Okay --- so WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

How about we try something crazy?

As the law is, a news outlet can say anything they want without any fear of reprisals. To bring up a recent but sore subject, the little deal between Trump and Billy Bush: That was a private conversation publicized over and over on national TV. It had zero to do with issues. It was nothing more than a slander piece. And the people who published this over and over on national TV were immune from any consequences.

Had you or I taped someone's private conversation and aired it on the Internet, we would be hounded by police.

What if we removed that absolute protection from legal consequences? What if we required by law that a news organization had to prove they were speaking what they truly believed to be truth, that they did due diligence investigating, and that they held no malicious intent to be free from prosecution? In other words, as long as you are honest, diligent, and neutral, you are a member of the press and have protection. Stop being one of those and you're no better than anyone else.

That, I believe, would quickly end media bias. We could put in some exceptions for editorial opinions, as long as those opinions accounted for, say, less than 10% of the broadcast time?

What do you think?

TheRedneck

Brilliant! Write it up. Send it to your Congressman and Senator --- we KNOW they are scrambling for ideas right about now. Let's be the ones to suggest remedial action.!!!

And they KNOW we are impressed. GOOD MOVE. Opening move. New National Order move 1.2

I'm impressed, TheRedneck.
THANK YOU.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I disagree. We need to be vigilant against those who would crush our constitutional rights.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I disagree. We need to be vigilant against those who would crush our constitutional rights.

Yes, obviously. We are talking about what to do today.

Not hypothetical future plans and strategy. RIGHT NOW.
Today.

You know I agree with you entirely on the level of our usual dialogue. But right now, we need ideas for RIGHT NOW. Today. well - today is pretty much over, but hell, at least we came to the table and SAT DOWN TOGETHER!!!

a reply to: TheRedneck

What if we removed that absolute protection from legal consequences? What if we required by law that a news organization had to prove they were speaking what they truly believed to be truth, that they did due diligence investigating, and that they held no malicious intent to be free from prosecution? In other words, as long as you are honest, diligent, and neutral, you are a member of the press and have protection. Stop being one of those and you're no better than anyone else.

So, you're all for qualifying the 1st Amendment?

The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, successfully argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

The Media Can Legally Lie

We already know that politicians can legally lie.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Not hypothetical future plans and strategy. RIGHT NOW. Today.

It's not hypothetical. There are people in this thread already attacking the 1st Amendment. We must be vigilant and hold their feet to the fire, or we will lose our rights forever.

a reply to: windword

Im unaffiliated and armed, NOT gonna happen.
OR this guy gets the boot.

a reply to: windword

So, you're all for qualifying the 1st Amendment?

That depends on your definition of 'qualifying'...

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.

Source: constitutionus.com...

It is illegal to slander another person. That is a qualification of freedom of speech. It is illegal to incite a riot with speech. That is a qualification of freedom of speech.

The Constitution references "the press." Who is "the press"? It doesn't say the press is anyone who is on a TV news show. It doesn't say the press is someone who sits behind a desk. So who is it?

I read it as someone who reports news to the public. Lies are not news. Ergo, if someone lies to the public, they are not the press. They are liars. If someone uses their media platform to slander someone, that is not reporting the news. That is slander.

My statement was not about jailing reporters for lying anyway. It was about allowing citizens who are harmed by lies or malicious slanderous reports to sue the liar/slanderer under the legal theory that they were not acting as the press by virtue of their actions. In other words, a law that does not remove the freedom of the press, but which establishes who the press is based on actions of those claiming to be the press.

How is that removing rights? Do you think the press should be allowed to lie with impunity? Do you think lies are news?

TheRedneck

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Feel free to do just that. I don't have time right now.

BuzzyWigs, I give you my idea to use as you see fit.

TheRedneck

Okay, I am now going to depart from the meeting. It is obvious that many of us are still smarting and reeling and trying to sort out our thoughts.

That is totally to be expected.
Just remember, everyone, that when you are able to calm down and look forward -----

this hand grenade that we tossed at DC is now in their court, but it's still live. We did our thing.

Now what is the question.

a reply to: TheRedneck

It has already been established in a court of law that the "press" has the right to lie and misdirect the truth on public airways. Are you trying to say that Fox News doesn't qualify as "press"?

It's not up the government to decide what is or is not truth, and qualify free speech based upon its definition of said truth.

