View Poll Results: Does the U.S. need a free press?

Voters
7. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes.

    7 100.00%
  • No

    0 0%
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 40 of 40
Thanks Tree23Thanks

Thread: Does the U.S. need a free press?

  1. #31
    Ignorance Is Virtue BitterPill's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    9,622
    Thanks
    6409

    From
    SoCal
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    I really don't give a shit what your so-called assessment of me is. That is the truth.

    So perhaps you should go find someone who actually cares what you think of them to discuss your personal assessments with. I am here to debate political topics - not listen to internet strangers pretend to know what I am thinking.
    Works for me.

    Thank you for the discussion, and I mean that. At the least you are no pantywaist.

  2. #32
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    27,052
    Thanks
    4611

    From
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BitterPill View Post
    Now that Trump is in office, of course you want to limit free speech. You are horribly offended by the things that are said about the man: that he's a philanderer, that he's a liar, that he's a cheat.
    Actually I've been advocating for this specific reform and for the same standard regarding defamation to be applied to those in public for well over a decade and long before Trump was elected President (you can check my past comments if you don't believe me).

    So as is usually the case with you - you have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to me. Nor are you in a position to lecture anyone else about lying considering all the lies you have posted about me.
    Last edited by Jeremy; 5th May 2018 at 10:34 PM.
    Thanks from Enigma32

  3. #33
    Ignorance Is Virtue BitterPill's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    9,622
    Thanks
    6409

    From
    SoCal
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    Actually I've been advocating for this specific reform and for the same standard regarding defamation to be applied to those in public for well over a decade and long before Trump was elected President (you can check my past comments if you don't believe me).

    So as is usually the case with you - you have no clue what you are talking about. Nor are you in a position to lecture anyone else about lying considering all the lies you have posted about me.
    This is no lie: You are not for free speech. You are for limiting free speech.

    You can lie about it, but I know.

  4. #34
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    27,052
    Thanks
    4611

    From
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BitterPill View Post
    Works for me.

    Thank you for the discussion, and I mean that. At the least you are no pantywaist.
    If you would just stick to the topic instead of lying about what I think or believe our discussions would likely be more productive.
    Thanks from Enigma32

  5. #35
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    27,052
    Thanks
    4611

    From
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BitterPill View Post
    This is no lie: You are not for free speech.

    You can lie about it, but I know.
    I am for free speech. I am not for defamation.

    For the fourth time: our free speech rights do not include defamation or the right to print or spread false and damaging lies about other people without any legal consequences. That is why we have laws against slander which is not protected by the constitution.
    Thanks from Enigma32

  6. #36
    Ignorance Is Virtue BitterPill's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    9,622
    Thanks
    6409

    From
    SoCal
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    I am for free speech. I am not for defamation.

    For the fourth time: our free speech rights do not include defamation or the right to print or spread false and damaging lies about other people without any legal consequences. That is why we have laws against slander which is not protected by the constitution.
    You are for sanctions against those who slandered Hillary. In that case, I don't need to read your mind; I can read your declaration.

    Your declaration is for a limit on free speech.

  7. #37
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    27,052
    Thanks
    4611

    From
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BitterPill View Post
    You are for sanctions against those who slandered Hillary. In that case, I don't need to read your mind; I can read your declaration.

    Your declaration is for a limit on free speech.
    I'm not sure what you mean by sanctions.

    I believe Mrs. Clinton should have the same legal recourse to pursue against those who slander her that you or I would have. Currently that is not the case - because those who serve in public have to meet a much higher standard when it comes to suing for defamation than the rest of us would have to meet. And that is what I believe needs to change.

    And again: our free speech rights do not include slandering other individuals. Slander is not protected by our constitution.
    Last edited by Jeremy; 5th May 2018 at 10:56 PM.
    Thanks from Enigma32

  8. #38
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    61,045
    Thanks
    30290

    From
    Vulcan
    There is nothing wrong with our libel laws as they currently stand.

    As to whether the U.S. "needs" a free press, as opposed to a state-owned press, it is a stupid question.
    Thanks from BitterPill

  9. #39
    Veteran Member MaryAnne's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    48,758
    Thanks
    34601

    From
    Englewood,Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    State owned/directed (like China, N. Korea, Russia)
    We already have that, Devil. Except ours are owned by corrupt Corporations.

    We have few Investigative Reporting.
    Thanks from Enigma32

  10. #40
    Veteran Member MaryAnne's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    48,758
    Thanks
    34601

    From
    Englewood,Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    I'm not sure what you mean by sanctions.

    I believe Mrs. Clinton should have the same legal recourse to pursue against those who slander her that you or I would have. Currently that is not the case - because those who serve in public have to meet a much higher standard when it comes to suing for defamation than the rest of us would have to meet. And that is what I believe needs to change.

    And again: our free speech rights do not include slandering other individuals. Slander is not protected by our constitution.
    Not from what is coming out now. Mrs. Clinton has one hell of a case if she cares to pursue it.
    Thanks from Friday13

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Similar Threads

  1. Our Disintegrating Free Press
    By Michael J in forum Journalism
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 30th April 2012, 04:12 PM
  2. Attacking the Free Press
    By Matt Rumbolt in forum Political Ideologies
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 25th October 2011, 03:52 PM
  3. Free press? Venezuela beats the US
    By Horhey in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 25th February 2010, 01:21 PM
  4. Detroit Free Press - 137 pages of foreclosures in MI
    By Blueneck in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 30th November 2008, 04:04 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed