Trump said upon reelection he would sign an EO that forces biased media to split airtime and articles 50/50 between pro-liberal and pro-conservative views. Continued failure to do so will result in the media outlet losing 1A protection. The outlet will no longer be recognized to participate in any federal briefings.

BTW, as ridiculous and offensive as the scenario above seems, it's simply an attack on another are of 1A, just like Biden's attack against religious freedom as discussed in this thread.

A reminder of the text of the first amendment:

Quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If a group of politicians are OK with shutting down any one of those rights, they could shut down any of the others as well. Even if they don't, it paves the way for future pols to do so.

(11-01-2020 08:42 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  Trump said upon reelection he would sign an EO that forces biased media to split airtime and articles 50/50 between pro-liberal and pro-conservative views. Continued failure to do so will result in the media outlet losing 1A protection. The outlet will no longer be recognized to participate in any federal briefings.

And the crazy train rolls on...

It’s gonna be a humiliating day for the left Tuesday. Can’t tbink of a more deserving bunch.

(11-01-2020 08:46 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  BTW, as ridiculous and offensive as the scenario above seems, it's simply an attack on another are of 1A, just like Biden's attack against religious freedom as discussed in this thread.

A reminder of the text of the first amendment:

Quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If a group of politicians are OK with shutting down any one of those rights, they could shut down any of the others as well. Even if they don't, it paves the way for future pols to do so.

It's too late to change any votes, but this is exactly the kind of ignorant lunacy of Donald Trump that has caused this election to be such a near thing.

Trump supporters will necessarily shrug and dismiss this as just him airing his frustration - - but not really meaning what he says. Biden supporters will run around again with their hair on fire.

I be voting for him because I care about our nation. But he in so many ways and with alarming frequency shows himself to be unfit for the office that he holds.

Glad to see at least one of our residents has the balls to show up. Hats off to you Poly. +3 for showing up.

(11-01-2020 09:48 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(11-01-2020 08:46 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  BTW, as ridiculous and offensive as the scenario above seems, it's simply an attack on another are of 1A, just like Biden's attack against religious freedom as discussed in this thread.

A reminder of the text of the first amendment:

Quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If a group of politicians are OK with shutting down any one of those rights, they could shut down any of the others as well. Even if they don't, it paves the way for future pols to do so.

It's too late to change any votes, but this is exactly the kind of ignorant lunacy of Donald Trump that has caused this election to be such a near thing.

Trump supporters will necessarily shrug and dismiss this as just him airing his frustration - - but not really meaning what he says. Biden supporters will run around again with their hair on fire.

I be voting for him because I care about our nation. But he in so many ways and with alarming frequency shows himself to be unfit for the office that he holds.

I'm not shrugging or dismissing. I applaud it.

There is no mainstream journalism at the moment. NPR, which is PUBLICALLY FUNDED, refuses to report on the Biden corruption, DESPITE the emails being forensically verified and the Bidens not denying it.

The current mainstream press is not journalism worthy of constitutional protection. THey are the communication wing of the democratic party, and as such, should not have any constitutional protections of the press.

He might want to talk to Rush first. The end of the Fairness in broadcasting laws is what made conservative talk radio possible. Trump often thinks out loud, floating ideas that come to him. It’s a habit that gets him in trouble. The good thing is Trumps actual governing decisions are always far more reasonable and solid than his “thinking out loud” comments often might suggest. I seriously doubt Trump would make any move that might affect the First Amendment rights of Americans.

That said—he’s not wrong in thinking the divisive and hateful messages that are vomited hour after hour 24/7 by the left wing media on TV and cable are certainly one reason that riots and civil unrest is happening. You can’t endlessly and irresponsibly fan the flames of unrest and then act like the inevitable resulting violence isn’t at least partially your fault. I have no answer for how to fix the issue as I am completely against controls on the freedoms of speech. The issue to me with the lame stream news isn’t that it’s one sided and biased. It’s that they represent themselves to viewers as ethical unbiased arbiters of fact and truth while delivering completely biased coverage that only gives facts and arguments that support the left—-while intentionally ignoring facts and arguments that support the conservative side of issues.