As you said, slander is already illegal, and any citizen has the right to sue for damages. So, why tamper with the 1st Amendment by singling out who is and who is not qualified to freely speak to the public on their own truth?

And, by the way, while your upset about poor Billy Bush and vile Donald Trump being revealed, how about those stolen private emails that were published for the world to see? I bet you're fine with that, so, two sets of rules for applied 1st Amendment benefits?

Just an observation:

I've noticed that now after the votes have been cast, we've got a lot of Trump supporters rubbing salt in the wounds of Hillary supporters, but you also have quite a bit of them that are willing to be reasonable.

We do have to work together to get anything done and I just hope that congress, and Trump, can take a similar approach.

a reply to: Tempter

Never mind.

Attention Please:

This is not the Mud Pit and opinions of each other is NOT the topic, so please think before you post. Thanks.

Do not reply to this message.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
right. So -- do we beef up Secret Service? Focus on the Kremlin hacking charges?

We keep Trump alive and safe, or let the ruffians at him? We don't want a repeat of JFK. That would be too idiotic for reality.

The Russian hack thing was as much a joke as Hillary was ahead in the media polls. They don't assassinate politicians with guns anymore.

Think bout it, Obama was going to close Gitmo and end the war in Afghanistan...

New psyop: Let the people think they 'won' and place whomever they want in the Oval office... then just ignore him and carry on as usual.

After all, the ring side announcer doesn't write the script for the circus.

Not in the United States, "they don't assassinate politicians with guns"? I'm glad to hear that.

Because in destabilized areas such as the Middle East and other countries - they do.

The US assassinates whole nations, 'in other countries'. The age of shooting our politicians is over, over here.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
right. So -- do we beef up Secret Service? Focus on the Kremlin hacking charges?

We keep Trump alive and safe, or let the ruffians at him? We don't want a repeat of JFK. That would be too idiotic for reality.

The Russian hack thing was as much a joke as Hillary was ahead in the media polls. They don't assassinate politicians with guns anymore.

Think bout it, Obama was going to close Gitmo and end the war in Afghanistan...

New psyop: Let the people think they 'won' and place whomever they want in the Oval office... then just ignore him and carry on as usual.

After all, the ring side announcer doesn't write the script for the circus.

Not in the United States, "they don't assassinate politicians with guns"? I'm glad to hear that.

Because in destabilized areas such as the Middle East and other countries - they do.

The US assassinates whole nations, 'in other countries'. The age of shooting our politicians is over, over here.

Yes. And It looks like now the US will maybe continue to do that. This worries me.

What do you think we should do tomorrow to address it?
Seriously?

We are voicing our opinions, blanketing the interwebz, speaking out.....and we are not being censored or shut down....the world is (apparently) still listening. Do you see?

THE WORLD is waiting to see what the USA does next.

We have hit "pause". But tomorrow we have to hit "play."

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

What do you think we should do tomorrow to address it?
Seriously?

Thats like asking me what could I do to effect change in East Side Chicago. I'm just one guy with one gun and all those guns out there in the hands of gangsters, the police and the gubment.

Nothing is changed, only one guy has been elected to a pit of vipers. He's just one guy.

As far as the people rising up, I saw the last time when million people marches arrived in Washington protesting for civil rights and against the Vietnam endless war. The main stream media covered it live. It was beautiful.

Can we get a million people to march on Washington and peacefully demonstrate against gubment corruption and the endless cycle of war? Trump isn't going to accomplish it all by himself.

a reply to: intrptr

As far as the people rising up, I saw the last time when million people marches arrived in Washington protesting for civil rights and against the Vietnam endless war. The main stream media covered it live. It was beautiful.

Can we get a million people to march on Washington and peacefully demonstrate against gubment corruption and the endless cycle of war? Trump isn't going to accomplish it all by himself.

You are exactly right. This is the 21st century, though.....
in effect, we DID get a "million people to march on Washington and peacefully demonstrate against gubment corruption and the endless cycle of war."

WE DID do that.
It is now beautiful. It is done, without bloodshed, without terrorism or sniper-attacks or IEDs...it is done.

Well done USA population.

NOW we have a buttload of problems to be addressed.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

If you are referring to the Occupy movement, that was divided, not a million people together all in washington at once.

Heres a famous image from another era...

Civil rights protest, Washington Monument.

Here was the attendance at Obamas swearing in. A million people that "believed in change" from the Bush era wars and the bank and corporate bailouts. What happened, where'd they go?

Search me...

Obamas inauguration