:: burning a flag is a form of speech, as long as you own the flag and don’t endanger anyone ::
One word: Monday
Clinton talks about “banning” speech she doesn’t like.
Trump talks about taking people to court over possible violations of the Libel laws.
I see a difference.
John makes a few points but winds up undecided and on a slope.
The right to conduct free speech in America and the freedom for America’s enemies to publish and distribute out-right lies in unison should never be confused.
The press is already controlled by one Party and has cowed the other Party into submission. That must be modified for the USA, as founded, to continue and it won’t be pretty when the lying press does receive modifications.
Freedom to criticize is one thing, freedom to make up what you know are lies and print them as facts are totally different. Sorry John but I have to disagree with you on this.
The same men who created our Constitution turned around a few years later and passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which punished people for insulting politicians, as though criticizing politicians was a threat to social order. Governments in Russia, China and Saudi Arabia still think that way.
Which of the Founding Fathers, that he speaks of, was around in 1918?
The Sedition Act of 1918 (Pub.L. 65150, 40 Stat. 553, enacted May 16, 1918) was an Act of the United States Congress that extended the Espionage Act of 1917 to cover a broader range of offenses, notably speech and the expression of opinion that cast the government or the war effort in a negative light or interfered .
The Democrats don’t like the Constitution, it binds them, it prevents them from what they want to do, say, live...it prevents them from ‘control’ ... ‘control’ over you and me, not them...
I hope that every reporter, achor person has a law suit for liable, for slander to character, good example: Chris Wallace towards Dr. Ben Carson...
Yep that day can’t happen soon enough...down with the Communist News!!! And down with the Butcher of Benghazi!!!
...and another one bites the dust...
Stossel got this so wrong, it's not even funny. Trump was talking about blocking ISIS propaganda originating overseas on Facebook, Twitter, etc. Basically setting up a fireWALL against those who wish to cause us harm using our own technology.
To think of the “responsibility of the press”, brings me to the history of Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr.
The poison pen of editorial license between these two folks, came to a head in that infamous duel, now used as a backdrop for a peanut butter commercial.
Another poison pen ‘press duel’ existed between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, which ended suddenly.
To say that ‘freedom of speech’ was not guarded in these matters, were where the ‘Perry White’ of the day was giddy with all that was printed.
Hillary has spoken on many occasions of what can be called, ‘censorship’.
Trump speaks of using ‘Libel laws’, which are legal redresses for defamation of character.
I would go with the guy suing someone, rather than someone that wishes to shut things down, because momma don’ like it.
As concerns the media specifically, their ability to do what they do for a living is the second half of an implied contract, that they will use this awesome power and respect this mammoth privilege by being honest, even-handed and thorough in their reporting.
When news services/papers/TV Shows abuse that privilege and the Public Trust by promulgating spin, lies and half-truths, the public upon whom they foist this larceny of truth should have the ability to sue them out of business.
The Congress should have the clear and simple recourse of denying their ability to propagandize by pulling their broadcast licenses, or shuttering their propaganda mill.
The sick, venal rapists who serially abuse Americans should be advised that their days of spreading their garbage without fear of consequence are numbered. Straighten up, fly right, or die. The choice is ours. You endangered bastards.
Americans are so fortunate to have this right basically intact. In the commonwealth countries it has been brutalized by the very low bar of defamation law. Ezra Levant, a political commentator was taken to court by an government official for what he said about him and lost his case. The onus in Canada is on the accused of showing they were honest in their opinion.