You do realize that CNN reported what the police told them from the beginning. When they said they were investigating a possible hate crime they reported that. When they said they had doubts about the account they reported that. When they said that Smollet had paid people to create the whole incident they reported that.
They reported the information as it became available.
Guess what news is…!!!
2 Likes
You get the blue kool-aid… 
That was always unconstitutional in my view.
We are not going back to that.
Free speech should be encouraged, not regulated.
Michael Moore and Newsmax should each be allowed to do their thing, in my view.
1 Like
There are limits on free speech, agree ?
A problem today is that organizations exist that
blur the lines of free speech and news and opinion.
And there is a population that can’t distinguish fact from fiction from kooky science. Oddly enough, this
is a byproduct of the information age we live in. More information, and more sources, does not mean quality information in human society.
2 Likes
Just going by the people I run into but it seems like almost everybody is a conspiracist these days. Half my office yesterday was agreeing that Chem trails caused the rain. I said why didn’t they stop the drought and then got jumped on. Information age yet we’re getting dumber.
2 Likes
I sort of agree, the problem is that not all speech is, nor should be, free. You can’t make terroristic threats for instance. You can’t say one thing and do another in a way that defrauds people, you can’t mislead people in a way that causes panic (fire in a crowded theatre).
The “news” lying intentionally to cause panic would fall into some of these. Especially the last one. It is one of the reasons we had an attack on the capital.
Also, people point to freedom of the press. But if you are constantly lying to your viewers you aren’t part of the Press anymore. You are fiction.
Fox News and Tucker Carlson actually got out of a lawsuit by arguing that any reasonable person would know that his show is fiction. The judge agreed with them.
There are several problems with this, first that if you are knowingly creating fiction and presenting it as truth, then you are in fact committing fraud. IF it harms someone else it is definitely slander/libel (I always forget which one applies to news and the other to individuals.) That argument shouldn’t have gotten them off.
But another problem is that despite that being their defense… people still constantly believe what he and his network say.
Just look at people offering me blue kool-aid pictures for pointing out the difference between bias and propaganda, even though Fox and Tucker literally admitted that’s what they are in court.
1 Like
Of course there are limits on free speech…but they’re pretty…well…LIMITED!!!
According to the USSC case law that has come down on the subject, even most HATE SPEECH is still technically protected free speech.
You pretty much have to make a specific threat against a specific target at a specific time and place to violate the law. Even saying things tantamount to “all members of XYZ group must die” has been held to be protected political free speech according to the case law on the subject.
And no…NO ONE should HAVE to present both sides of any debate or discussion.
As I said…Michael Moore can be as one sided as he likes in his free speech, and so can Newsmax.
That’s the nature of free speech. Legally requiring anything else is a restraint on freedom and fundamental rights, as far as I’m concerned.
As for advocating junk science, misinformation, etc., there’s no law out there that says that anyone, broadcasters, pundits, talking heads, journalists, etc., can’t be INCORRECT. People are allowed to be ignorant and incorrect, and even express said ignorance publicly, and it’s still protected free speech.
Obviously, there is a thing called libel and slander, but when it come to politicians and public officials, the legal standard for proving it is so high that it generally isn’t applicable. For such targets, only a truly reckless disregard for the truth will qualify, and that’s a VERY tough threshold to meet.
Now then, obviously, perjury, obscenity (though there’s contentious case law on this as well), child pornography, and solicitation of crimes are not protected free speech.
But that’s not what you are talking about.
2 Likes
Good points, @uhlaw97.
There are extremists on both the conservative and liberal sides. Trying to say that one side is more extreme, or more dangerous, is misleading and just wrong.
As has been mentioned before, there used to be a time when politicians would disagree, but not be disagreeable. Unfortunately, those days, I fear, are long gone. There are those in society who only look at someone’s politics when determining that person’s worth as an individual. That’s sad.
My extended family is made up of liberals and conservatives. As much as we might disagree politically, we still find much more in common. I wish groups as a whole were more like that. It would make life today much more pleasant.
I wish all Coogs everywhere, of any and all political persuasions, a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
2 Likes
I do like this Manchin Democrat, though… Ahh… Common ground.
1 Like
We can civilly discuss Manchin too. What do you like about him?
Here’s what I think. I think he’s looking out for other interests than that of his constituents who favor the Build Back Better bill by ~80%. Plus, he’s never iirc given a number he’d want to see.
We provided likely voters in West Virginia with a description of the American Rescue Plan’s major provisions and then asked them if they support or oppose the pandemic relief measure. We find that, by an 18-percentage-point margin, likely voters in the state support the law (57 percent support, 39 percent oppose). Among likely voters in the state that self-identify as Democrats and Independents, the law is backed by 83% and five points respectively.
1 Like
I was going to keep arguing on here with you but instead I’m going to go make music… I hope everyone here thinks long and hard about the major issues in this country and about whether the people they’re voting for are going to make those issues worse, or better.
I used to be a big time political junkie but now I don’t really believe in either party… I just think it’s silly to think that’s CNN spouts less “propaganda” than Fox… They both know how to keep their audience paying attention…
Okay
But it’s possible to discuss something without arguing 
just saying.
Go Coogs! LbTSU
1 Like
True… 
I’ll read the article later… Want to focus this hour on my music.
1 Like
Cool. I can see how that statement doesn’t meet the threshold and is protected. How long
ago was that ruling made ? But I’m getting the feeling that our laws and legal interpretations
of laws and rights have not caught up to the new information age of disinformation and very
outrageous speech. Recent case in point is the Fox host who urged supporters to ambush and
“kill shot” Dr Fauci. Clearly in the context of his speech, it is protected, as he is describing how
to debate the doctor. But it is a disturbing use of terms from another topic to describe a debate
course of action. Not sure if that’s just a “colorful metaphor” …but it’s a bit disturbing way to speak about something. Something is just not “right” about the outrageous speech we hear today.
I may be wrong, but I dont recall this being the standard in my youth. And It’s very prevalent today too, to the point of saturation. It’s like the “F bomb” being almost acceptable today and used widely in music. We’ve lost something in America.
1 Like