L. Lin Wood covers a lot about freedom of the press and social media, but he leaves a lot out that I often talk about:
Mr. Wood devoted a lot of time to “CORPORATE” social media, while he lumped board posters in with the villains. I would have been satisfied had he offered some protection to posters who cite articles from across the social media spectrum. To be fair to Mr. Wood he might be unaware why protection is needed:
Mr. Wood’s understanding of freedom of speech, and freedom of press, is much different than mine:
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...A-Death-On-The-Internet&p=2754345#post2754345
Freedom of the press is a deadly drug, while censorship is the poison that permeates every institution. Every institution practices censorship. No government can, or will, use its police powers to prohibit institutional censorship.
A lie of omission is censorship. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits government from censorship. But suppose censorship does not come from government action, but rather a result of government inaction?
No private sector institution can deny freedom of speech, but they can punish —— discharge an employee, etc. TV networks scream the loudest when their UNCONSTITUTIONAL freedom of the press is attacked, but ABC fired Roseanne Barr because she exercised her freedom of speech.
Incidentally, I am not sure if Martin Niemöller spoke out from his pulpit, or on a soap box, but the press in Nazi Germany would never have published him if he did speak out:
Just to be clear, I am 100 percent in favor of freedom of speech.
I am zero percent in favor of freedom of the press.
Print press is blameworthy for everything that went wrong in this country. Without a free press this country would not have open-borders, twenty to thirty million illegal aliens, sanctuary cities, socialized medicine, a Communist-controlled education industry, government unions, non-existent international law, the United Nations, world leaders, and a long list of lesser media evils that are SOP.
Freedom of speech was first attacked in this country when Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. famously opined that it is not protected speech when you “yell fire in a crowded theater.” In fact, Holmes said “don’t FALSELY shout fire in a crowded theater” yet liberals repeatedly omit the word falsely whenever they cite Schenck v. Ohio (the United States) in order to justify limits on free speech.
Schenck v. Ohio was overturned by Brandenburg v. United States.
When you omit the word “falsely” it becomes you cannot shout “Fire!” when the theater is actually on fire. In every form of government do not falsely shout FIRE in a crowded theater becomes do not shout FIRE in an empty theater. Then it becomes do not shout FIRE! And finally do not speak at all.
NOTE: Fictional TV lawyers deliberately misquote Holmes (censorship by omission). Permit me to expound still further.
Holmes never told us how freedom of speech traveled from the year 1791 to the year 1919 without his opinion guiding the country. To me, “political freedom of speech” is absolute, or at least it should be. If an individual’s constitutional Rights are not as absolute as the government’s Rights the individual has no Rights at all. At best, an individual’s constitutional Rights become nothing more than lawyer-laws dressed up to look prettier than they actually are.
It is a bit of a stretch to say that falsely yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater would cause thinking humans to trample one another in their rush to the exits. Since the FIRE! ruling was overturned, I have not heard that millions of American theatergoers are trampled to death. As a matter of fact no one in the Twin Towers was trampled when they knew those buildings were on fire.
So what protected theatergoers before 1919?
My understanding of the FIRE! restraint on free speech is that political free speech would remain absolute, but not all speech would be so blessed. At least that is what the High Court seemed to be saying at the time. That one prohibition appeared to be reasonable on the face of it. Since then political free speech is no longer absolute; right along with every other kind.
Would the Nifty Nine from a bygone era have made that pronouncement had they known that Intelligent Design, campaign finance reform, and banning politically incorrect speech would follow? It is impossible to say.
Incidentally, how many times did the words “limited speech” appear in print, commentaries, High Court decisions, etc., prior to 1919? How many times did James Madison invoke those words?
It is no secret that all governments just love protecting meaningless speech. In the real world offensive speech requires the most protection, not touchy-feely sermons.
The things you cannot say, and the things you must say, is clearly an evolutionary step in America’s culture. In bygone decades the opponents of free speech confined their attacks to silencing average Americans.
