DJT Shows How He Really Values Free Speech

[Ponca Dan]

One cannot see this without understanding why some people view him as a threat to the American way of life. I can hear you MAGA people right now: “But Kamala! But Hillary!” Exactly! They’re threats too. But that doesn’t mean the Orange Man is not a threat. When you vote for him, as you surely will, just know what you’re voting for and don’t be surprised by what he does. He’s telling you in advance what kind of President he’ll be.

Trump calls for CBS to lose its broadcasting license amid '60 Minutes' controversy: 'UNPRECEDENTED SCANDAL!'

Former President Trump blasted CBS News for what he calls "the single biggest scandal in broadcast history" as "60 Minutes" sparked outrage over its Kamala Harris interview.

www.foxnews.com

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

A license is not a right. It is a privilege. We learned this on Day 1 of drivers’ ed. A license carries great responsibility. CBS has committed fraud on the public and violated that responsibility by re-editing Scamala’s words. This is not free speech. This is manipulation of speech that has been spoken by another. Imagine if a candidate had said “I hate the Klan. I love all people, including black people”, but a network had edited it to say “I hate all black people”. That’s essentially what CBS did, but on a less extreme level.

PS: 🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻

 

[Ponca Dan]

A license is not a right. It is a privilege. We learned this on Day 1 of drivers’ ed. A license carries great responsibility. CBS has committed fraud on the public and violated that responsibility by re-editing Scamala’s words. Imagine if a candidate had said “I hate the Klan. I love all people, including black people”, but a network had edited it to say “I hate all black people”. That’s essentially what CBS did, but on a less extreme level.

PS: 🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻

Your first sentence is extremely profound. You should take some time to contemplate what it really means when a government of a free society gives itself the authority to grant a license to speak.

 

[2012Bearcat]

I guess that depends on whether you think intentional election interference is something that is wrong and needs to be punished.

 

[Ponca Dan]

I guess that depends on whether you think intentional election interference is something that is wrong and needs to be punished.

A free society either has free speech or it’s not a free society. When a government assumes the authority to decide what people are allowed say and how they say it then the society that permits it no longer can claim to be free. A voter either understands that or he doesn’t, at which point he votes to relinquish a piece of his liberty to a man he trusts but shouldn’t.

 

[2012Bearcat]

A free society either has free speech or it’s not a free society. When a government assumes the authority to decide what people are allowed say and how they say it then the society that permits it no longer can claim to be free. A voter either understands that or he doesn’t, at which point he votes to relinquish a piece of his liberty to a man he trusts but shouldn’t.

I take it this means you have no problem with leftist in the MSM intentionally creating dishonest propaganda to interfere in an election.

 

[Ponca Dan]

I take it this means you have no problem with leftist in the MSM intentionally creating dishonest propaganda to interfere in an election.

My goodness, Bearcat, if the government gets to regulate political speech and ban lies Donald Trump wouldn’t be allowed to open his mouth. Is that what you want? And to answer your response, no I have no problem with what CBS did and does. In a free society its shenanigans would be exposed, and guess what! It got exposed!

 

[2012Bearcat]

My goodness, Bearcat, if the government gets to regulate political speech and ban lies Donald Trump wouldn’t be allowed to open his mouth. Is that what you want? And to answer your response, no I have no problem with what CBS did and does. In a free society its shenanigans would be exposed, and guess what! It got exposed!

The issue is not so much government regulating free speech, the issue is does this equate an undisclosed campaign contribution. When MSM outlets intentionally edit video to protect or enhance a political candidate is it a campaign contribution? They are essentially making a campaign ad for a candidate, airing it and not disclosing their campaign contribution. I'm not a legal scholar but I think an argument can be made this is against campaign finance laws. I would also point out this action is highly dishonest and not something the American people should tolerate from organization that are trusted to report the news accurately. Remember Democrats went after FOX news for their opinion show talking heads reporting on Dominion voting machines. FOX was hammered, whether justly or not, I don't know.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

Your first sentence is extremely profound. You should take some time to contemplate what it really means when a government of a free society gives itself the authority to grant a license to speak.

The government does not give CBS a license to speak. It gives it a license to use the airwaves in and above my property, and the property of 330,000,000 other Americans.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

The issue is not so much government regulating free speech, the issue is does this equate an undisclosed campaign contribution. When MSM outlets intentionally edit video to protect or enhance a political candidate is it a campaign contribution? They are essentially making a campaign ad for a candidate, airing it and not disclosing their campaign contribution. I'm not a legal scholar but I think an argument can be made this is against campaign finance laws. I would also point out this action is highly dishonest and not something the American people should tolerate from organization that are trusted to report the news accurately. Remember Democrats went after FOX news for their opinion show talking heads reporting on Dominion voting machines. FOX was hammered, whether justly or not, I don't know.

Excellent point. And how much does air time on CBS cost again?

 

[Ponca Dan]

The issue is not so much government regulating free speech, the issue is does this equate an undisclosed campaign contribution. When MSM outlets intentionally edit video to protect or enhance a political candidate is it a campaign contribution? They are essentially making a campaign ad for a candidate, airing it and not disclosing their campaign contribution. I'm not a legal scholar but I think an argument can be made this is against campaign finance laws. I would also point out this action is highly dishonest and not something the American people should tolerate from organization that are trusted to report the news accurately. Remember Democrats went after FOX news for their opinion show talking heads reporting on Dominion voting machines. FOX was hammered, whether justly or not, I don't know.

So what if CBS is essentially campaigning against Trump? We both know what they’re doing. Everyone knows what they’re doing. Fox campaigns for Trump. Everybody knows that, too. It’s astonishing how much you are agreeing with Hillary on this issue. Hillary doesn’t want to let Trump lie and you don’t want to let CBS lie. Free speech means everybody gets to lie.

 

[Ponca Dan]

The government does not give CBS a license to speak. It gives it a license to use the airwaves in and above my property, and the property of 330,000,000 other Americans.

So the license means CBS can speak freely? Then CBS gets to speak freely.