House Democrats, Targeting Right-Wing Cable Outlets, Are Assaulting Core Press Freedoms

That's an obscene falsehood.

 

Extremism in defense of liberty and the rule of law is no vice.

Moderation in pursuit of justice and rule of law is no virtue.

Thank you Barry Goldwater.

 

This defies logic and common sense. It is obvious and self-evident that all the 13 colonies/states that ratified the Constitution to form a more perfect union was not at all the same as, for instance, a university joining a conference of universities. It was more permanently binding than even a commercial contract where neither party to a contract can unilaterally simply change their mind. None of the framers nor the states saw a need or purpose to spell it out -- never crossed their mind actually -- since it was patently axiomatic that the union was a permanent inseparable pact..

 

Evidently...you're in favor of creating your own "truth"....just like Trump.
I started a thread on the idea of truth a while back...
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/fake-news-vs-truth.582802/
In reality...at least for now...."Truth" is just a matter of opinion
It seems everyone has a different opinion...as a matter of "Fact"...that is all they have.

 

I'll fill in the blanks. The words of SCOTUS were that the federal Constitution “in all its provisions looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.”

 

Democrats these days don't believe in "no" when it applies to them.

 

What part of the 1st Amendment says anything about Facebook not being able to edit the content appearing on their site? Why, for example, shouldn't they be allowed to ban pathological liars like Trump? Not because of disagreements with the content, because of demonstrable lies.

 

No different my friend than yourself or I none us know precisely what the truth is all we have is competing narratives. But only one of us is insisting on silencing the other guys.

 

Your partisan approach is again on display. You have made my point. Thanks.

 

Chase wrote that the original Union of the colonies had been made in reaction to very real problems faced by the colonists. The first result of these circumstances was the creation of the Articles of Confederation, which established a perpetual union between these states. The Constitution, when implemented, only strengthened and perfected this relationship. Chase wrote:


Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase

". . . The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual". And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union". It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not? . . . "

Texas v. White - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Texas_v._White

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869), was a case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The case involved a claim by the ...

 

Lincoln acted in response to what was already treasonous insurrection by the Confederacy.

 

It seems that we hold our children to a higher degree of integrity
than we do our elected government officials....
What concerns me is that you are not only okay with that idea,
but you choose to defend such behavior by those that govern your country.

 

When you start citing "integrity" and such to curb political speech you don't like, you sound like every dictator who ever ruled. Meanwhile:

". . . Under U.S. law, many falsehoods—even some deliberate lies—receive the full protection of the First Amendment. That is true even though “there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact,” as Justice Lewis Powell Jr. wrote for the Supreme Court in 1974. Nonetheless, the Court has often refused to allow government to penalize speakers for mistakes, sloppy falsehoods, and lies. Political lies are strongly protected; but even private lies sometimes are as well. . . ."

Does the First Amendment Protect Deliberate Lies?
www.theatlantic.com › politics › archive › 2016/08 › d...

Aug 16, 2016 — Does the First Amendment Protect Deliberate Lies? Donald Trump says the press cannot lie. But the Supreme Court says otherwise: In fact, many ...

 

Perhaps the reason for that is Jan 6th. It could have been much worse than it was...
and if the misinformation continues...it will be worse.
I don't think the First Amendment was designed to protect the spread of lies
at all costs...do you?

 

As previously noted, ". . . Political lies are strongly protected . . . "

 

But as previously asked....why are you okay with that?
Why do you expect higher standards from you children
than you do from your lying government officials?

 

From Lee Atwater's link posted earlier.....
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-fede...ational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does
Freedom of speech does not include the right:
To incite actions that would harm others.
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).

 

I'm OK with that because "that" is a foundation of our free and tolerant society.
Of course I expected higher standards from our children.

 

Yes. I do not disagree. But the SCOTUS has made clear that exception is drawn very narrowly.

 

I found this statement in the link that you posted....

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote:
"Permitting the government to decree this speech to be a criminal offense, whether shouted from the rooftops or made in a barely audible whisper, would endorse government authority to compile a list of subjects about which false statements are punishable. … Our constitutional tradition stands against the idea that we need Oceania’s Ministry of Truth."

Now here is a clip from an article concerning "Ministry of Truth" mentioned by Justice Kennedy....
"If Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry correct the record to make it 'accurate' — the intention is to maintain the illusion that the Party is right / absolute. The Party cannot ever seem to change its mind or make a mistake as that would imply weakness; so the Ministry controls the news media by changing history, and changing words in articles about current and past events so that Big Brother and his government are always seen in a good light."

Doesn't this sound exactly like what the Trumpian movement is up to??
If they lose an election...they actually won.
If the crowd attending Trump was smaller than Obama's crowd....then Trump's was actually larger. If Trump supporters attack the Capitol...it was actually antifa.
etc etc

 

To which my reply is: So what? I could not care less "what the Trumpian movement is up to." His lies were exposed because the antidote to falsehoods is the truth, not suppression.

 

Perhaps simply exposing his lies is not enough to make a difference anymore...
half of the population believes anything Trump says is the gospel truth.
So far they've proved they're ready to kill for him....
how far are you willing to let them go??

 

Yes, and a Democrat ambushed and tried to kill Republican Congressmen not so long ago. The actions of extremists do not require us to abandon free speech.