Trump has banned The Washington Post because "they aren't honest." Along with his desire to "open up the libel laws" it seems he doesn't like free speech all that much.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/business/media/trump-kicks-phony-and-dishonest-washington-post-off-his-campaign.html
>>50372
>banned
>>50372
I chuckled
>posting a news article about a mans reaction to a news article
Classic liberals
Why not just post the article that started this whole fiasco? If you actually read it its damn near just slander and libel. Good on Trump for addressing it directly instead of ignoring it like every other candidate would have done.
The article that started this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/13/donald-trump-suggests-president-obama-was-involved-with-orlando-shooting/
>>50404
Id like to note
>slander and libel
Are not protected by the first amendment
>>50372
that not free spech when you are lying
that lying and he can ban liar
they are not even real reporter
he dont ban all the others media and new who just report him badly, but he can ban liar who make false news
>>50424
It isn't lying when they can prove it and produce corroborating witnesses.
And he can't ban anyone from reporting on him because he's a public figure running for president. Libel and slander laws don't apply.
>>50372
Wait a second
>Liberals want to enact "hate speech" laws,thus subminating free speech
>Liberals want to throw people to prison and destroy their lifes for what they deem to be "hate speech",including media
But
>Trump has mentioned libel laws,something we have for 120 years
>Various media insult,discriminate and spread lies about his persona to damage reputation
>Suddenly,liberals want to defend "free speech" because they can no longer destroy a reputation of a man without going to court
Such hypocritical fucks,just come out as biased haters,not "intellectual vanguard of freedom"
Against libel laws while promoting "hate speech" laws,Jesus the retardation
>>50430
Not that I'm for hate speech laws but there's a big difference between hate speech and the media coverage of trump.
Not that it even matters just listening to Trump he's guilty of both on multiple counts.
>>50372
Hate free speech? No. I believe he hates people who missuse the term free speech to constantly get away with purposfully lying to the public, misrepresenting people and omiting facts from sensitive cases. I.E. the Ferguson incident with mr. Brown, who was, through forensic evidence, found to be charging the officer in question at the time of death. As soon as the media got a hold of that story, they perpetuated that the cop killed an "innocent" black man and the cop was a racist. If I am not mistaken, one news service even released personal information of the officer in question. Multiple news sources then ran with the story until there was rioting in Ferguson. And this has happend on more than one occasion. So does Trump hate free speech or does he hate corrupt media?
>>50438
>corrupt media is media that disagrees with my narrative
He probably doesn't hate free speech and he probably thinks shutting down media outlets that aren't telling the story the way he sees it is a good idea
>>50441
Indeed, now to counter my own argument, if all news sources were to tell the same story in the same way, new information could not be found, and new ideas could not be formed. Whilst there are several news sources which specifically alter the story to get a higher viewing, there are still some which report the facts. However this doesn't mean we need to be rid of all or some of the corrupt news sources, for they are a business entity, and thereby entitled to all of the legal rights of an American citizen with the exception of the fifth ammendment, and this is a capitalist country, but we should call them out on their shit when they do the wrong thing like release the personal information of a police officer who is under investigation by internal affairs. Or by only reporting one type of crime, which isn't really news, but rather a reading of a police report.
>>50436
Oh right it cant be hate speech if it's directed at a white man. How could I forget? Classic liberal hippie retardation at work here
>>50436
>big difference between hate speech and media coverage of trump
>if we label this man as hateful then its ok to be hateful towards him!
The article twists things and uses a false, sensationalist headline. Did you even read it?
>>50429
>witnesses
The article in question is based around something Trump may or may not have said. Since when do we need witnesses for quotes? Since Trump started running for office maybe?
>>50404
Call me crazy but I didn't detect much slander in that article.
How did he ban free speech?
He just removed their special access. They still can comment on what he is doing.
I love the comments on this thread.
Presidential candidate doesn't like stories written about him. Bans newspaper. Candidate also wants to increase what is considered libel, repeatedly points to England's broken libel system as a good example of what he wants.
