Trump hates MSNBC

it would split the vote and Trump would win by default

 

Trump will win anyway, unless a third party takes it. BLM is endorsing Trump over Biden for crying out loud.

 

lol, sure they are

 

Not when the system is set up the way it is. Prereq would be ranked choice voting or equivalent system

 

The first time Trump was elected, I lost faith in the American people. Him still being a front runner just confirms how far gone half the country is.

 

It's a bogus argument because there is no such thing as an absolute right.

Moreover a restoration of the Fairness Doctrine would not harm free speech no more than saying you can't shout fire in a crowded theatre violates free speech.

What is perfectly aligned with that fact is that rights are subject to fair and reasonable regulation.

What the repeal of the fairness doctrine did was lead us to our divided country.

So, a modern update, restoring it, would bring us back together, at least where we are not as divided, hating each other,
taking past each other, and at each others throats.

In today’s digital age, where misinformation and polarized content are rampant across various media platforms, there is a compelling need, in my view, for an updated version of the Fairness Doctrine. Originally introduced to ensure that broadcasters presented contrasting viewpoints on controversial public issues, the doctrine, if revised and reintroduced, could serve a crucial role in maintaining a healthy, informative public discourse in the modern media environment.

The primary objective of the updated Fairness Doctrine would be to promote a diversity of viewpoints, especially on platforms that significantly influence public opinion. Unlike the original doctrine, which was primarily focused on broadcast television and radio, the updated version would extend to digital platforms and social media. It would mandate that these platforms provide access to a range of perspectives, particularly those that are underrepresented or marginalized, on important public issues. Now, true, there are quite a few perspectives, but we can logically represent them as the right and left, and each have a libertarian streak, as well.

Debunking the Free Speech Violation Argument

The common argument against the Fairness Doctrine is that it violates free speech rights. However, it is essential to recognize that rights, including the right to free speech, are not absolute. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently upheld that the government can impose certain restrictions on speech, especially when it serves a significant public interest, such as maintaining a robust and well-informed democratic discourse.

An updated Fairness Doctrine would not infringe upon free speech; instead, it would enhance it by ensuring that a variety of voices and opinions are heard. This doctrine would not compel media outlets to provide equal time to all viewpoints but would encourage the representation of diverse perspectives. Such an approach is similar to managing public forums, where freedom of expression is maintained while ensuring that this freedom does not lead to the domination of a single viewpoint.

Moreover, the updated doctrine could be carefully tailored to address specific types of media or platforms, particularly those with a substantial impact on public opinion, while providing exemptions for smaller, independent broadcasters or platforms. This approach would alleviate concerns about overregulation and uphold a healthy media ecosystem, thus fostering a more balanced and inclusive public discourse.

In conclusion, reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine in an updated form is not only compatible with the principles of free speech but is also crucial for ensuring a well-informed public. It would serve as a tool to combat misinformation and polarization, promoting a media landscape where diverse and multiple viewpoints contribute to the democratic process.

 

I disgree. The right to freedom from government censorship is absolute. It just doesn't include consequences for speech that breaks the law. Regulating speech in entertainment programming to achieve some sort of "fairness" is clearly unconstitutional. Being sued for libel has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It is simply a consequence of breaking the law.

True but it would prevent some speech in order to gain the "fairness" goal. It is up to the programmer to decide what to broadcast anything that is legal. It is unconstitutional for government to censor it in order to reach that goal.

No. Regulation of speech is another term for censorship. It flies in the face of the first amendment. What is constitutional is for government to mete out consequences for speech that breaks the law.

Are you sure it wasn't climate change? You don't know that. It is an opinion I don't share.

You use a flawed opinion to reach this conclusion.

You want government censorship. It is quite legal to misinform. Politicians on both sides do it every day. It has been so forever.

No the purpose of the doctrine is to prevent one side or the other to gain a political advantage. One option for people curious about the opposing political ideology is to watch Fox news which covers every ideology you can find on this forum. The other is to watch left and right news analysis. Most people have a remote control that handles that with ease.

 

I understood your hatred of conservative ideology before you posted that. Thanks, though.

 

If we were are going to be banning misinformation, the misinformation that men can be women by butchering their bodies should be banned on all platforms, in all movies and in the news. Instead, people are banned for stating the obvious fact that men in dresses are not women. Since those in power have no grasp on physical reality, they should be stripped of any power to regulate the speech of anybody else.

The obvious point here is that those in power will label any information that lessens their power as misinformation.

 

Well if you think, you voting your conscience is more important than US Democracy, I can’t change your mind. To me US Democracy is far more important then any conscience I have or my life.