What I would suggest is a law that the label “news” cannot be applied to any programming that does not follow the 50-50 fairness in broadcasting requirement. So, you would be free say whatever you want and bias your coverage in any way you wish—but you can’t label such unbalanced content as “news”. It is simply entertainment or editorial content. That way the viewer understands such content does not represent a simple unbiased “news” presentation of the facts—but is instead a biased editorial presentation that simply presents one side of a multi-faceted argument and is likely to be substantially misleading. I would also suggest a warning label be required to indicate the content is biased and represents an opinion supporting a point of view—the following content should NOT be considered a news show as it does not represent a reliable unbiased presentation of all relevant facts that fairly and accurately explains all sides of an issue.

I am not going to pretend to be a First Amendment authority. But I see a critical difference in calling out the media, or even cheerleading the "CNN sucks!" chants at his rallies, on the one hand, and threatening the force of law (which is what an Executive Order entails) to suppress speech.

Sure hate on the press. They deserve it. But what bothers me more than anything else is that President Trump is too dumb to even recognize the above distinction. That is high-school level civics, and yet he cannot even meet that threshold.

(11-01-2020 10:55 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  I am not going to pretend to be a First Amendment authority. But I see a critical difference in calling out the media, or even cheerleading the "CNN sucks!" chants at his rallies, on the one hand, and threatening the force of law (which is what an Executive Order entails) to suppress speech.

Sure hate on the press. They deserve it. But what bothers me more than anything else is that President Trump is too dumb to even recognize the above distinction. That is high-school level civics, and yet he cannot even meet that threshold.

I think he is sly as a fox and once again playing chess while most everyone else it trying to play checkers. By saying what he said he is drawing everyone's attention to this topic, and getting people talking about the extreme Liberal bias in the press. I doubt he would actually do what he has proposed, but I'm sure he will hammer the point home on them. Peer pressure works.

This topic may well now play on the Mainstream News because of this which would only bring attention - via their outlets - to the corrupt media commentary that Trump has been describing for years now.

Why do I think the thread title is a rebuttal to the other thread about Fauci declaring war on Trump?

But I do agree that Trump shouldn't use an EO to force the media to do anything.

And he definitely thinks out loud and says goofy stuff that he never implements.

OTOH, Twitter and Facebook are certainly using their platforms to constrain free speech and try to sway the election. They need to lose their liability protection in Section 230.

I thought my second post would show the first post to be pure fiction. Notice I didn't give a link.

It was simply to show the dangers and lunacy of the left.

Trump is NOT trying to take away any of our God-given, Constitution-defended rights.

But the left actively is.


If they successfully overwrite the Constitution on any of our inalienable rights, they can do it for all of them as they see fit.

Right to trial by jury - gone
Right to keep and bear arms - gone
Right to be protected against at-whim government searches - gone
Right to be protected against an all-powerful federal government - gone

(11-01-2020 08:42 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  Trump said upon reelection he would sign an EO that forces biased media to split airtime and articles 50/50 between pro-liberal and pro-conservative views. Continued failure to do so will result in the media outlet losing 1A protection. The outlet will no longer be recognized to participate in any federal briefings.

He doesn't need to go there now. Its stupid on many levels.

The only thing he can do is not renew the licenses of the local broadcast stations for ABC/CBS/NBC and, if appropriate, Fox.

And the networks will set themselves up for that if they falsely try to claim a Biden victory Tuesday night or call a clear Trump victory "too close to call."

(11-01-2020 10:01 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  He might want to talk to Rush first. The end of the Fairness in broadcasting laws is what made conservative talk radio possible. Trump often thinks out loud, floating ideas that come to him. It’s a habit that gets him in trouble. The good thing is Trumps actual governing decisions are always far more reasonable and solid than his “thinking out loud” comments often might suggest. I seriously doubt Trump would make any move that might affect the First Amendment rights of Americans.

That said—he’s not wrong in thinking the divisive and hateful messages that are vomited hour after hour 24/7 by the left wing media on TV and cable are certainly one reason that riots and civil unrest is happening. You can’t endlessly and irresponsibly fan the flames of unrest and then act like the inevitable resulting violence isn’t at least partially your fault. I have no answer for how to fix the issue as I am completely against controls on the freedoms of speech. The issue to me with the lame stream news isn’t that it’s one sided and biased. It’s that they represent themselves to viewers as ethical unbiased arbiters of fact and truth while delivering completely biased coverage that only gives facts and arguments that support the left—-while intentionally ignoring facts and arguments that support the conservative side of issues.

What I would suggest is a law that the label “news” cannot be applied to any programming that does not follow the 50-50 fairness in broadcasting requirement. So, you would be free say whatever you want and bias your coverage in any way you wish—but you can’t label such unbalanced content as “news”. It is simply entertainment or editorial content. That way the viewer understands such content does not represent a simple unbiased “news” presentation of the facts—but is instead a biased editorial presentation that simply presents one side of a multi-faceted argument and is likely to be substantially misleading. I would also suggest a warning label be required to indicate the content is biased and represents an opinion supporting a point of view—the following content should NOT be considered a news show as it does not represent a reliable unbiased presentation of all relevant facts that fairly and accurately explains all sides of an issue.

That's a thought. Labeling.

(11-01-2020 11:29 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Why do I think the thread title is a rebuttal to the other thread about Fauci declaring war on Trump?

But I do agree that Trump shouldn't use an EO to force the media to do anything.

And he definitely thinks out loud and says goofy stuff that he never implements.

OTOH, Twitter and Facebook are certainly using their platforms to constrain free speech and try to sway the election. They need to lose their liability protection in Section 230.

Because you get it.

It's actually in response to Biden saying he'll curtail religious freedom to favor LGBTUVWXYZ.

I would oppose such a EO and it sounds unconstitutional anyway. My advice to Trump is take the Reagan approach in his second term and mostly ignore the media and not answer questions away from press conferences. Its during these impromptu meetings that he says tends to get himself in trouble with the off the cuff remarks. He should just concentrate on his agenda and let the work speak for itself.

(11-01-2020 09:48 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(11-01-2020 08:46 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  BTW, as ridiculous and offensive as the scenario above seems, it's simply an attack on another are of 1A, just like Biden's attack against religious freedom as discussed in this thread.

A reminder of the text of the first amendment:

Quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If a group of politicians are OK with shutting down any one of those rights, they could shut down any of the others as well. Even if they don't, it paves the way for future pols to do so.

It's too late to change any votes, but this is exactly the kind of ignorant lunacy of Donald Trump that has caused this election to be such a near thing.

Trump supporters will necessarily shrug and dismiss this as just him airing his frustration - - but not really meaning what he says. Biden supporters will run around again with their hair on fire.

I be voting for him because I care about our nation. But he in so many ways and with alarming frequency shows himself to be unfit for the office that he holds.

Trump has provided a SCOTUS to protect us from this. That is more important to me. Remember the court came within one vote of allowing the Obama-Biden administration to ban speech and books they didn’t like. So there’s that....

(11-01-2020 12:08 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(11-01-2020 11:29 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Why do I think the thread title is a rebuttal to the other thread about Fauci declaring war on Trump?

But I do agree that Trump shouldn't use an EO to force the media to do anything.

And he definitely thinks out loud and says goofy stuff that he never implements.

OTOH, Twitter and Facebook are certainly using their platforms to constrain free speech and try to sway the election. They need to lose their liability protection in Section 230.

Because you get it.

It's actually in response to Biden saying he'll curtail religious freedom to favor LGBTUVWXYZ.

(11-01-2020 12:03 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  I thought my second post would show the first post to be pure fiction. Notice I didn't give a link.

It was simply to show the dangers and lunacy of the left.

Trump is NOT trying to take away any of our God-given, Constitution-defended rights.

But the left actively is.


If they successfully overwrite the Constitution on any of our inalienable rights, they can do it for all of them as they see fit.

Right to trial by jury - gone
Right to keep and bear arms - gone
Right to be protected against at-whim government searches - gone
Right to be protected against an all-powerful federal government - gone

None of that is going to happen. You're so full of ****.

(11-01-2020 03:13 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(11-01-2020 12:03 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  I thought my second post would show the first post to be pure fiction. Notice I didn't give a link.

It was simply to show the dangers and lunacy of the left.

Trump is NOT trying to take away any of our God-given, Constitution-defended rights.

But the left actively is.


If they successfully overwrite the Constitution on any of our inalienable rights, they can do it for all of them as they see fit.

Right to trial by jury - gone
Right to keep and bear arms - gone
Right to be protected against at-whim government searches - gone
Right to be protected against an all-powerful federal government - gone

None of that is going to happen. You're so full of ****.

Have you not heard the politicians polluting the jury pool? And the mobs intimidating juries?
Have you not been listening to the attacks on the 2nd amendment?
Have you not paid attention to all the political prosecutions going on from NYC to Austin to DC? Searches and spying with no justification?
As for the last, if you don't see that in the Flynn prosecution, you are a hopeless totalitarian.