Why EVERYONE'S right to free speech is important...

no. now if the state does it? yes.

 

beyond yelling fire in a theater, what else do you mean?

 

The simple fact is the radical left doesnt think conservatives should have free speech. Look how many conservative speakers have been prevented from speaking at colleges.

 

Horseshit.

You cannot name one war started by Alex Jones and any damage done by him is merely done to one political party which lost an election.

The hypocrisy is clear, you only want those you disagree with to be gagged because you cannot form a coherent argument against them

 

Well, for one thing, he uses the Bully Pulpit to convince his gullible followers that anything they read on the news that is negative to him is "fake". And they'll believe it despite the fact that they are unable to produce anything that is actually "fake". Just one example. The animosity he creates against the members of the press is another. But the most obvious is outright lying. Because they're not just lying "to the press". They're lying to the American people.

Obtaining phone records through a Subpoena? Bad, but definitely not worse, by a longshot, then what Trump has done.

What's really sad is that you don't understand either the purpose of the bill of rights nor the duties and obligations of a President. And it's even sadder that Trump doesn't either.

 

Sooo... according to you, the only way the government can curtail freedom of speech is by putting journalists in jail?

The Trump Cult is truly a curious bunch.

 

He has never attacked freedom of speech.

Labeling someone may be weak but it is not curtailing their speech in any way shape or form. the first amendment protection of the press does not equate to a license for the media to go unchallenged. Nor does it equate to the press have unfettered access to the president.

Trump is not the government he is only the chief executive.

 

Their constitutional right to free speech has not been suppressed.

Of course the CBA may dictate what punishment the NFL can apply. NFL hasn’t won many challenges to the punishments they have issued lately.

 

when the state doles out a punishment or sanction against a citizen for expression, you have a 1st amendment free speech violation. i don’t know what else you think would or could constitute one.

not that it’s any of your business but i didn’t vote for trump.

 

Who would those people be?

Can you give some examples?

 

Did Trump ask the Chairman of the FCC to revoke licenses of broadcast media that were unfavorable to him? Did Trump ask the Postmaster General to raise postage rates on Amazon that now owns the Washington Post? Regrettably, yes to both.

Trump's "FAKE NEWS" mantra has proved immensely popular with foreign dictators who have adopted it to suppress free speech and jailing or even killing journalists. Russia, Turkey, and the Philippines are not safe places for journalists. This is the kind of world much favored by the alt-Right and Trump supporters, people with no appreciation for unintended consequences.

 

Spoken like the dutiful autocrat the left are developing into. It's as if even the vaguest criticism of the collective is now intolerable, and as you've asked for "stamped out" immediately. Got it. The cool thing about our nation is that we aren't those folks. We aren't authoritarian crackpots and dictators. If you feel the desire to live that way, by all means find your dictator of choice and move.

 

are trying to claim a president isn’t allowed to criticize the media?

 

Trump retains his followers because his followers don't realize what being the President of the United States implies.

That's the point. Trump doesn't "challenge" what they say. All he does is repeat "fake news", never explaining what that fake news is, nor what the real news should be. He just lies. And when he's caught lying, he simply hollers "fake news".

BTW, the President of the United States lying publicly to the people is an assault on the free press.. Not meeting his obligation to inform people he works for, is an assault on freedom of the press.

Here's a tip for you: You can be absolutely sure you have no arguments, when you can only see two options. In your case "unfettered" vs "no access". The press has no access to the President. Screaming questions at him which he answers only if he feels like it is not "access" Interviews by his one Propaganda Network is not access. Sending in a Press Secretary who has no clue and just fills in the blanks with lies is not access.... They want a reasonable amount of access. Not "unfettered", and not "no access"

He represents the government. On more time: the reason we got Trump is that most Trump cultists don't understand what the job of President entails.

 

By labeling them, you think this does what? I mean, other than fairly critique the press for their abuse of their trusted position in our society? The label "enemy of the people" is then reserved for whom? Just you and the lefty squad? I mean, you guys use it. Isn't fair fair? Or are the "protected" slurs that only your team can throw out when you feel the mood hit?