The long-running debate used to be about the government shutting up people. Now, go back to Oliver Wendell Holmes’ often misquoted opinion: "Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.”, and come forward. You will see that before the Fairness Doctrine (1949 - 1987) was implemented no one was required to listen. Nowadays, freedom of speech is more about making people than it is about shutting them up.
This one always gave me a laugh:
Freedom of speech is a contradiction in terms in today’s political climate because it is always about who controls freedom of speech. The folks in high places who wrap themselves in free speech whenever they need a few votes never admit THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE HEARD. Failure to enforce that component in freedom of speech makes me wonder what this lady thought about it:
Try it this way:
The only justification for a free press is when it maintains an antagonistic relationship towards government; every government —— liberal and conservative, democracy and dictatorship. America’s free press has not been antagonistic toward government in more than a century. Television actually promotes government as well as glorifying government parasites regardless of what they do; hence, freedom of the press is the one First Amendment freedom that is not worth defending.
Incidentally, decades before television replaced print it was Hollywood propagandists who told Americans that a free press and those rummies in Washington have an antagonistic relationship when the exact opposite was true.
A. Dru Kristenev is much kinder than I:
NOTE: The press promoted itself from self-important elitist to honored elite status.
One unshakable fact about speech is eternal. All speech, by its very nature, is most closely related to “Let the buyer beware.”
Finally, the press pays slander awards with tax exempt advertising dollars. No lawyer will ever take a case when there is no money at the end of the rainbow. Take away tax exempt advertising dollars and you will see how fast media slander disappears when the Washington Post and CNN have to pay those awards with their own money.
Mr. Wood devoted a lot of time to “CORPORATE” social media, while he lumped board posters in with the villains. I would have been satisfied had he offered some protection to posters who cite articles from across the social media spectrum. To be fair to Mr. Wood he might be unaware why protection is needed:
Just prior to his appointment as President Obama’s so-called regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein wrote a lengthy academic paper suggesting the government should “infiltrate” social network websites, chat rooms and message boards. Such “cognitive infiltration,” Sunstein argued, should be used to enforce a U.S. government ban on “conspiracy theorizing.”
Such “cognitive infiltration,” Sunstein argued, should be used to enforce a U.S. government ban on “conspiracy theorizing.”
Such “cognitive infiltration,” Sunstein argued, should be used to enforce a U.S. government ban on “conspiracy theorizing.”
Obama czar proposed government ‘infiltrate’ social network sites
Sunstein wants agents to 'undermine' talk in chat rooms, message boards
Published: 01/12/2012 at 10:56 PM
by Aaron Klein
http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/obama-czar-proposed-government-infiltrate-social-network-sites/
Sunstein wants agents to 'undermine' talk in chat rooms, message boards
Published: 01/12/2012 at 10:56 PM
by Aaron Klein
http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/obama-czar-proposed-government-infiltrate-social-network-sites/
Mr. Wood’s understanding of freedom of speech, and freedom of press, is much different than mine:
p.s. Americans rightfully care about freedom of speech not freedom of the press. Private sector freedoms can live very well without freedom of the press, but they will die without ABSOLUTE political freedom of speech.
If Americans want to protect the First Amendment start by eliminating these four words ——“or of the press” —— so that it reads:
If Americans want to protect the First Amendment start by eliminating these four words ——“or of the press” —— so that it reads:
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Notice that the press would still enjoy freedom of speech like the rest of us, but they would have to defend freedom of speech as a matter of self-interest instead of only defending their constitutional privilege while they feed the rest us to Socialist/Communist wolves.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...A-Death-On-The-Internet&p=2754345#post2754345
Freedom of the press is a deadly drug, while censorship is the poison that permeates every institution. Every institution practices censorship. No government can, or will, use its police powers to prohibit institutional censorship.
A lie of omission is censorship. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits government from censorship. But suppose censorship does not come from government action, but rather a result of government inaction?
No private sector institution can deny freedom of speech, but they can punish —— discharge an employee, etc. TV networks scream the loudest when their UNCONSTITUTIONAL freedom of the press is attacked, but ABC fired Roseanne Barr because she exercised her freedom of speech.
