Maybe we should just clamp down the press because they don't show respect for an abusive zealot?
Your mind is made up and any attempts at conversation are useless at this point.
Have a great day and I look forward to talking and trading views on music with you in the future.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Really, what U.S. citizen or media company is actually against Free Speech?
Proclamations like "the media is the enemy of the people" make it a safe bet that free speech is under attack. I don't agree that this is a trifling matter. I am with Admiral McRaven on this, Trump's hostility to media is "perhaps the greatest threat to democracy in my lifetime."
Really, what U.S. citizen or media company is actually against Free Speech?
Proclamations like "the media is the enemy of the people" make it a safe bet that free speech is under attack. I don't agree that this is a trifling matter. I am with Admiral McRaven on this, Trump's hostility to media is "perhaps the greatest threat to democracy in my lifetime."
"Hostility" is a threat?...I would consider those who use the fictional term "Hate speech" as a much larger menace.
You don't believe hate speech exists, fine. I respectfully disagree. You seem to feel that Admiral McRaven is blowing smoke, fine. Again, I respectfully disagree.
It’s irresponsible to talk about “the media” as if they are all the same. Illegitimate outlets intentionally do this to distract, mislead, and brainwash their audience to drink their kool aid.
There are obviously many legit outlets in all mediums, mainstream or not, that deserve to be recognized for their journalistic integrity. Besides, if you discredit “the media”, then how does one get their news and stay informed?
You don't believe hate speech exists, fine. I respectfully disagree.
That is correct, I do not. If only we lived in a world where no one spoke a word that others found "hateful". As long as speech does not call for action, it is free speech. Period.
Disagreement is fine and is the beginning of dialogue.
You seem to feel that Admiral McRaven is blowing smoke, fine. Again, I respectfully disagree.
I admit I know too little about this to comment.
Besides, if you discredit “the media”, then how does one get their news and stay informed?
I think Trump wants you to get all your "news" from Fox News. I guess they don't count as the "media." Maybe that is something I can agree with Trump on. Fox News doesn't count as media (or journalist at all).
Really, what U.S. citizen or media company is actually against Free Speech?
Proclamations like "the media is the enemy of the people" make it a safe bet that free speech is under attack. I don't agree that this is a trifling matter. I am with Admiral McRaven on this, Trump's hostility to media is "perhaps the greatest threat to democracy in my lifetime."
DJT's freedom to say such a ludicrous thing & have it reported globally by US media outlets is the essence of free speech. IMO, the status of free speech has never been stronger. To me, the greater threat is the indifference & boredom many citizens express regarding whether the truth is being told. Those lists of "45 things DJT lied about" each day don't seem to galvanize people against him. Democracy in the US isn't suffering from a dearth of accurate & question-provoking information. It's suffering from "who cares?"
They should just stop reporting the “45 things” stuff as I think people can see it. It will have a cumulative effect at some point.
If they want to suspend Acosta from asking questions, they could do what they do at the United Nations with Palestine, give him Observer status, let him come to the briefings but not be able to ask questions if he has been suspended, that way he can still report on what went on, CNN could send another reporter to ask questions. It seems childish but having a reporter banned from doing his work is a serious matter also.
I am not picking on Jim Acosta, but all this legal stuff seems over the top. He can't have to feel that he is walking on egg shells asking questions that the President might not want to answer, but he has to frame the questions so that Trump can answer them. Remember the Presidential debates and the moderators trying to ask questions and keep the peace? Politics is a hot potato. Yes people have freedom of speech, and networks should be able to send whoever they want to the briefings. I just hope this doesn't get really ugly and divisive.
When reporters are unfairly punished it is an injustice, in this case it just seems like the whole thing has gotten out of hand. It could be worse, the American reporter, Jamal Kashoggi was killed by what is reportedly 15 Saudi's who were sent to the Saudi Arabian consulate in Turkey. There was audio taped evidence that Turkish officials have heard and it clearly has Kashoggi being tortured while being strangled for more than 7 minutes, and then reportedly being dismembered with body parts possibly being put in luggage to be taken to other places. There were reportedly 15 phone calls made from the consulate. Kashoggi's offense was bad mouthing a Saudi leader. The intelligence people do not connect him to the murder, but there are reports that intelligence personnell were used to kill him and use the typical put his torso in hydrochloric acid to dispose of that while the hands, feet, were taken elsewhere. They found Kashoggis watch, meaning he never left that embassy, despite video footage of someone exiting that compound wearing his clothes. [foreign media sources]
Journalism has changed in the other half of the world because of what happens to those reporters who anger world leaders. The US has been a place where reporters could feel safe to speak their minds, but the ugliness going on now may lead to stricter rules and less free speech. That is the risk.
