Running Gator Posted August 30, 2016 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.70 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted August 30, 2016 8 minutes ago, SavedByGrace1981 said: Just to add my $0.02: The 1st Amendment applies ONLY to the government - not private entities. The government cannot (correction: is not supposed to) censor the free press or free speech (with rare exceptions, i.e. yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater). I understand Ezra's apparent frustration with the media and their one-sided coverage - I happen to share it. Would that the modern day press WOULD speak Truth to Power (even when that power has a D label.) Even so, if we were to have a system where the government REQUIRED the press to report a certain way or to cover certain stories, I'm sure we would find the "cure" is worse than the disease. Like pretty much everything else related to our current culture, the press is corrupted and way far afield from the Founder's intentions. There are no easy solutions. While I agree the press is corrupted, there is also more sources than imaginable to get information for anyone who cares enough to look. People who only get their information from one perspective or the other are purposefully remaining uninformed. There are way too many people that consider themselves well informed when in reality they are not as they get all their information from left leaning sites like the HuffPo or MSNBC or from right wing site like WND or Briebart. If you do not seek out both sides of every story you are not informed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavedByGrace1981 Posted August 30, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 104 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,923 Content Per Day: 0.61 Reputation: 462 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/02/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/22/1953 Share Posted August 30, 2016 2 minutes ago, Out of the Shadows said: While I agree the press is corrupted, there is also more sources than imaginable to get information for anyone who cares enough to look. People who only get their information from one perspective or the other are purposefully remaining uninformed. There are way too many people that consider themselves well informed when in reality they are not as they get all their information from left leaning sites like the HuffPo or MSNBC or from right wing site like WND or Briebart. If you do not seek out both sides of every story you are not informed. I took the liberty of bolding and underlining the part I want to emphasize. I'm old enough to remember when news sources consisted of 3 TV networks and perhaps one or two daily newspapers. The TV news tended to have the same slant (leftward) as the newspapers. On rare occasions where there were two or more competing papers, one might possibly lean to the right. So if your point is we have many more "official" news sources than in times past, I agree. And for those of us who are news junkies or hang out on chat boards, getting more than one point of view is not an issue. My concern however is with those who do not care enough to make informing themselves part of their daily routine. Let's say they have the car radio tuned to a secular music station. On their way to work, the station happens to have a newscast, which our low-information voter (LIV) happens to catch. Chances are pretty good that said newscast has a liberal bent. LIV is at work and uses Google. While it's ever so slight and not applicable to all situations, the corporate mindset at Google is definitely liberal. So it shows up in everything Google - from how the searches are done to what appears on the Google homepage. LIV watches stand up comedians - likely all take the liberal point of view. Late night TV - all liberal. Pretty much any secular TV program - liberal. The only point I'm attempting to make here is that many people who DO NOT actively seek out the news are nevertheless inundated with liberalism day in and day out. If these people took their apathy and did not vote it would not be an issue. But they do vote. I offer no solutions to this. It's been this way for years, it just seems worse now. Certainly I do not suggest the gov't should get involved. Blessings, -Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted August 30, 2016 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.70 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted August 30, 2016 21 minutes ago, SavedByGrace1981 said: I took the liberty of bolding and underlining the part I want to emphasize. I'm old enough to remember when news sources consisted of 3 TV networks and perhaps one or two daily newspapers. The TV news tended to have the same slant (leftward) as the newspapers. On rare occasions where there were two or more competing papers, one might possibly lean to the right. So if your point is we have many more "official" news sources than in times past, I agree. And for those of us who are news junkies or hang out on chat boards, getting more than one point of view is not an issue. My concern however is with those who do not care enough to make informing themselves part of their daily routine. Let's say they have the car radio tuned to a secular music station. On their way to work, the station happens to have a newscast, which our low-information voter (LIV) happens to catch. Chances are pretty good that said newscast has a liberal bent. LIV is at work and uses Google. While it's ever so slight and not applicable to all situations, the corporate mindset at Google is definitely liberal. So it shows up in everything Google - from how the searches are done to what appears on the Google homepage. LIV watches stand up comedians - likely all take the liberal point of view. Late night TV - all liberal. Pretty much any secular TV program - liberal. The only point I'm attempting to make here is that many people who DO NOT actively seek out the news are nevertheless