Freedom Of The press online?

Kamala Trump

Kamala Trump

Verified User
Does freedom of the press extend to online news and journalism?

If not, is there a way we can extend those rights to the net?

if there's ever a time where the constitution should be a living document, it's on this issue. But of course, our fine legal minds only believe the document should flex in the direction of statist control and censorship.
 
Yes freedom of the press exists online, and no the constitution is not a ' Living document'.
 
Damocles said:
It's not literal. "The Press" describes people who publish information and news about the government and other current events. Without it our words here would be government-controlled.
Click to expand...

I hope you're right, going forward.

These shitskanks in control may become very literal on this one.
 
Freedom of expression covers what we do here. However, I don't know that the framers could have ever foreseen this medium let alone Television and Radio but I am sure they would have said the first amendment applies. But even if they didn't think that it applied directly, I am certain they would think the 9th covered what we do here. This is where you conservatives fall short in my opinion. The 9th was intended as a catch all because the framers didn't want freedoms limited by people saying, "There is no explicit amendment covering that right". I believe that if you told the framers there was no right to keep our private lives from the government they would laugh in your face. The Bill of Rights was intended to cover those rights that the British has been notoriously denying. But the 9th was included as a catch all and the Bill of rights would have NEVER been ratified without it.
 
Socrtease said:
Freedom of expression covers what we do here. However, I don't know that the framers could have ever foreseen this medium let alone Television and Radio but I am sure they would have said the first amendment applies. But even if they didn't think that it applied directly, I am certain they would think the 9th covered what we do here. This is where you conservatives fall short in my opinion. The 9th was intended as a catch all because the framers didn't want freedoms limited by people saying, "There is no explicit amendment covering that right". I believe that if you told the framers there was no right to keep our private lives from the government they would laugh in your face. The Bill of Rights was intended to cover those rights that the British has been notoriously denying. But the 9th was included as a catch all and the Bill of rights would have NEVER been ratified without it.
Click to expand...

Exactly, this is why I always laugh when people say 'The Founders would never have foreseen blah blah blah'.
 
Socrtease said:
Freedom of expression covers what we do here. However, I don't know that the framers could have ever foreseen this medium let alone Television and Radio but I am sure they would have said the first amendment applies. But even if they didn't think that it applied directly, I am certain they would think the 9th covered what we do here. This is where you conservatives fall short in my opinion. The 9th was intended as a catch all because the framers didn't want freedoms limited by people saying, "There is no explicit amendment covering that right". I believe that if you told the framers there was no right to keep our private lives from the government they would laugh in your face. The Bill of Rights was intended to cover those rights that the British has been notoriously denying. But the 9th was included as a catch all and the Bill of rights would have NEVER been ratified without it.
Click to expand...
I think you are overgeneralizing. Many of us conservatives understand what the 9th was about. It is one of the amendments that I like the most. The Constitution delineates the powers the Feds can use, gives powers not specifically mentioned in the Constitution to the States or Individuals and then extends rights solely for the individual in the 9th. I likes it muchly.
 
OR, I wonder if only members of the press with the right credentials (ie educated by internationalist fascists) will be allowed to present information and opinons.

I just have a fear that what we do here will be disallowed in the future.
 
AssHatZombie said:
OR, I wonder if only members of the press with the right credentials (ie educated by internationalist fascists) will be allowed to present information and opinons.

I just have a fear that what we do here will be disallowed in the future.
Click to expand...

Freedom of the press? What is that? I think you mean freedom to publish news and opinions with which you agree, don't you? If the dirty digger decides that his best selling rag should turn against the government of the UK is not that freedom of the press? Is there some unwritten rule that people with a different set of rules and ethics should not benefit from 'freedom of the press'?
Forget freedom of the press. Substitute 'freedom to read what information we want'.
There are hundreds of 'hard copy' publications (getting fewer by the day incidentally), 99.99 recurring % are driven by the profit motive. There are thousands upon thousands of wannabe journalists chucking blogs at us every minute of every hour; more news of all shades than any one person can know about let alone read.
The message, then, is this. If you dont like what you read, read something else and, once in a while try thinking for yourself. If nothing suits you, do what others do. Publish your own blog, start your own radio or TV station.
 
Lowaicue said:
Freedom of the press? What is that? I think you mean freedom to publish news and opinions with which you agree, don't you? If the dirty digger decides that his best selling rag should turn against the government of the UK is not that freedom of the press? Is there some unwritten rule that people with a different set of rules and ethics should not benefit from 'freedom of the press'?
Forget freedom of the press. Substitute 'freedom to read what information we want'.
There are hundreds of 'hard copy' publications (getting fewer by the day incidentally), 99.99 recurring % are driven by the profit motive. There are thousands upon thousands of wannabe journalists chucking blogs at us every minute of every hour; more news of all shades than any one person can know about let alone read.
The message, then, is this. If you dont like what you read, read something else and, once in a while try thinking for yourself. If nothing suits you, do what others do. Publish your own blog, start your own radio or TV station.
Click to expand...

You seem to have a charming yet misguided belligerence to you today.

I'm for complete freedom of speech by anyone in all formats. I like being exposed to things I find objectionable.

Is hong kong really like Blade Runner?
 
Lowaicue said:
Freedom of the press? What is that? I think you mean freedom to publish news and opinions with which you agree, don't you?
Click to expand...

No it means freedom of the press. I know you Brits have trouble with the whole 'freedom' concept.
 
AssHatZombie said:
You seem to have a charming yet misguided belligerence to you today.

I'm for complete freedom of speech by anyone in all formats. I like being exposed to things I find objectionable.

Is hong kong really like Blade Runner?
Click to expand...

Well thats happens after a lazy day in the sun, a pleasant glass or two of vino and a nice dinner. Plumtiousness.(sp)

You are for complete freedom of speech? Then why do you complain when exposed to that which may be designed to subdue you. Does the subduer have the right?

Re your last point, I really wouldn't know. Was that a film? If it was I haven't seen it. Ice skating? We have a few ice rinks.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
No it means freedom of the press. I know you Brits have trouble with the whole 'freedom' concept.
Click to expand...

We certainly are not following you into the darkness beneath our beds in case a terrorist/communist/gangster/hoodlum/mexican/street gang member should happen by and decide to break down the door and murder everyone.
People tend to talk about those things that concern them. How many times have you known a Brit bring up the subject of freedom? Unless, of course, he is taking the piss out of you ... and you don't recognise that, do you?
 
Lowaicue said:
We certainly are not following you into the darkness beneath our beds in case a terrorist/communist/gangster/hoodlum/mexican/street gang member should happen by and decide to break down the door and murder everyone.
People tend to talk about those things that concern them. How many times have you known a Brit bring up the subject of freedom? Unless, of course, he is taking the piss out of you ... and you don't recognise that, do you?
Click to expand...

I don't know to many people who are afraid of those things. And thats the funny thing, you Brits won't bring up freedom. Damned if I can understand why not.

And as for 'taking the piss out', ok seriously, explain. I'm enthralled.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
I don't know to many people who are afraid of those things. And thats the funny thing, you Brits won't bring up freedom. Damned if I can understand why not.

And as for 'taking the piss out', ok seriously, explain. I'm enthralled.
Click to expand...

To take the piss out of someone is an ancient and noble British sport. One of its oldest proponents was probably one William Shakespeare. Naturally he was unable to elevate it to the art form it is today since we hadn't really created Americans at that time.

You'll find mention in Wikipedia that fount of wisdom compiled by butchers, bakers and candlestick makers.

The term sometimes refers to a form of mockery in which the mocker exaggerates the other person's characteristics; pretending to take on his or her attitudes, etc., in order to make them look funny. Or it may be used to refer to a ruse where a person is led to believe something is true that isn't (usually a fairly unbelievable story) for the purpose of ridicule of the "victim".

The phrase is in common usage throughout English society, employed by headline writers in broadsheet gazettes[2] and tabloids[3] as well as colloquially and is also used in English speaking countries such as Australia.[4][5]

In colloquial usage, 'taking the piss' is also used to refer to someone or something that makes a claim which is not in line with a recognised agreement e.g. an invoice that is double the quoted price with no explanation for the added charge could be said to 'take the piss', or likewise if something consistently misses a deadline.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top