Instead of thinking of shit what does it mean if he is elected? Oh shit, maybe banning papers isn't a good idea. Maybe increasing the power and coverage of libel will reduce free speech. Everyone reacts in a way to protect trump instead of the press.
>it's a threat to free speech only when it comes from the left. Stay partisan retarded.
The things the MSM says about him is straight up libel. Libel doesn't constitute free speech.
>>50470
Trump on the right wants to ban a few innacucurate and slanderous news sources. The left wants to ban everything they deem to be 'hate speech'
>>50463
You should try reading it then
They can still report on him they just don't get to go backstage and interview him
>>50480
I have read it over, and I'm unsure how it's slanderous. If it's about Trump seemingly trying to tie Obama to terror attacks, I don't see that as slander as he did say those things. Although they may have been broadcasted in an unfavourable light in the article.
Either way, I'm no law student.
>>50491
The article repeatedly quotes Trump saying "something else is going on". This could suggest hundereds on hundereds of possible scenarios. It's an increadibly general statement saying 'something is happening'. The wash post takes that and just assumes it means Trump is suggesting Obama has ISIS/muslim ties or whatever.
Now do you see the slander/libel? Taking a general statement, interpreting it in a radical way and then publishing an article on it? It's almost just a strawman fallacy
>>50491
This is close the the whole 'bush did 9/11' fiasco
>>50404
Didn't seem much worse than anything else you read about him.
Lets be honest, though, he is pissing off a lot of powerful people. He's going to have bad stuff posted about him. Hell, some of it is right.
But I'll sooner drag this fucking country into the ground with Trump then let Hillary win. A retarded puppet with no clue, or a liberal hell-bent on removing every last speck of freedom from the regular working class?
>>50436
Hate speech is speech, covered by the first amendment. It is a right we have to voice our opinion, subject to public scrutiny.
>>50441
He just gave you a perfect example of corrupt media, and you shit all over it like it's no big deal. You are the problem.
>>50430
>liberals want to do x
Where does OP say anything about his political beliefs? Where does OP say anything about only republicans wanting to limit speech? I'm pretty sure the headline says "another politician." Both parties hate free speech, the press, and so on when it doesn't suit their needs. Let's not forget Cameron created Britian's firewall and Conservative Utah has tried to ban porn by labeling it a health problem. Seriously, grow up. Your post is pleb as fuck. No thought. Just reaction "not my trump, it must be the liberals out to get him."
>>50477
Missing the point. America's libel system is something we should be proud of compared to the Brits. The Brits have set up libel so the powerful are able to sue over just about anything, in America is it much harder to pursue a libel suit, which is a good thing. This way Clinton, Trump, Romney, Obama, Ryan, Soros, Gates, Koch, etc. can't sue for every little bullshit thing that offends them or challenges their view of the world. Over zealous libel laws would be very bad. (Note: just in case you can't get it, this doesn't mean libel laws are bad, but our libel laws don't need to be formatted like the Brits where people from around the world go to England because the libel laws favor the powerful and is completely flawed).
As for banning hate speech. My question is do you really care about free speech or your right to talk shot about large groups of people based on single shared characteristic? either way I agree you have the right to spout any sort of none sense, however, I'm not sure you believe in free speech but instead you simply believe in your speech. The simple cliche about believing in free speech is about protecting the rights of people that say shit you disagree with and despise the most.
if you really care about free speech, privacy, and so on, I would suggest looking at all the institutions than want to curtail it. Politicians (right and left), businesses, conservative and liberal special interest groups (book bans come from the right fairly often), and so on. If you actually give a fuck about free speech playing cheerleader when your side is pushing in on it isn't a good way to defend it.
>>50512
I think youre missing the point. I can't even tell what youre arguing for. The topic of this thread was
>tyrannical trump banning the free press
When 'free press' was posting slander
All I am saying is that he had every right to do what he did, and the left is hypocritical for criticizing him for it by saying its an infringement on amendmemt 1. If OP claims to not be leftist then he is a tard that doesnt know what libel is and just believes anything he reads on the internet.