inundated with liberalism day in and day out. If these people took their apathy and did not vote it would not be an issue. But they do vote. I offer no solutions to this. It's been this way for years, it just seems worse now. Certainly I do not suggest the gov't should get involved. Blessings, -Ed It is a problem, that is for sure. I am not sure I see things like secular TV as all that liberal as much as a populist, they are trying to get ratings. At least we agree we do not want the government sticking their nose into it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AFlameOfFire Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 16 hours ago, ayin jade said: Free speech does not apply to private enterprises. Huffpo is not a govt entity and can do as it wishes with firing people. It can choose what to print and what not to print. He touches on this also on a recent live stream (it is 30 minutes long) but concerning this part (you bring up) begins around 10-11 minutes in (if you want to skip up to it and what he points out on it). David Seaman (Youtube account) Hillary Clinton's Crumbling Health: LIVE DISCUSSION Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted August 30, 2016 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.70 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted August 30, 2016 12 minutes ago, AFlameOfFire said: He touches on this also on a recent live stream (it is 30 minutes long) but concerning this part (you bring up) begins around 10-11 minutes in (if you want to skip up to it and what he points out on it). David Seaman (Youtube account) Hillary Clinton's Crumbling Health: LIVE DISCUSSION The very fact that he has a YouTube channel to get is word out totally kills any charges of censorship. He has obliviously not been silenced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AFlameOfFire Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Out of the Shadows said: The very fact that he has a YouTube channel to get is word out totally kills any charges of censorship. He has obliviously not been silenced. Okay, so as long as someone has another means to get information out on canidate (which they might be reporting on) like a Youtube channel (whether you write for a paper or for the mainstream media (if any of those do suppress unacceptable parts) it cannot be censorship (which would be to suppress the same) because they are still allowed to go elsewhere and do so. Censorship through a particular medium doesnt count as long as there exists a sort of safe zone for the person to share the same in (like another outlet). They have safe zones in college campuses too dont they? I heard of something similar Edited August 30, 2016 by AFlameOfFire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted August 31, 2016 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.70 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted August 31, 2016 3 hours ago, AFlameOfFire said: Okay, so as long as someone has another means to get information out on canidate (which they might be reporting on) like a Youtube channel (whether you write for a paper or for the mainstream media (if any of those do suppress unacceptable parts) it cannot be censorship (which would be to suppress the same) because they are still allowed to go elsewhere and do so. Censorship through a particular medium doesnt count as long as there exists a sort of safe zone for the person to share the same in (like another outlet). They have safe zones in college campuses too dont they? I heard of something similar I have no idea what you are trying to say, your post really makes no sense. Let me recap what is going on here for you, maybe that will help. 1. A private entity/business is not guilty of censorship or violating the 1st amendment if they choose not to publish something. Censorship applies to the government, not private entities. 2. This individual was not fired, despite what he might be claiming. He was a "contributor" to the HuffPost, what is sometimes called being freelance. As such he was not an employee of HuffPost, they just occasionally choose to use some of this work, for which he would be compensated. If they are now choosing not to use his work, that is their right as a private entity and it is not the same as firing someone. 3. This individual has not been silenced or had his message buried, in fact just the opposite has happened, so again there is no censorship occurring. 4. We don't really even know if this individual is telling the truth about the HuffPost, all we have is his words on YouTube. 5. This is not about safe zones or college campuses. I hope that helps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AFlameOfFire Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 1 hour ago, Out of the Shadows said: I hope that helps No, your first post made no sense and I have no idea what you were talking bout there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OakWood Posted August 31, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 7 Topic Count: 867 Topics Per Day: 0.24 Content Count: 7,331 Content Per Day: 2.00 Reputation: 2,860 Days Won: 31 Joined: 04/09/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/28/1964 Share Posted August 31, 2016 My advice is stay away from HuffPo. This is the same entity that published an article claiming that Jesus was the first transgender man. Absolute trash. If this guy journalist has been excluded from HuffPo then he should be saying good bye to bad rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted August 31, 2016 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.70 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted August 31, 2016 7 hours ago, AFlameOfFire said: No, your first post made no sense and I have no idea what you were talking bout there. Your confusion is probably rooted in the fact you lack a basic understanding of what censorship is, or more importantly what it is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts