hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...........

.......as a forum for public discourse,ya'll DO understand what this means if it becomes law,right?


https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-...sday-2020-05-27

First read the article and then explain to us what it means. Then I'll explain why you are wrong.

Would it be like how one doesn't know what Tue space bar means after a comma?

Charles.

My favorite line of this whole click-bait, retweet, fear-based revenue generator is this: "Unclear what order will entail, or what effect it will have". It's the very first line under the title.

Secret for you... If the article says it doesn't know anything, it is a fear mongering puff piece designed to generate clicks and therefore revenue. If it does know something, it is probably not that much different.

So it is permissible for a sitting president to publicly state an interest in changing the Bill of Rights by executive order?

a_s beat me to it...""Unclear what order will entail, or what effect it will have"

So, since we don't even know what is in the EO, how do you know it interferes with 1A?

Mark,would you address the question:

Is it permissible for a sitting president to publicly state an interest in changing the Bill of Rights by executive order? ANY change in the nature of the freedom to discuss or disagree regarding information destroys the base nature of the First.

Yes because his speech is also protected by the 1A. Now if you are asking if it can be done, likely not and if he tried Supreme Court battle ensues.

Excellent response. But in the meanwhile,what would be an appropriate response? Should the citizens refuse to comply,or should they acquiesce?

President's 'interfere' with 1A all of the time. Obama jailed journalists, has Trump done that? Obama bugged journalists and hacked their computers, has Trump done that? I don't remember your righteous indignation or outrage at either of those situations.

What the Executive Order will likely do is instruct the FCC to review the special extra protections that big tech enjoys under Section 230, if they engage in censorship of their customers.

Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of "interactive computer service providers," including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish.

They may also likely include a discussion of monopoly rules under the Sherman Act given that Facebook and Twitter own monopolies in their communication space and that they must either serve ALL parties or consideration be given to being broken up.

Mark,most of your post reads as an appology for current acts and a burrowing into history(previous administration).

The question remains regarding the current administration.

Typical Dusty, never actually answer a question or respond with fact to anything... your posts are the equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and chanting 'lalalalalalala'

The EO hasn't been published, give me an instance of what 1A infringement you are talking about...and I'll give you a response.

Let me see if I can put it into a metaphor you can digest,mark.

A man applies and gets the job of dogcatcher,with all the inherent risks. One day,while preforming his duties,he is nipped(let's say by a beagle).In a fit of pique,he immediately demands that all beagles be shot on sight or euthanized.He knew the job had risks,but now in the position he wants to change the terms of employment and remove what he views as a personal threat.
Can you now follow the question?

And, there it is 'lalalalalalalala'

Point to the 1A dilemna you suggested - or you admit you cannot...

And, you don't even know what a metaphor is...
A metaphor is a figure of speech that, for rhetorical effect, directly refers to one thing by mentioning another.

Such as, "Dusty is the black sheep of his family". Dusty is clearly not a black sheep, the metaphor is the reference that he's the 'different' one, in this case implying 'bad'.

So besides not knowing the implications of 1A, and not being able to provide an example of how Trump is violating 1A, you clearly don't know what metaphor is.

Here's one you might understand..."Three strikes and you're out"...get it?

Still don't get it,do you, mark.

Oh good lord, dusty plays yall like a violin, I thought the post was useless from the beginning, let him rant to his self

[/quote] Still don't get it,do you, mark. [/quote]

I get it Dusty, you, as usual, have no idea what you are talking about. You make a comment, then when asked for details, facts, or your supporting argument you can't back it up so you use strawman comments/arguments (in this case you improperly labeled as a metaphor) that have little or nothing to do with the subject at hand.

One cannot even have a coherent discussion with you because we have no idea what your point is...and neither apparently do you.

SELECTIVE CENSORSHIP.
I’ve experienced it. Just about anybody who doesn’t post libtard trash has experienced it. **VOTE IN NOVEMBER** Zuckerberg. Fact check that.

Trump 2024

The media played dusty like a violin and he fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

What is the business journalists? It isn't fact checking, truth finding and telling or even information sharing. The business of journalists is to get eyes. To generate revenue for their respective outlets. How do they generate revenue? By getting people to go to the site they work for, getting tweeted and retweeted, getting cited and quoted. What happens to journalists that don't get eyes? They go away, maybe they try their hands at writing books, maybe the sell hammers or make coffee, born to bear the shame of irrelevance for the rest of their shattered existence. To feel the dreamer inside of them whither.

