, needs something objective backing it up; otherwise, your conclusion is not an opinion based on fact, but an opinion based on your other opinions.

    As I said before, going by your rhetoric-- "they are openly and blatantly discriminatory about what constitutes 'disinformation and extremism.' It is ANYTHING to do with POSITIVE media about Trump"-- one would believe that there are a host of actual examples of this open, & blatant categorizing of news which is nothing more than positive statements about Trump, instead, as, "disinformation," and/or, "extremism." You are aware, I'm sure, that the two categories-- positive appraisals of Trump, and disinformation/extremism-- are not mutually-exclusive; being one, does not mean it is not the other.

    Now, if you could cite some, "journalistic," source-- even a highly biased/partisan one-- that gave an opinion such as, "Trump is the greatest president of the last generation," which a Democrat on any of the Committees involved with oversight on this issue called disinformation or extremism, I assure you, I will grant validity to your argument, & see it, myself, as something to take with concern. But you provide none of these open & blatant instances of mischaracterizing as extremist disinformation, things that have nothing to do with, as you alluded to, excusing Trump of any complicity in the Jan. 6th Capitol riot, including in fomenting anger through his oft-repeated, but never corroborated, accusations of massive (i.e., result-changing) election fraud. I hope I am making very clear what is my objection to your argument, & what reasonable, I feel, additional information, which has so far been missing from your case, I am asking you to supply.

    Again, an example of an a conclusion without citing any evidentiary material. If their motives have been so clearly exposed that, " there is no doubt what (Democratic officials) are trying to do...prohibit media carriers from purveying information that they do not like," then surely it should not be an inconvenience to you to proffer some examples of their making this motive so obvious. Otherwise, the doubt must remain that what you are deeming nothing more than information that Democrats don't like, might also be seen as misinformation intended to incite distrust in our elections, our society's institutions, and our government itself, to the cumulative point of encouraging unlawful activity & insurrection.

    Ah, here we get to the meat of it. Firstly, I do NOT make the claim that ANY allegation that cannot be definitively proven is therefore disinformation. I did previously include, "legitimate mistakes," in my calculus to be included by some organ of government, or used by government, for evaluating a, "news," program. Naturally, everything printed in the news cannot be proven fact, especially at first (e.g., the Watergate break-in & cover-up). But there should be some REASONABLE BASIS for any allegation. Sources of information must be CREDIBLE.

    I also think you are smarter than to not understand that different types of assertions have varying requisites of supporting evidence. And in the case of such potentially incendiary claims as election fraud or illegality ("massive," no less), this is perhaps where we can at least agree is the point on which our two opinions will ever be at odds.

    Firstly, as you know, it is often impossible to prove a negative, i.e., that something didn't happen, unless the thing alleged is very specific, such that the accusation names the exact vehicle, i.e., perpetrator of the alleged action. If there were allegations that at 3AM, Election Supervisor John Q. Public drove up to a certain site, with a truckload of ballots he had rec'd through a specific source, and that those were then entered into the system by a defined group of people (say, a dozen of that site's official ballot counters, or the Election Supervisor's extended family), there would be some basis, at least, to disprove the charge (by, for example, verifying the location of any of the accused during the indicated time period). But to just say somebody drove a truck loaded with fake ballots it picked up somewhere which were secreted into the building & then into the system by some undescribed, "people," is not the sort of thing to be taken as true unless proven false. If I said, while you were asleep last night, an extra-terrestrial (which I believe exist, BTW) stood over your bed, how could you disprove that? All you could do would be to say there is no sign of that having occurred; this is the same rationale for those dismissing these claims as spurious: there is nothing to indicate it ever happened. Burden of proof is on the accuser, not the indicted (as you also know).

    If it was a falsehood about a specific company, for example, like Dominion, then the accuser has the possibility of liable charges to contend with, for lying. But if the victim of the slander is our governmental election-infrastructure, trust in which is as vital to the very life of our democratic system as is a circulatory system, to the continued existence of a human being, there is no mechanism for suing for justice. Perhaps it's time that there was.
     
    gabmux likes this.
  2. gabmux

    gabmux Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,721
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :applause::applause::applause:
     
  3. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    My argument, if you were somehow unclear on this point that I've now lost count of the number of times I've repeated, is that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) should have heard the case, JUST AS IT (years after it would have been most useful) HEARD THE TEXAS CASE. It is clearly specious reasoning for one to claim that none of the other states of the Confederacy, "had standing," at the time, but that the ruling of a later case-- under a very different set of circumstances, and political pressures, as I noted in another post which was never treated in your replies-- against one particular state in the same general position, should apply to all those other states, retroactively, though they were not allowed to put forth their own cases.

    "Standing," certainly does apply, according to the Constitution, Article 3, Section 2. Since all later law, to be valid, must comport with the Constitution (be constitutional), it is irrelevant what language is in other documents that might be cobbled together to construct a conceptual argument against the states having the right to present their cases to the Court, when the Constitution specifically states that, "IN ALL CASES," involving the U.S. government, & IN ALL...CONTROVERSIES between TWO or More STATES, the Judiciary is where these cases are meant to be resolved, the Supreme Court, in the latter instance (between states).

