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.
I cannot believe that ANY American would even consider such a thing. The First Amendment is as close to sacred as anything in American government can be. Why would we criminalize speech? No, never in America. We cannot have government censorship of the news, which is what such a law would be.
What the hell, is "hate speech" and why should anyone be punished for it?
What the hell, is "hate speech" and why should anyone be punished for it?
As best I can tell, hate speech seems to be any speech that offends someone, usually someone on the left of the political spectrum. Of course it should not be criminalized. The whole point of the First Amendment is to protect speech that the majority finds disagreeable or offensive. After all, you don’t really need any explicit protection for speech that the majority agrees with, do you?
So the feds and MSM use fake news but then go ape **** when others do it. Or they call real news they don't want people knowing about or discussing fake news and want an end to people being able to read about it.
I doubt they'll end fake news, they'll just call news they don't want us to know about fake news and try to silence people on social media. The MSM will still push actual fake news and so will the feds. This is just a fascist joke.
It's nice to see that almost everyone, even the partisans agree on this.
What disturbs me is the "almost".
Quote:
Originally Posted by boneyard1962
I would like to see News station held accountable for printing or reporting stories that were poorly if at all vetted for the truth. We see far too man reports that are either factually wrong, taken out of context, or intentionally slanted to be damaging..
There already is legal precedent concerning libel - the accountability that you seem to be unaware of.
As for opinion vs. fact - already well delineated in print media and network news. The screaming and yelling interview styles among the cable news outlets is another story.
Some of you should read an actual newspaper sometime.
Yes !!!!!!!!!!! Let's do away with a free press system and put in State run news !!!!! This is a wonderful idea.................especially if you are Russian.
I do think that journalists do have a professional responsibility to clearly delineate fact from opinion in their reporting. Obviously, this should be a matter of professionalism and not a legal matter, though. Too often the line is blurred in media today. It would also help the credibility of journalists' of all political stripes if they would clearly state their political biases. I have no objection to biased coverage, but I do object to journalists who claim to be unbiased providing biased coverage.
If one media outlet wants to cover news stories from a liberal perspective and another wants to cover the same story from a conservative perspective, that's perfectly fine. It is then incumbent on the people who consume news to look at both sources and determine for themselves which is more credible. Historically that's how journalism in this country has been done anyway. The whole notion of an "unbiased media" is a relatively recent phenomenon. I question whether such a thing truly is possible; everyone has their biases, and it is very difficult to set them aside when covering news stories.
So the feds and MSM use fake news but then go ape **** when others do it. Or they call real news they don't want people knowing about or discussing fake news and want an end to people being able to read about it.
I doubt they'll end fake news, they'll just call news they don't want us to know about fake news and try to silence people on social media. The MSM will still push actual fake news and so will the feds. This is just a fascist joke.
I do think that journalists do have a professional responsibility to clearly delineate fact from opinion in their reporting. Obviously, this should be a matter of professionalism and not a legal matter, though. Too often the line is blurred in media today. It would also help the credibility of journalists' of all political stripes if they would clearly state their political biases. I have no objection to biased coverage, but I do object to journalists who claim to be unbiased providing biased coverage.
If one media outlet wants to cover news stories from a liberal perspective and another wants to cover the same story from a conservative perspective, that's perfectly fine. It is then incumbent on the people who consume news to look at both sources and determine for themselves which is more credible. Historically that's how journalism in this country has been done anyway. The whole notion of an "unbiased media" is a relatively recent phenomenon. I question whether such a thing truly is possible; everyone has their biases, and it is very difficult to set them aside when covering news stories.
Militant teleprompter readers.
Real undercover research journalism is dead. Only a few risk doing it. The government will punish you if you do. Ask Project Veritas. Ask Tommy Robinson. Ask those telling the truth, that exposes the power of corruption. If they want you silenced, you are telling the truth.
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.