[Edited on 11/20/2018 by gina]
POLITICS Trump says no new punishment for writer's murder Associated Press
WASHINGTON (November 20, 2018) — President Donald Trump says the U.S. will not levy additional punitive measures at this time against Saudi Arabia over the killing of Jamal Khashoggi.
Trump said in a statement Tuesday that the U.S. does not condone the killing of the U.S-based Saudi columnist, but that "foolishly" canceling $110 billion in arms sales — as some in Congress have suggested — would only mean that Saudi Arabia would go to other countries to acquire them.
Trump says the king and crown prince of Saudi Arabia "vigorously deny" any knowledge of the planning and execution of the Oct. 2 murder of The Washington Post columnist at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul.
He says "it could well be that the crown prince had knowledge."
Trump says "maybe he did and maybe he didn't."
Remarks: So a US journalist is murdered, but there is a $110 Billion dollar arms deal, so we won't look too hard to find out who killed a US journalist.
he has to frame the questions so that Trump can answer them
I believe that is beyond Trump's capability.
he has to frame the questions so that Trump can answer them
I believe that is beyond Trump's capability.
Pictures with monosyllabic captions.
If only we lived in a world where no one spoke a word that others found "hateful". As long as speech does not call for action, it is free speech. Period.
So if speech calls for action it isn't protected free speech? Pretty broad, but I will assume you mean calling for violence or repression, persecution. If I got that right, what would you call that kind of speech? Sounds like you are rankling about a buzzword like "hate speech" being used too freely, while acknowledging that some speech is unacceptable and dangerous.
[Edited on 11/21/2018 by BrerRabbit]
Acosta's pass is restored.
If only we lived in a world where no one spoke a word that others found "hateful". As long as speech does not call for action, it is free speech. Period.
So if speech calls for action it isn't protected free speech? Pretty broad, but I will assume you mean calling for violence or repression, persecution. If I got that right, what would you call that kind of speech? Sounds like you are rankling about a buzzword like "hate speech" being used too freely, while acknowledging that some speech is unacceptable and dangerous.
"All green people are idiots and should not be allowed to Vote". (Free speech)... But it might be called "Hate speech" because it is mean and unnecessary! lol.... But, a first amendment protected phrase.
"I want you to grab a 2x4 and go over there and beat every green person you see to death with it"...Not protected, calls for action. And is not protected by the 1st amendment
I agree, to a point. I don't see it as cut and dried as calling for action or not, though that is certainly a good standard. Gotta have some kind of baseline definition.
I feel that extremely dehumanizing humiliating, or threatening language that can terrorize or demoralize targets, speech that encourages others to attack, without directly calling for attack, can be hate speech once it reaches a certain point. Not gonna get into it more than this, pretty charged subject. But yeah, I get it, inciting action vs just blowing air, pretty good place to start.
So: "All green people deserve to be hit by 2x4s" is hate speech.
Perhaps to a lesser degree than "Go hit green people with 2x4s", but still hate speech, though not a direct call for action.
I agree, to a point. I don't see it as cut and dried as calling for action or not, though that is certainly a good standard. Gotta have some kind of baseline definition.
I feel that extremely dehumanizing humiliating, or threatening language that can terrorize or demoralize targets, speech that encourages others to attack, without directly calling for attack, can be hate speech once it reaches a certain point. Not gonna get into it more than this, pretty charged subject. But yeah, I get it, inciting action vs just blowing air, pretty good place to start.
So: "All green people deserve to be hit by 2x4s" is hate speech.
Perhaps to a lesser degree than "Go hit green people with 2x4s", but still hate speech, though not a direct call for action.
"Hate speech" today, as defined by whoever, sounds an awful lot like whining.
Yeah well, nice attempt at an exchange of views anyway, a refreshing break from the usual antagonistic kneejerking that passes for dialogue in this joint.
Music lyrics, too, have been targeted for being inciting, unacceptable calls to action, & hate speech.
For anyone interested in general, jargon-free books on free speech, there's Floyd Abram's Soul of the 1st Amendment (2018), Anthony Lewis's Biography of the 1st Amendment (2010), & pretty much anything by Monroe Price regarding digital speech. There's also the classic John Stuart Mill essay On Liberty (1859).
So: "All green people deserve to be hit by 2x4s" is hate speech.
Forget the label or legality of it. A person who has this mindset is clearly low-rent and should be ignored.
So: "All green people deserve to be hit by 2x4s" is hate speech.
Forget the label or legality of it. A person who has this mindset is clearly low-rent and should be ignored.
Absolutely agree. But there is a huge difference in the ability to ignore vitriol like this and calling for it to be banned because you find it offensive or "Hateful"