    Though I have already produced the Constitutional text for you, you have, once more, chosen not to address this argument at all, instead focusing on the later ruling, as if that over-rode the Constitution, itself. In case the way I laid out this Constitutional argument for RodB, makes it clearer for you, & you haven't read that post, here is the link:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-press-freedoms.585561/page-5#post-1072482711

    It is a ludicrous contention that THE PRESIDENT has any authority whatsoever to decide whether a Party has legal standing for a JUDICIAL case. As you, yourself, assert, in your misguided defense of the President's behavior, he is the Chief of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH. I take it you are familiar with our government's balance of powers. You are twisting yourself in self- contradictory knots, claiming that, because it was, years later, endorsed by the Court, that President Lincoln had any kind of justification, at the time, to make a decision strictly the purview of the Courts, under the Constitution's Article 3.

    Quick hypocrisy test: As the current, "Commander-in-Chief and Chief Executive," does Joe Biden, under any circumstances, have the right to make a JUDICIAL determination, such as did Pres. Lincoln, if in the years subsequent to it, the Supreme Court affirms, "the principles on which that decision was made?"
    If your answer to that is, "No," then I was not, "Wrong again." That was exactly the point of the prior scenario I presented you, to demonstrate how you are not applying the norms for all other presidents to Lincoln, in this situation. And the thing you present as justifying Lincoln's acts, retroactively, you would not accept as the same justification for President Biden.

    You surely know that the Presidential powers apply equally to ALL occupants of that Office. IF you continue to hold that Lincoln was entitled to special privileges, & to take liberties with the Constitution's plan, then you are lost in the fantasy-construct that produces the result-- incongruous as it is-- that you want. Good luck with that.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2021
  4. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The US President decides all the time which entities have standing to enter into discussions with the US Government. When the President agrees that an entity has such standing, that is called extending recognition. When the President does not, the US Government does not "recognize" with that entity. Lincoln did not extend recognition to the Confederacy. Fully within the President's purview.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2021
  5. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,358
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I suggest you look at the examples that the subcommittee Democrats used in their challenge to the carriers and streamers. They objected to the carrying of Fox News, One America News Network, and Newsmax TV, as named examples, but no objection to nor mention of CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc, etc, etc.

    The first part is true and as it should be. However, I disagree strongly with the second part (assuming I understand it correctly). There should be no mechanism whatsoever where the government can sue a citizen or entity for either libel or slander. This would put the final nail in the coffin of the 1st amendment. On the other hand suits for performance (in both directions) or OK and allowed. For example, a government can (and does) sue a contractor for performance of the contract. For instance, suits against governments for performance of elections as were brought by states and parties in 2020. However, that option is moot if the court refuses to hear the case, or if the suit against a court is oddly brought before that same court as was the case in Pennsylvania..
     
  6. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    IMHO, George F. Will has it exactly right.

    The government can’t fix this country’s polluted media
    As the progressive campaign to regulate unprogressive speech seeps out of campuses and into mainstream politics, the party whose base includes academia is behaving predictably. Last week, Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and chairman of the subcommittee on communications and technology, convened a hearing for the undisguisable purpose of intimidating cable and streaming services that distribute conservative content, or what nowadays passes for that.

    On Feb. 22, two California Democrats, Reps. Anna G. Eshoo and Jerry McNerney, sent to AT&T and other entities letters declaring that “the right-wing media ecosystem” — they named Fox News, Newsmax and One America News Network — has produced “our current polluted information environment.” The pollution is undeniable. So are progressives’ contributions to it, e.g., their obsession with 2016 “Russian collusion,” their ludicrously solemn and extensive interviewing of Stormy Daniels’s felonious lawyer, Michael Avenatti, and their beatification of New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) during the pandemic.

    Eshoo and McNerney, however, economize their indignation by focusing on the right. In their letters, they demanded to know, among other things, how many of the cable and streaming services’ subscribers watched the three disapproved channels in the weeks prior to the Nov. 3 election and the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, and “Are you planning to continue carrying” the three channels, and “If so, why?” There being no conceivable legislative remedy, compatible with the First Amendment, for what displeases Eshoo and McNerney, the bullying purpose of their letters was patent. . . .
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2021
    RodB likes this.
  7. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I wasn't being facetious when I said, before, that you seemed more plugged-in to this issue than most. Could you go over that, "challenge to the carriers & streamers," thing, in an explanatory mode?