Trump isn't attacking freedom of speech. He's pointing out that folks are using their soap boxes to spread propaganda instead of the news. There isn't any restriction there, just demonstrating the behavior. The market will do the actual restricting. I think it's cute that you think Trump is the "government". Clearly Obama did, but I doubt you're able to understand the differences here...

 

The right to free speech is fundamental to freedom itself. Any limitations to that, other than the protections against slander and orchestrated attempt to damage a person or company without a basis in fact, damages the freedom of all.

Unfortunately today, we are seeing the right of free speech being used as the protection for doing those things. Legal recourse is difficult and costly. What is needed is the understanding of all people that regardless of the news or speech being what you want to hear- it is our acceptance of what is said that carries the power to harm others, and to deceive ourselves into tolerating or participating in destructive conduct. When the line between free speech and propaganda becomes blurred, it degrades the ability of people to think for themselves. That is happening in America today, and it's presenting serious risk to us all.

The form here that concerns me the most is the loss of integrity in the press- the willingness to align itself with a political bias, and manipulate it's reporting to become propaganda for an ideology- but labeled as news. We have always had editorial opinion, and it is valuable free speech too; but it is still opinion, and has historically been specifically labeled as editorials rather than news. That has changed.

News is factual, balanced reporting of events, providing information that readers can use to form their own opinions. Professional journalists have held that as their prime directive, their duty, their core mission- until recently. When opinion starts to be labeled as news and therefore facts we should trust and defended as free speech, we have intentional deception and manipulation of the public perspective- and that is a an affront to free speech and the very reasons we hold it as a fundamental value. You can see this deception in part by how quickly and viciously the media attacks speech of those they oppose, and how they promote the things that will encourage the attack on people saying things they don't want to have the public hear. This is manipulation of perspective, providing a single view in order to deny a balanced one- and deny the viewer the ability to draw a balanced conclusion. It is intentional and purposeful, and we know that because it is extremely consistent in much of today's media. That is what propaganda does.

The press which has been and should be the utmost defender of free speech is creating a scenario for itself where it is acceptable to abridge that privilege for their own purposes. That sets a precedent, which will eventually be used by other powers to control the media for it's own purposes- and the press will lose the freedom for itself that it seeks to deny others. That is what happens under dictatorships, under facism, under socialism, under communism. The right to free speech for the people is directly related to the free speech of the press- and today, the press is shooting itself in the foot by abandoning it's heritage, abandoning the standards of journalism that has kept the nation free for more than 200 years.

Free speech starts with a free press, and the press is abandoning the very thing that makes it free.

 

I agree it is weak to label the press but it is not an attack on the free press.

A president lying is normal and just par for the course in politics.

Your premise seems to be that free press equates to cooperation with the media and it does not.

The freedom of the press does not equate to a right to access either.

the fact remains he has not attacked the freedom of the press period and you have yet to provide a valid example.

 

Would you (try) to explain exactly how that curtails freedom of speech/press?

I'll ask one more time: Would you (try) to explain exactly how that curtails freedom of speech/press?

 

Is the far right still pretending that private platforms (like this one) having and enforcing terms of service (like this one) is a violation of the 1st amendment (it isn't) and somehow comparable to a Fascist government? I'm running out of popcorn here.

 

Did I miss something? Has someone taken down the Infowars website? It was up a minute ago. I believe the internet radio channel is also running.

Has someone else been banned?

Are people being dragged to jail for their opinions?

 

I bet you think arson is an attack on the free press. Is there anything that is not such an attack???

 

you mean like if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor?

 

-said as the right makes every excuse in support of an emotionally troubled authoritarian dictator-wannabee who is destroying the very fabric of the USA.

 

I can't stop you from thinking this.. And I won't dissuade you from thinking this. But I will point out how infantile this comment is. And while we finally got rid of the last little authoritarian Maoist, we have not replaced him with a like quantity. Trump isn't the thing you assert, clearly he's the broom necessary to clean up after the last one you simply ignored.

 

Nah! That was exercising free speech!