4 ms·
I think my elaboration would have been sufficient for you to realize there is no disagreement here. My point is just that a free press, as commonly understood
by florabuzzword 8y ago
I think my elaboration would have been sufficient for you to realize there is no disagreement here.
My point is just that a free press, as commonly understood and as in the constitution, is not free. Americans are quick to get upset when legal regulations are placed on press freedoms but slow to recognize the less obvious.
I’m not interested in discussing any further. You appear to just be looking for a disagreement. Good luck.
- bogomipz 8y ago>"My point is just that a free press, as commonly understood and as in the constitution," And your point is patently untrue. Freedom of the Press is not "commonly understood" in that incorrect way in the US. Honestly it sounded like you yourself didn't understand the meaning of the phrase "Freedom of the Press." You even called it a "misnomer." Accusing people of "looking for a disagreement" simply because they corrected you seems kind of lame and uncalled for.
- lorenzorhoades 8y agothe OP's post, and your post are not mutually exclusive. I think you both point out inherent flaws in the term "freedom of press" as it is currently understood in society. His point is that they are incentivied not burn bridges with large corps, and your point is they can say whatever the f* they want with zero governmental oversight.