Incidentally, I am not sure if Martin Niemöller spoke out from his pulpit, or on a soap box, but the press in Nazi Germany would never have published him if he did speak out:
In Nazi Germany, Martin Niemöller was a Lutheran minister and early Nazi supporter who was later imprisoned for opposing Adolf Hitler’s regime. He spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps, and is best remembered for saying:
“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.”
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.”
Do you really care about free speech?
Posted By Joseph Farah On 08/05/2018 @ 5:13 pm
https://www.wnd.com/2018/08/do-you-really-care-about-free-speech/
Posted By Joseph Farah On 08/05/2018 @ 5:13 pm
https://www.wnd.com/2018/08/do-you-really-care-about-free-speech/
Just to be clear, I am 100 percent in favor of freedom of speech.
I am zero percent in favor of freedom of the press.
Print press is blameworthy for everything that went wrong in this country. Without a free press this country would not have open-borders, twenty to thirty million illegal aliens, sanctuary cities, socialized medicine, a Communist-controlled education industry, government unions, non-existent international law, the United Nations, world leaders, and a long list of lesser media evils that are SOP.
Freedom of speech was first attacked in this country when Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. famously opined that it is not protected speech when you “yell fire in a crowded theater.” In fact, Holmes said “don’t FALSELY shout fire in a crowded theater” yet liberals repeatedly omit the word falsely whenever they cite Schenck v. Ohio (the United States) in order to justify limits on free speech.
Schenck v. Ohio was overturned by Brandenburg v. United States.
When you omit the word “falsely” it becomes you cannot shout “Fire!” when the theater is actually on fire. In every form of government do not falsely shout FIRE in a crowded theater becomes do not shout FIRE in an empty theater. Then it becomes do not shout FIRE! And finally do not speak at all.
NOTE: Fictional TV lawyers deliberately misquote Holmes (censorship by omission). Permit me to expound still further.
Holmes never told us how freedom of speech traveled from the year 1791 to the year 1919 without his opinion guiding the country. To me, “political freedom of speech” is absolute, or at least it should be. If an individual’s constitutional Rights are not as absolute as the government’s Rights the individual has no Rights at all. At best, an individual’s constitutional Rights become nothing more than lawyer-laws dressed up to look prettier than they actually are.
It is a bit of a stretch to say that falsely yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater would cause thinking humans to trample one another in their rush to the exits. Since the FIRE! ruling was overturned, I have not heard that millions of American theatergoers are trampled to death. As a matter of fact no one in the Twin Towers was trampled when they knew those buildings were on fire.
So what protected theatergoers before 1919?
My understanding of the FIRE! restraint on free speech is that political free speech would remain absolute, but not all speech would be so blessed. At least that is what the High Court seemed to be saying at the time. That one prohibition appeared to be reasonable on the face of it. Since then political free speech is no longer absolute; right along with every other kind.
Would the Nifty Nine from a bygone era have made that pronouncement had they known that Intelligent Design, campaign finance reform, and banning politically incorrect speech would follow? It is impossible to say.
Incidentally, how many times did the words “limited speech” appear in print, commentaries, High Court decisions, etc., prior to 1919? How many times did James Madison invoke those words?
It is no secret that all governments just love protecting meaningless speech. In the real world offensive speech requires the most protection, not touchy-feely sermons.
The things you cannot say, and the things you must say, is clearly an evolutionary step in America’s culture. In bygone decades the opponents of free speech confined their attacks to silencing average Americans.
The long-running debate used to be about the government shutting up people. Now, go back to Oliver Wendell Holmes’ often misquoted opinion: "Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.”, and come forward. You will see that before the Fairness Doctrine (1949 - 1987) was implemented no one was required to listen. Nowadays, freedom of speech is more about making people than it is about shutting them up.
This one always gave me a laugh:
Freedom of speech is a contradiction in terms in today’s political climate because it is always about who controls freedom of speech. The folks in high places who wrap themselves in free speech whenever they need a few votes never admit THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE HEARD. Failure to enforce that component in freedom of speech makes me wonder what this lady thought about it:
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Try it this way:
I disapprove of your refusal to listen, but I will defend to the death your Right to not listen.