Stay on topic. I said nothing about privacy. The right to talk shit to large groups of people based on a stereotype is protected under the first amendment, deal with it like a civilized adult instead of crying and demanding government intervention
As for your last paragraph, lol, nice assumption on me taking a political side. Is anything i said in that post you referenced incorrect?
>left wants hate speech banned
>trump bans slanderous news site
>>50512
>If you actually give a fuck about free speech playing cheerleader when your side is pushing in on it isn't a good way to defend it
are you retarded? The left have been attacking free speech much more than the right. I've never seen a right winger demand censorship for 'misogynistic views' or demand prosecution for hate speech
>>50515
What?
>The right to talk shit... deal with it like a civilized adult
>The post you are responding to says, "I agree you have the right to spout any sort of none sense"
>"I agree..you have the right"
sounds pretty adult to me.
>thinking Trump's libel ideas come from this article alone.
Example of why American libel laws are better for citizens as a whole.In 2015,a rich Saudi tried to use England's libel laws to quite an America who expressed that he was funding terrorism.
"While we generally share a proud common law legal tradition with the United Kingdom," Cohen said, "it is also true that the United Kingdom has laws that disfavor speech critical of public officials, contrary to our own constitutional tradition." Because of this unanimously the congress and the Pres passed a law that prevents U.S. courts from enforcing British libel rulings.
Well before this WaPo article, "Trump replied, "Well, in England, I can tell you, it's very much different and very much easier. I think it's very unfair when the New York Times can write a story that they know is false, that they virtually told me they know it's false, and I say, why don't you pull the story, and they say, we're not going to do that, because they can't basically be sued. And you (Wallace) can't be sued because can you say anything you want, and that's not fair."
Trump’s comments that media "basically can’t be sued" if they "write a story that they know as false" struck us as inaccurate, and when we checked with experts in media law, we found that current law already covers the situation Trump describes."
Expanding libel would be a good way to quiet dissent. Many people shut up at the threat of a lawsuit.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/01/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrong-ny-times-cant-be-sued-story-the/
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/270956-trump-threatens-to-open-up-libel-laws-to-sue-newspapers
>>50372
Jidf you want me cos im young and a white, white"~
>>50515
>only the left wants to ban "hate speech"
1) In Russia, a regional lawmaker faces up to two years in prison on a “hate speech” charge for alleging that President Vladimir Putin had committed crimes against his people. “Hate speech” is increasingly being used as a catch-all to reshape free expression rights in the direction of expanded government authority to curb and punish speech.
2) IF we use the ACLU as an example of the left, they argue strongly for protecting individuals' rights to use hate speech
3) Chomsky, a leader of the "new-left" (according to W Buckley) defended a French author's right to promote the idea that the holocaust never happened.
4) The WaPo (a liberal leaning newspaper) published an op-ed telling people to stop complaining about hate speech
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/03/we-dont-need-laws-banning-hate-speech-because-it-doesnt-exist/
>privacy.
you got me. I added in a single word that was off topic. let me re-write that. "if you really care about free speech, I would suggest looking at all the institutions than want to curtail it. Politicians (right and left), businesses, conservative and liberal special interest groups (book bans come from the right fairly often), and so on. If you actually give a fuck about free speech playing cheerleader when your side is pushing in on it isn't a good way to defend it."
The point is and it stands. If anyone really cares about free speech any encroachment on it needs to be pushed against, regardless of who is doing it. American history is riddled with Christians, conservatives, businesses, liberals, anti-racists, and so on all trying to censor some speech. Defending all speech from all sides that hope to chip away at it is the real goal. Not playing partisan politics. Partisan politics is a great way for us all to lose our rights.
http://ncac.org/resource/a-brief-history-of-film-censorship
who cares?
the washington post is god fucking awful
>>50523
Historically, we can look at the left for trying to block hate-speech against minorities and we can look to the right (especially the religious right) for trying to block anything to do with sex, foul language, and so on.
Prime Minister Harper censors scientists
http://www.nature.com/news/nine-years-of-censorship-1.19842
Prime Minister Cameron creates firewall for Brit internet
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/08/david-cameron-great-firewall
Conservative MP wants Canada to mandate internet filters to block porn
Joy Smith hopes to emulate British Prime Minister David Cameron's web censor plan
http://www.dailyxtra.com/canada/news-and-ideas/news/conservative-mp-wants-canada-mandate-internet-filters-block-porn-65602
Ban on Harry Potter books
Religious right
Attempt to censor Sons of Anarchy
conservative org the Parents Television Council
The term "climate change" or "global warming"
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article13576691.html
50 shades of Grey banned in 5 conservative FL counties
Attempts to ban teaching of evolution
conservative right
Moving towards banning porn
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/18/health/utah-governor-porn-resolution-health-hazard/
>>50534
According to http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/washingtonpost.com
48th most visited site in US.
202 most visited site in the world.
Might be a fairly important news source.
>>50497
I suppose that makes sense, as their sort of extrapolating. But given Trumps disdain for both Obama and militant Islamics, I think they are fair assumptions.
Although you are right he never did coincide the two, he was awfully vague.
>>50497
>*Obama has Isis ties
Like the leaked email that came out today?
Showing Obama supported Isis in 2012?
Lmao.
>>50477
Why should we have to put up with either? They are both just
>wahh wahh someone hurt my feefees wahhh
Why should we have to pick either faggot who thinks that punishing people for what we sit here and do all day every day every year is a good thing?
>>50600
Even though serious news is lacking in this country and words are twisted and destroyed, banning crappy news stories for hurting your fee fees is just as bad. People should just put more thought into what news stories they see and what they take from them.
>>50589
Sauce?
>free speech
>good
>>50634
Supporting FSA Rebels and those rebels getting contracts to fight for ISIS does not equal US Govt Supporting ISIS. It means CIA dont pay as well as raping and pillaging for ISIS.
>>50671
If there is one thing free speech has taught me, it's that it can never be good. It's necessary, but the bad will always outweigh the good.
>>50671
>government-approved media only
>good
Fastest way to increase corruption, reduce safety, and slowly strip away other freedoms is to shut down the free pres. Sure they might say stupid shit, but when they do proper investigative reporting shit is invaluable for keeping government, businesses, and other institutions honest.
>>50499
>standingovation.png
>>50372
I would hope anyone with any pride in the first amendment wouldn't support this kind of shit. And it isn't about our fav or least fav politician attacking the press, it is about ANY politician denying the press access unless the press is willing to write positive stories about the politician. This is a very bad move and something that cannot be supported.
News orgs that Trump has blacklisted:
univision
buzzfeed
politico
The National Review
dailybeast
Huffpo
The Des Moines Register
Union Leader
and Fusion
http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/14/media/donald-trump-media-blacklist/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/06/13/trump-washington-post-banned-list/85842316/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/06/15/trump-washington-post-president-media/85918344/
http://addictinginfo.org/2016/06/16/trump-has-now-banned-nine-media-outlets-a-likely-tenth-predicts-misery-for-him-over-it/
>>50499
>hell-bet on removing every last speck of freedom
do you have 3 or 4 examples to help us understand what you are saying?
I actually kind of agree with him , their social media is just fucking clickbait and all there articles are basically "look at us we a very liberal , trump is bad xd"
>>51779
>I agree that a paper that a major news source should be denied access to the potential next leader of the world's most powerful nation.
>WaPo = click bait
The paper won a 2016 and a 2015 Pulitzer for national reporting.
Shared Pulitzer for reporting on the NSA in 2014.
>>51763
He didn't ban them from the country or create any laws preventing them from reporting, he just didn't invite them to his parties and now they're pissy because they're used to special privileges.
>>51833
Not being able access the republican nominee or his events is pretty amazing censorship. imagine if a liberal denied fox, Forbes, the wsj from gaining access. It'd be a big deal. The most important press are the ones that don't simply echo chamber the candidate/official.
Trump seems on the path to reinventing the political machines like Tammany Hall. Trump is looking backwards from bureaucracy to some patrimonial nepotism based system.
>>50372
i believe that they´re making some of the shit up just to sell more numbers. bit like in the spiderman movies.
