3 ms·

Overcorrection? No it is not. They enjoy misleading and diverting attention away from the things that really matter. Just take a look at these lawsuits: https:

Overcorrection? No it is not. They enjoy misleading and diverting attention away from the things that really matter. Just take a look at these lawsuits: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-maddows-viewers https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-maddow... https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-karen-mcdougal-case-tucker-carlson-2020-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-karen-mcdougal-case... Look, these talking heads are simply well-paid entertainers - nothing more. All they spew is lies, propaganda and downplay the things that are really happening. Unfortunately they have a willing audience in the majority of Americans who cannot see through all the bullshit. I personally cannot recall when last I tuned in to any of the mainstream media outlets. So I'd recommend that they be stripped of all of those protections and get the same punitive treatment that we, the People (we are the ones who pay taxes, BTW), get when we talk shit. Trust me, that'll make them sit up.

ceejayoz 5y ago
> Look, these talking heads are simply well-paid entertainers - nothing more. Entertainers have First Amendment rights, too. > They enjoy misleading and diverting attention away from the things that really matter. If I feel your argument does that, do I get to revoke your rights? > So I'd recommend that they be stripped of all of those protections and get the same punitive treatment that we, the People (we are the ones who pay taxes, BTW), get when we talk shit. We, the People, are similarly protected by the First Amendment. Weakening it would impact us, too.
- fredstarr 5y ago
  Wow! You actually took my shit serious! LOL. Of course, I'm just being overly dramatic and would never support censorship in any way, shape or form. If you can't sense the sarcasm in my comment, I don't know what else to say :)
  - krapp 5y ago
    Joke's on you - Hacker News is into that shit.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law There's no way to tell these days. I feel bad for The Onion, really. Parody is dead.
  - Slow_Hand 5y ago
    Being sarcastic on the internet is generally a bad idea and creates confusion as to whether you truly believe what you’re saying. If you want to make a sarcastic point it’s best to be explicit about it, or else risk being taken seriously. Nobody here knows what you actually believe. Without the benefit of that shared context, a sly vocal intonation, or a wink of the eye all we can do is take you at face value as someone who actually believes what you’re saying.
  - mehdix 5y ago
    Just add /s at the end and it would be a done thing.
shadowgovt 5y ago
Of course, the problem with removing First Amendment protections is you only know about these lawsuits because Business Insider and Glenn Greenwald enjoy First Amendment protections. That having been said: the First Amendment is not absolute, and there are exceptions to the general principle that people are free to say what they feel (Assange, for example, could be tried on espionage if he's extradited). But in general, exceptions are carved with a jeweler's chisel, and only when extremely necessary and when there are no other possible remedies. In this case, the sickness you've highlighted has several potential non-first-amendment remedies, including enforcing monopoly laws, passing new monopoly laws, and taxing billionaires at a rate that would make it difficult for them to keep the surplus cash-on-hand to buy 70% of the US's newspapers. And changing the market via law to find a new way to pay for news since the Internet era has completely ingested and digested their traditional advertising model.
- fredstarr 5y ago
  Y'all are really taking this shit serious! LMAO. I think my own First Amendment rights should be revoked, actually! LOL Jokes aside, I'm against censorship. I think information should be available to all but maybe with caveats and accountability. BTW, I agree with the proposed remedies. But - Who's gonna bell the cat though? It ain't going to be any of y'all's Senators, CongressPeople or the Executive Branch. And we all know for damn sure that it's never going to be the Supreme Court.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." ... emphasis on the last part.

ceejayoz 5y ago

> Look, these talking heads are simply well-paid entertainers - nothing more. Entertainers have First Amendment rights, too. > They enjoy misleading and diverting attention away from the things that really matter. If I feel your argument does that, do I get to revoke your rights? > So I'd recommend that they be stripped of all of those protections and get the same punitive treatment that we, the People (we are the ones who pay taxes, BTW), get when we talk shit. We, the People, are similarly protected by the First Amendment. Weakening it would impact us, too.

fredstarr 5y ago
Wow! You actually took my shit serious! LOL. Of course, I'm just being overly dramatic and would never support censorship in any way, shape or form. If you can't sense the sarcasm in my comment, I don't know what else to say :)
- krapp 5y ago
  Joke's on you - Hacker News is into that shit.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law There's no way to tell these days. I feel bad for The Onion, really. Parody is dead.
- Slow_Hand 5y ago
  Being sarcastic on the internet is generally a bad idea and creates confusion as to whether you truly believe what you’re saying. If you want to make a sarcastic point it’s best to be explicit about it, or else risk being taken seriously. Nobody here knows what you actually believe. Without the benefit of that shared context, a sly vocal intonation, or a wink of the eye all we can do is take you at face value as someone who actually believes what you’re saying.
- mehdix 5y ago
  Just add /s at the end and it would be a done thing.

shadowgovt 5y ago

Of course, the problem with removing First Amendment protections is you only know about these lawsuits because Business Insider and Glenn Greenwald enjoy First Amendment protections. That having been said: the First Amendment is not absolute, and there are exceptions to the general principle that people are free to say what they feel (Assange, for example, could be tried on espionage if he's extradited). But in general, exceptions are carved with a jeweler's chisel, and only when extremely necessary and when there are no other possible remedies. In this case, the sickness you've highlighted has several potential non-first-amendment remedies, including enforcing monopoly laws, passing new monopoly laws, and taxing billionaires at a rate that would make it difficult for them to keep the surplus cash-on-hand to buy 70% of the US's newspapers. And changing the market via law to find a new way to pay for news since the Internet era has completely ingested and digested their traditional advertising model.

fredstarr 5y ago
Y'all are really taking this shit serious! LMAO. I think my own First Amendment rights should be revoked, actually! LOL Jokes aside, I'm against censorship. I think information should be available to all but maybe with caveats and accountability. BTW, I agree with the proposed remedies. But - Who's gonna bell the cat though? It ain't going to be any of y'all's Senators, CongressPeople or the Executive Branch. And we all know for damn sure that it's never going to be the Supreme Court.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." ... emphasis on the last part.