The only justification for a free press is when it maintains an antagonistic relationship towards government; every government —— liberal and conservative, democracy and dictatorship. America’s free press has not been antagonistic toward government in more than a century. Television actually promotes government as well as glorifying government parasites regardless of what they do; hence, freedom of the press is the one First Amendment freedom that is not worth defending.
Incidentally, decades before television replaced print it was Hollywood propagandists who told Americans that a free press and those rummies in Washington have an antagonistic relationship when the exact opposite was true.
A. Dru Kristenev is much kinder than I:
Interesting how the press will call upon the Constitution when its suits their purpose but manages to miss the point entirely.
James Madison, in a speech before the First Congress, June 8, 1789 stated, “The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.” (boldface added)
First Amendment was never intended to give the press elite status or guarantee that its rights overshadowed those of other citizens
James Madison, in a speech before the First Congress, June 8, 1789 stated, “The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.” (boldface added)
First Amendment was never intended to give the press elite status or guarantee that its rights overshadowed those of other citizens
NOTE: The press promoted itself from self-important elitist to honored elite status.
Freedom of the press was intended to be protected in that the practices of the British Crown at the time was to silence voiced and printed opinion by jailing the dissenters. However, the First Amendment was never intended to give the press elite status or guarantee that its rights overshadowed those of other citizens.
The First Amendment guarantees a right to free speech however unpopular the speaker’s or writer’s words may be. It did not give representatives of the press a superlative right to hinder private citizens’ and public officials’ customary activities or duties.
In this country, the press has been encouraged to inquire about and report events, and throughout our history it has questioned the actions of individuals and corporations, private and public. The press has a duty to faithfully investigate issues that affect the public and report upon them but it has never been given a free hand to trespass, violate and trample the rights of others. That includes those in the public eye.
For some reason, especially over the last 50 years, members of the press have been encouraged to be aggressive and confrontational, believing that their “right to know” supersedes every other citizen’s rights.
Not so.
A free press operates with respect for the rights of others because it has a responsibility to protect those rights by publishing corroborated facts, which is the opposite of how many in the media now conduct their business. What occurred at the White House, where a member of the press corps’ pass was revoked, is an example of just how unconscionably disrespectful the press has become of others’ rights by taking license to act the boor. The CNN correspondent’s aggressive refusal to relinquish the microphone was, in itself, enough of a transgression of the rules to warrant his removal from the premises.
When I served as a reporter, it was understood that you applied for press credentials which had to be earned. Press passes weren’t handed out to anyone who identified themselves as a journalist. Both the media outlet (print, web or broadcast) and the individual were verified as legitimate, including a track record of accurate reporting and circulation numbers. Even a reporter from a high school newspaper could gain eligibility to receive a press pass if the venue could accommodate them. And accommodation is a major issue when addressing the limited size of a venue such as the White House press room.
Every time a reporter crossed the line of basic courtesy when posing tough queries (which were and are anticipated from an adversarial press, a role the Founders wished it to fill), they could expect to be shown the door. Hostile questions are one thing, combative attitudes and behaving contemptuously are quite another. No member of the press has the right to abuse their station any more than a government official may abuse theirs.
Should a member of the media be ejected from their privileged position due to inappropriate actions, it is not for the judiciary to jump in and restore the reporter’s good standing. Why? Because they lost that standing by abusing their favored position.
Acosta has lost his hard pass for despising the privilege with inappropriate conduct.
In the circumstance of CNN’s White House rep, the attempt by a judge to make his banishment from the press corps a Fifth Amendment issue proves how the judiciary has misapplied the Constitution. Jim Acosta lost the privilege of covering the White House as a member of the elect press corps because of his abusive actions. For a judge to stretch the meaning of the clause by ruling that the reporter didn’t receive due process is a gross perversion of law:
“...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”
This is not a criminal case nor is the reporter being deprived of life, liberty or property. Acosta is not barred from plying his trade, which he can do anywhere other than at the White House. He has lost his hard pass for despising the privilege with inappropriate conduct. Like too many journalists, he believes that working for media gives him the right to enter premises simply because he is a member of an exclusive club.