Journalists have returned to the depths of yellow journalism because it sells and they like their jobs. The little journalist inside them chiding them for each and every manipulative, misleading twist; they crank out their drivel and rationalize it by telling themselves it is for the greater good or a higher purpose.

People read or hear and react out of emotion and two emotions generate sharing, happiness and fear. Fear usually outstrips happiness for clicks by a wide margin... Welcome to the matrix, your job is to click links to feed journalists.

I feel obligated to chime in here, partly because I've had some experience in journalism and have a few journalists in the family. While I think some of the current frustration with "the media," is warranted, I don't think it's fair to generalize all journalists or news outlets as self-aggrandizing truth-stretchers intent on generating click bait. In fact, I think most of them try to be objective and balanced, and believe in objective journalism's value to a healthy democracy.

Part of the fallacy, here and elsewhere, is treating "the media" as though it's one homogeneous thing acting in its own, misguided self-interest. This is also unfair and, honestly, inaccurate. While most of you remember simpler times with three TV news channels, radio, and several trusted newspapers, we've now got cable news, print news, AM talk radio, news websites, news aggregators, blogs, vlogs, self-appointed wonks, commentators, agitators, etc, and a network of social media engines geared to blast all that content down the long hallways of our distributed, personalized echo-chambers.

Has the standard for objective journalism gone down? Perhaps, but only if you view all of these sources in aggregate and with equal weighting. But god knows they're not created equally. And so we're left, individually, to judge the relative value of each of the sources, whether we're getting it from the AP, NPR, or some guy on youtube. A senior writer for the Wall Street Journal is going to have a lot more clout in my book than a staff blogger for Buzzfeed.

Moreover (and I mostly blame cable news outlets for this), many people have a hard time telling the difference between objective news and editorializing. And, to your point a_s, a lot of news outlets have a hard time holding readers' interest (ie making money) without some level of editorializing. What percentage of CNN's or Fox News' content is just news and not a couple of talking heads telling us how to think about it? At a time when nearly half of all Americans still get their news primarily from TV (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20...-a-news-source/), this is a dangerous game we're playing.

So, how do we fix it? First, let's recognize that guilt lies at the feet of both left- and right-leaning outlets; this is not just a liberal or a conservative problem. Second, let's recognize that leaders calling news they don't agree with "fake" or generalizing all journalists as criminals does not help improve the system; what it does do is baselessly degrade the public's trust in an institution we rely on to hold our government accountable. And third, let's understand, too, that we all are partly to blame in our consumption of overly editorialized content, of calling some news "fake," "made up," or "lies" without good reason, and, at worst, for encouraging outright violence toward journalists as a whole.

My last bit of advice is this: seek out news from multiple sources, judge the source and value of the content critically, and be especially wary of any source that tells you "it's the only source you need for all your news."

Check https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news for one organization's attempt to aggregate multiple perspectives on the same news story, with bias ratings for each of its sources.

I doubt that the people that work at Ford know what the boss has in mind. They generally do what they are asked/told as long as it is in their job description.

I would guess that most rank and file journalists turn over the story, and either make the changes the editor wants, or they are made for them. Outside of small local sources, I seriously doubt the veracity of stories that are run. The choices of stories which run are not for the benefit of the reader but for the benefit of the paper.

"It's interesting when people die, they give us dirty laundry."

I have no interest, nor any intention of paying tribute do anyone that makes their living telling me what or how I should think. When a journalist presents the news without bias without directed opinion without f****** telling me what I should know feel or think... I May reconsider

To quote Jake Spoon "...by God I never said a word to a pig."

Not really played,duckin,but have gotten at least a few people to step outside their sense of complasency;even if only for a moment.

So,how 'bout that masked-up white kid ,light build,around 5'10",wearing fake "black bloc" gear, that screamed "DON'T FILM ME" as he shoved that reporter in Richmond? Think they will REALLY look for him?

Edit: don't know why,but think that I MUST add that it is local news from last night that does not directly involves firearms.

The "Victim Of The Day" award go to Dusty...

Only One Award per 30 Days...

Please play again next month

Always happy to annoy you cash!