If you are in deep blue/red state , vote your conscience. But if you are in swing state like I am , I will strongly ask you to reconsider your vote. Biden might be senile, Biden might be woke, but he will not end US Democracy, he will not send DOJ to go after his opponent, but if Trump is back in office –You may not have another opportunity to vote your conscience.

 

I believe he does send the DOJ after his opponents, he also does try and take away freedom of speech by suppressing stories that actually turned out true although he and the FBI called the laptop a Russian misinformation scam while the FBI literally had it in possession. Without freedom of speech you have no real democracy anyway.

 

Nope. https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/30/politics/black-lives-matter-trump-endorsement/index.html

 

Because, not coincidently, that is what Trump wants you to believe since he actually used the DoJ as a weapon.

Geoffrey Berman, who served 2 1/2 years as United States attorney for the Southern District of New York from 2018 to 2020, said the Justice Department pressured him and his office to pursue criminal cases against perceived enemies of former President Donald Trump, including former Secretary of State John Kerry.

"I had never seen anything like that before," Berman told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos in his first interview about his new book, "Holding the Line: Inside the Nation's Preeminent US Attorney's Office and its Battle with the Trump Justice Department." "People who had been in the office for 40 years never saw anything like that. It was unprecedented and scary."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jus...-attorney-bring-cases-trump/story?id=89745338

 

There is proof of him being apart of a Black Lives Matter- militia apparently as early as 2022

https://ri-bba.org/2022/01/13/4801/


Kind of interesting. I wouldn’t want BLM to give a Republican endorsement because they’re destructive nut cases in my opinion. So that is good news to me. However that doesn’t negate polls and I’m positive Biden won’t win. He’s a losing ticket

 

Never said Trump wouldn’t use the DOJ politically. I said I’m positive Biden does as well.

 

Trump hates MSNBC

I think it can be stated more inclusively than that.

TRaitor tRump hates EVERYTHING and EVERYONE but himself. It's a lifetime solitary love affair.

 

Without proof.

 

It's comically fitting to see Don willingly accept the endorsement from someone who claims to be a BLM member after he spent years railing against the group.

 

Joe waits until late July to announce his doctors just told him his health may fail late in a second term. Democrats then choose a 40- or 50-something to run against Trump.

 

100% wrong.

What’s next?

I like your idea. But I am a pragmatist. Changing constitution to do away with EC and implement Rank Voting, we are at least 30-40 years away.

 

So you deny that Biden and the FBI claimed the laptop was a Russian hoax?

read the first paragraph of this article and tell me how this has aged.

https://www.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck_036fb62c-377f-4c68-8fa5-b98418e4bb9c


Biden knew the laptop was real. His son literally has residence with him. He knew it was real. Biden has lied so much in this it’s sickening that people are willing to ignore it and give him excuses. It’s impossible to have a real democracy without freedom of speech, freedom to obtain information. Biden and the CIA, and the FBI refused to give the American public.

 

private enterprises ban misinformation all the time. Take Yelp or Angie's List or the BBB. If someone, an internet poster, files a scathingly negative review of a company, then that private enterprise, such as BBB will reach out to the company in question for comment. The company has three options: respond, ignore, or pay. If the company responds and says they have no record of the person, provides evidence, then the third party, say BBB, Angie's List or Yelp, will remove that comment. Is that not censorship in your political ideology?

Same with places like TS, FB, X, and so forth. If someone posts about misinformation and it goes viral, and there is clear evidence known to be false on that allegation, then that social media platform, a private business, not the government, has a choice to make: allow it or not allow it if it does not meet the rules of the board. Truth Social bans anyone who posts there who is critical of one Donald J Trump. Is that also not censorship in your political view? Or is it okay because you politically agree with the outcome?

For me, my viewpoint is consistent, and I do not think FB or Twitter were consistent in their policy towards misinformation. I think they tried, but it was too inconsistent depending on who the person, date, or whatever was deciding. They kept moving the goalposts based on social commentary or political pressure, and that is where the problem lies, not censorship.

 

• In 2020 when the laptop was found , Joe Biden was a privet citizen running for WH.
• Joe Biden in 2020 didn’t have any power/ authority to tell FBI how to investigate anything.
• Biden campaign telling twitter not to post Hunter laptop is not illegal or abusing power ( Biden didn’t have any power in 2020) , this is classic political strategy to manipulate media.
• FBI director Chris Wray is Life long republican and appointed by Trump.
• Bill Burr was head of DOJ in 2020. Bull Burr is life long Republican and appointed by Trump.
• Trump was POTUS in 2020 and DOJ reported to him

So any conspiracy of Biden asking FBI to suppress Hunter Biden investigation or Biden using government authority to suppress Hunter Biden story is 100% wrong.