That is not the case. Any beat reporter will tell you that playing by the rules of civility (despite what democrats say) is more effective than conflict in obtaining an accurate story. Abuse your position and the source will clam up and/or throw you out. Acosta deserved to be thrown out.
The First Amendment guarantees a right to free speech however unpopular the speaker’s or writer’s words may be. It did not give representatives of the press a superlative right to hinder private citizens’ and public officials’ customary activities or duties.
In this country, the press has been encouraged to inquire about and report events, and throughout our history it has questioned the actions of individuals and corporations, private and public. The press has a duty to faithfully investigate issues that affect the public and report upon them but it has never been given a free hand to trespass, violate and trample the rights of others. That includes those in the public eye.
For some reason, especially over the last 50 years, members of the press have been encouraged to be aggressive and confrontational, believing that their “right to know” supersedes every other citizen’s rights.
Not so.
A free press operates with respect for the rights of others because it has a responsibility to protect those rights by publishing corroborated facts, which is the opposite of how many in the media now conduct their business. What occurred at the White House, where a member of the press corps’ pass was revoked, is an example of just how unconscionably disrespectful the press has become of others’ rights by taking license to act the boor. The CNN correspondent’s aggressive refusal to relinquish the microphone was, in itself, enough of a transgression of the rules to warrant his removal from the premises.
When I served as a reporter, it was understood that you applied for press credentials which had to be earned. Press passes weren’t handed out to anyone who identified themselves as a journalist. Both the media outlet (print, web or broadcast) and the individual were verified as legitimate, including a track record of accurate reporting and circulation numbers. Even a reporter from a high school newspaper could gain eligibility to receive a press pass if the venue could accommodate them. And accommodation is a major issue when addressing the limited size of a venue such as the White House press room.
Every time a reporter crossed the line of basic courtesy when posing tough queries (which were and are anticipated from an adversarial press, a role the Founders wished it to fill), they could expect to be shown the door. Hostile questions are one thing, combative attitudes and behaving contemptuously are quite another. No member of the press has the right to abuse their station any more than a government official may abuse theirs.
Should a member of the media be ejected from their privileged position due to inappropriate actions, it is not for the judiciary to jump in and restore the reporter’s good standing. Why? Because they lost that standing by abusing their favored position.
Acosta has lost his hard pass for despising the privilege with inappropriate conduct.
In the circumstance of CNN’s White House rep, the attempt by a judge to make his banishment from the press corps a Fifth Amendment issue proves how the judiciary has misapplied the Constitution. Jim Acosta lost the privilege of covering the White House as a member of the elect press corps because of his abusive actions. For a judge to stretch the meaning of the clause by ruling that the reporter didn’t receive due process is a gross perversion of law:
“...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”
This is not a criminal case nor is the reporter being deprived of life, liberty or property. Acosta is not barred from plying his trade, which he can do anywhere other than at the White House. He has lost his hard pass for despising the privilege with inappropriate conduct. Like too many journalists, he believes that working for media gives him the right to enter premises simply because he is a member of an exclusive club.
That is not the case. Any beat reporter will tell you that playing by the rules of civility (despite what democrats say) is more effective than conflict in obtaining an accurate story. Abuse your position and the source will clam up and/or throw you out. Acosta deserved to be thrown out.
Founders wanted a protected press, not an elitist class
By A. Dru Kristenev
November 18, 2018
https://canadafreepress.com/article/founders-wanted-a-protected-press-not-an-elitist-class
By A. Dru Kristenev
November 18, 2018
https://canadafreepress.com/article/founders-wanted-a-protected-press-not-an-elitist-class
One unshakable fact about speech is eternal. All speech, by its very nature, is most closely related to “Let the buyer beware.”
Finally, the press pays slander awards with tax exempt advertising dollars. No lawyer will ever take a case when there is no money at the end of the rainbow. Take away tax exempt advertising dollars and you will see how fast media slander disappears when the Washington Post and CNN have to pay those awards with their own money.