    No, I was not suggesting that the government should be able to sue broadcasters-- bar the thought from your mind. I was using this as an analogy for the regulation I have been arguing for, all along, that puts some guardrails up for adhering to truth, in order to maintain a, "News," designation. It was just the idea of there being some consequence to spreading lies, under the banner of News; even if that consequence is only to lose the right to call yours a, "news program." I strongly disagree with those who put all the responsibility on the viewer to be able to discern fact from fiction. What are we supposed to do, go across the country, and around the world, investigating every story for ourselves? The main reason our country's founders believed so strongly in the sanctity of the press, I assume, was because they saw it as a means of disseminating truthful information. It's hard to imagine they would be as concerned about protecting idle gossip & spurious, misleading rumor. Don't you think?
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2021
    gabmux likes this.
  8. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,358
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Quotes from the Anna G. Eshoo and Jerry McNerney letter: "Our country’s public discourse is plagued by misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy theories, and lies......... We are concerned about the role AT&T plays in disseminating misinformation to millions of its ...... subscribers, and we write to you today to request additional information about what actions AT&T is taking to address these issues......... Experts have noted that the right-wing media ecosystem is “much more susceptible…to disinformation, lies, and half-truths.” Right-wing media outlets, like Newsmax, One America News Network (OANN), and Fox News all aired misinformation [says who???] about the November 2020 elections......." [emphasis mine] This clear enough for you?

    Who should determine that news media is not adhering to the truth? You? Me? Charlie Mazzerwatts? Some federal agency? The California environmental protection agency? A group of some three or so federal district judges? A permanently appointed Special Prosecutor? Who?

    I submit, if this comes to pass with any non-partizan objectivity (a hypothetical I know), the first to lose the "news" banner would be the NY TIMES, WaPo, CNN, and MSNBC -- not at all what the House Democrats have in mind.

    I did miss your point a bit. I thought you were suggesting the government be able to sue citizens for libel or slander. Sorry about that.
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  9. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    To Defend Conservative Media, GOP Must Defend Constitution

    Rick Santorum, RCP

    Republicans have long understood that the modern Democratic Party has little patience for free expression. Leftist speech police shut down debate on college campuses; biased media outlets like MSNBC lambasted President Trump’s language instead of discussing his policies; and now congressional Democrats are looking to cancel conservative media outlets like Fox News and Newsmax.

    It is critical that conservatives don’t allow the left to ignore the First Amendment or make it irrelevant. Free speech is a core value that has made America the best country in human history. That’s why last summer I asked conservative consumers to press social media to allow more conservative content. Unfortunately, some conservatives have made the mistake of thinking the government can force platforms to host content in violation of their policies. As our wise Founding Fathers knew, the government is not the savior or protector of our rights, it is the biggest threat to them. . . .
     
    RodB likes this.
  10. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,271
    Likes Received:
    22,659
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Santorum's article might have made sense a few years ago, but now, the truth is, woke capital is a far greater danger to our rights than the government. Sure, woke capital is doing the things the government wants, but that's because they can do it and the government can't. Thinking like this is sooo 20th Century.
     
  11. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "Woke capital" is only following the path of least resistance. Make it harder.
     
  12. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,271
    Likes Received:
    22,659
    Trophy Points:
    113

    OK...that's not a useful response. Maybe if we cut taxes some more.
     
  13. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Federal income taxes are already too low.
     
  14. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    fake news

    Trump spent four years attacking the media, now the right try to act like the left is doing the same.... too funny
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2021
  15. AZ.

    AZ. Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2017
    Messages:
    2,174
    Likes Received:
    2,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Rick Santorum..........................LOL!

    http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/
     
  16. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am neither right nor left. The sad thing is that the left is indeed mimicking Trump.
     
  17. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,271
    Likes Received:
    22,659
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well I was being facetious so I guess we are in agreement on that, but my point was that you don't have any real response to the threat of woke capital. It's going to be very difficult for many Republicans to accept that at the current moment, our rights are actually under greater threat from the private sector than from the public sector. The threats to liberty have, throughout history, come from government power, so we're facing something brand new that we don't really have a historical precedent for (a state that freaks conservatives out) and the right hasn't really figured how to handle it.
     
  18. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Historically, the refuge for beleaguered groups in the US has been the court system.
     
  19. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,271
    Likes Received:
    22,659
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Explain to me how that would work.
     
  20. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Someone more clever than me would have to map that out.
     
  21. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,751
    Likes Received:
    14,562
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Probably on the hyperbolic side. They do mistakenly believe that government is a solution to rather than the source of most problems. The most authoritarian thing I have ever seen from government in my life is forcing businesses to close because of virus that isn't particularly deadly. But both sides of the aisle participated in that disaster. I guess I would say that most republicans view government as a solution as well. That should scare you.
     
  22. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,271
    Likes Received:
    22,659
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Well they need to be really smart because right now, in most states, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But I think I've made my point. The establishment right has no answers to this issue, other than the usual "build your own...[fill in the blank]" which is the answer currently that the establishment right shares with the progressive left.
     
  23. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    the right doesn't even deal in facts anymore
     
  24. Moolk

    Moolk Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2020
    Messages:
    19,283
    Likes Received:
    14,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are projecting the faults of the left
     
  25. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think your post I replied to speaks to what I said perfectly
     

Share This Page