Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, they are not.
First, Newsmax is not government owned.
Second, as his employer, they are well within their rights to decide what is and isn't acceptable for broadcast on their station.
Not sure why people have so much trouble understanding the actual concept of "free speech" as described in the Constitution, but it's pretty darned clear that many will never get it.
I've got what is going on here.....
maybe you don't Tiger, but I certainly do....
there is a very fine line...and they've crossed it...if this doesn't prove the corruption and deceit, not to mention, the continued loss of our rights....including freedom of speech....
regardless, he was exposing what the media does, and they cut him off....
I don't care what your political affiliation is, be it Dem, Repub, Independent, whatever
This is about freedom of speech and I don't want to get into a dem vs repub argument, this is not about the next President of the U.S. this is about
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THIS IS HAPPENING WAY TOO MUCH IN THE U.S.
THIS IS ALSO NOT ABOUT FOX NEWS...ONLY INTELLIGENT COMMENTS WILL BE RESPONDED TO....
but this, this is wrong...
DML was told by the executives of Newsmax
this certainly tells you how controlling the media is...
It is time for Americans to stop allowing their political affiliation to control who they are and what they believe...
It is time for America to stand up against this horse manure.....
I think you need to look up the definition of 'freedom of speech'. He was free to say what he wanted. Nobody tried to stop him and nobody preventing him from saying his mind. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
I'm so glad a lot of you find humor in this....
It is least of all funny or something to joke about....
doesn't matter who the radio station is, or what they support
if you read the article, and listen, it speaks for itself
this is the loss of freedom of speech
DML talks about how the Media mops up discussions, slices their own words into it, or twists words to suit their agenda....
This is not funny...just b/c your not a republican doesn't exclude you from this very dangerous situation....
regardless of how big or small the station is...another perfect example of who is REALLY Running the show...
you people ought to be ashamed of yourselves, this is your America...and b/c it isn't against Hillary, your all for making jokes...you refuse to see the danger in this....
hilarious huh?
If the shoe were on the other foot, then you'd all be crying?
And your all the reason why this country is in the shape it's in....
No it's not. Freedom of Speech pertains to the government restricting it. A private organization can restrict it all that it wants.
No, they're not - just like they're not violating my free speech rights by not granting me airtime.
Mr. Lynch enjoys the right to free speech. What he does not enjoy is the right to airtime. He can spout anything he wants - but no business is obligated to give him a platform. By your logic, every publisher has to publish every book submission it gets, or else it's 'violating the free speech' of the writer. And, of course, that notion is laughably absurd.
Do you think I have the right to slap a Clinton bumpersticker on your car? If I do, and you tear it off, by your 'logic' you're violating my right to free speech. Or put a Clinton campaign sign in your front yard? Do you think I have a right to have pro-Clinton articles published on redstate.com or in The National Review? Of course I don't. And it's so glaringly obvious that anyone capable of reading basic English should be able to understand that. Do you think Bill O'Reilly is violating the free speech rights of the guests he occasionally throws off his show in the middle of an interview? Of course he isn't. They have no right to the platform that is Fox News because they don't own Fox News (neither does O'Reilly, for that matter - he speaks on Fox News not because he has the right to do so but because Fox News grants him the privilege of doing so).
You clearly haven't the foggiest idea of the concept of free speech, the lynchpin of the Bill of Rights. How embarrassing for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cremebrulee
No, you clearly haven't the foggiest.....and you cannot compare a bumper sticker to shutting his show down...
So that's your response? Basically... NUH UH!... and I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I?
Yes, I can compare a bumpersticker to a broadcast. Both are speech. And both require a platform - the bumpersticker requires a vehicle and the broadcast requires a broadcast license and a studio & transmitter.
You and I have the right to print up bumperstickers. But we only have the right to slap them on bumpers that we own. And we have the right to shout and rage (I'll pass - I'm sure that's your style but it's not mine) but if we want to have said ravings broadcast, we either have to acquire the means ourselves or get someone with the means to let them use their stuff. We have the right to the speech but we have no right to have someone else lend us their means.
This isn't complicated. A fifth-grader could understand this.
By the way, I notice that you continue to dodge my questions about whether or not shows that deny me the right to go on the air at someone's privately-owned TV station and make pro-Clinton statements are 'violating my right to free speech'. You can't answer that, because you know that I have no such right. Nor does Mr. Lynch.
I get it. You're angry, you're upset, and you're confused - you're the quintessential Trumpling. You are also very ignorant of the United States Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsb62574
Did the government pull this dude off the air? If not, your not talking about free speech. You don't even understand it.
Precisely. The poster is oblivious to the fact that the Bill of Rights is a curb on the power of the state, not on private entities.
This is important to all Americans, if we are to have an America; and it applies to any party or ideology.
By shutting down civil discourse, any network would be wrong.
It is clear to me the establishment has coalesced regardless of party or ideology to shut down dissension from establishment.
I applaud both your and CB's idealism, but I think logic would be most well served by looking at it from the point of view that Newsmax is a business. Fox News is a competitor that they are trying to gain traction against. They don't want a currently more successful competitor to be built up, defended, or to get more attention. Another example that might illustrate this to some degree is that the TOS for CD doesn't allow linking to competitor sites.
Because they don't agree with you, they are nasty? People are trying to inform you that your understanding of the 1st amendment is completely wrong and you aren't liking their facts. The only way this would have been a 'real good and informed discussion' was if everyone agreed with you. Because they don't, you have a problem with it. By the way, "NUH UH!... and I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I?" is hardly a personal attack of any kind.
no, they are nasty when they make personal comments.... like this...that doesn't get anyone's point across, all that does is belittle someone, and shut them down, same as calling someone a racist....
And we have the right to shout and rage (I'll pass - I'm sure that's your style but it's not mine)
and I'm not afraid of being wrong, don't care if someone agrees with me or not...what I do care about, is when your having a discussion and people resort to being nasty....
discussions and debates are great...but when they become personal, it backs someone into a corner and now the discussion looses all credibility.
Honestly, I don't care who agrees with me...or not...this isn't a popularity contest...
I believe this type of thing, be it the owner or not, is the start of a chipping away at our freedom of speech...
there is a very fine line...and this is the way it starts....
we can discuss this, but we don't have to be nasty to each other, that is not in the least bit productive. is it?
Its one thing to disagree, but another whole completely different ball game to insult people for their beliefs....
The established conservatives don't want Trump . Trump is anti-globalist.. the conservatives are for shipping jobs overseas..
Then there are the republicans and democrats that support Trump.. they are not for globalism. They are for job creation here. Why do you think some Republicans are so anti-Trump? They want globalism and rather have Hillary who is a globalist in.
It is all about our last bid for the power OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE , AND BY THE PEOPLE.. this is what Trump stands for.
Trump stands for trump, that's it plain and simple. The dumpster has got you all tied in knots thinking he gives a rip about all the "little people." Nothing more than increasing his brand and you all bought it hock line and stinker (no misspelling there btw).
I've got what is going on here.....
maybe you don't Tiger, but I certainly do....
there is a very fine line...and they've crossed it...if this doesn't prove the corruption and deceit, not to mention, the continued loss of our rights....including freedom of speech....
regardless, he was exposing what the media does, and they cut him off....
money sure does talk.....
I "got" exactly what went on here.
An employee started to espouse a position that his employers disagreed with and his employers stopped him from acting against their interests.
All that it proves is that he chose the wrong platform for his rant.
He can likely print up the text of his comments and post them outside of his home, if he doesn't live in a HOA community that bans such displays, and "broadcast" them for all to see, but, he cannot use his employer's time, money, etc. if they forbid him to do so.
I would go far as to guess that his contract specifies that the station has the right to final editorial approval of all content and in this instance, they, perhaps more vigorously than previously, exercised that right.
People can rail against the whys and wherefores all day, but the fact remains that this is not a free speech issue.
An employee started to espouse a position that his employers disagreed with and his employers stopped him from acting against their interests.
All that it proves is that he chose the wrong platform for his rant.
He can likely print up the text of his comments and post them outside of his home, if he doesn't live in a HOA community that bans such displays, and "broadcast" them for all to see, but, he cannot use his employer's time, money, etc. if they forbid him to do so.
I would go far as to guess that his contract specifies that the station has the right to final editorial approval of all content and in this instance, they, perhaps more vigorously than previously, exercised that right.
People can rail against the whys and wherefores all day, but the fact remains that this is not a free speech issue.
Exactly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
