Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lord Shonus]

In a nation where there was no independent press, the story would never have gotten out. There would have been no court order to shut down, because the story would have been squashed instantly. There would have been no appeal, any more than an engineer can appeal to the Supreme Court because his project was cancelled. If there was an appeal, the paper would have immediately lost because it didn't do what they were told. Only a nation with an independent press could have had that information exposed.


Unless, of course, you are prepared to also claim that the UK has no independent press either - UK law would have come down on the Post just as hard as US law did.

[wierd]

AGAIN-- BECAUSE IT IS CLEARLY NOT SINKING IN---

IT WAS **THREE PEOPLE** At the Times that FORCED it to be published, despite *INSURMOUNTABLE PRESSURE* not to.

This was NOT a case of a free press. This was a case of a renegade faction in a controlled press.

[Lord Shonus]

AGAIN-- BECAUSE IT IS CLEARLY NOT SINKING IN---

THOSE THREE PEOPLE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PUSH THE STORY IN A CONTROLLED PRESS


But I'm done. Believe whatever paranoid bullshit you want.

[wierd]

Shonus, Define what you consider a "Free press" please.

Is it, a press that can publish without fear of government intervention or reprisal, (Which is what I use as the definition), or something else? Because clearly, we disagree on what the term means.

By your example, if a rogue publication in China posted a story about the communist goverment leaders that was a massive and black-eye inducing expose, you would claim China has a free press. (You know, kinda like this! http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/340700  Clearly-- China's press is healthy and free!! /Massive sarcasm)

[Lord Shonus]

Shonus, Define what you consider a "Free press" please.

Is it, a press that can publish without fear of government intervention or reprisal, (Which is what I use as the definition), or something else? Because clearly, we disagree on what the term means.

A free press is an organization not run by the government, which has the legal right to publish anything outside of a narrow range of vital secrets, and has the right to appeal if they're told not to publish something.

If you want to take the position that any country where classified information exists, and where the press can divulge any political or military information no matter what the cost, there are no free presses in the world. Even the Netherlands has such restrictions.

By your example, if a rogue publication in China posted a story about the communist goverment leaders that was a massive and black-eye inducing expose, you would claim China has a free press.

If they did so, the highest level of the Chinese government affirmed their right to do so, and wound up facing no consequences for doing so. Then there would be a free press in China, even if it did not exist until that time.

[wierd]

Shonus, Define what you consider a "Free press" please.

Is it, a press that can publish without fear of government intervention or reprisal, (Which is what I use as the definition), or something else? Because clearly, we disagree on what the term means.

A free press is an organization not run by the government, which has the legal right to publish anything outside of a narrow range of vital secrets, and has the right to appeal if they're told not to publish something.

So, the organizations owned by Rupert Murdock are totally a "Free press" and not beholden to back channel interests then I suppose?  No, that clearly can't happen, and is totally not a sign of a captured press. /s  Ever heard of a no true scottsman? It looks like you are trying to use one here.

If you want to take the position that any country where classified information exists, and where the press can divulge any political or military information no matter what the cost, there are no free presses in the world. Even the Netherlands has such restrictions.

While not a statement I made, I remind you to re-read the exact wording of the 1st amendment. I will even add some emphasis for the appropriate parts.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Where does it give provisions to government to say "You cant publish our secrets!!" in that sentence?  Right--- It doesn't.

By your example, if a rogue publication in China posted a story about the communist goverment leaders that was a massive and black-eye inducing expose, you would claim China has a free press.

If they did so, the highest level of the Chinese government affirmed their right to do so, and wound up facing no consequences for doing so. Then there would be a free press in China, even if it did not exist until that time.

Again with the no true scottsmen...  Really?

[martinuzz]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

The Guggenheim refused Trump and Melania. They wanted to borrow a van Gogh to decorate the White House with.

Instead, the Guggenheim offered them a golden toilet.
I guess they figured that would go well with his golden showers.

[wierd]

I am sure trump already has one at his luxury apartment though.

Ever seen the inside of that place? It would make even a saudi prince blush.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KouKXa4pw3Y

There is a reason why I keep seeing this guy every time I see Trump and his "apartment."  I think they hired the same decorator.

Granted, Trump's place is a *little* less tacky than Mercado's but dayum.  Really people?

[Lord Shonus]

I know what a "No true Scotsman" fallacy is. I'm not entirely sure you do, because I don't have the faintest clue where the hell you're seeing one. Nor do I see any way whatsoever that any of your arguments support your claim.

Freedom House claims that the US has a free press despite some erosion in the last year (due to Trump's "fake news" threats). The US is ranked above the UK, France and Spain, and only slightly below Germany, Canada, and Australia.

Either those nations also have unfree or barely free prsses, the internationally recognized experts in this fields are gravely in error, or you're wrong.

[martinuzz]

If you had true free press, Snowden wouldn't be hiding in Russia, and Chelsea Manning wouldn't have had to do jail time, but get a war journalism prize instead.

[Lord Shonus]

If we didn't have a free press nobody would even know about Snowden.

[martinuzz]

Okay it's clear to me that you have absolutely no idea what 'free press' means

[wierd]

Yes , foreign press clearly feels that the US has a free press.

Note how a good chunk of those are from 2015, before Trump.

Also note that choice one about what constitutes a free press by the press itself.

[EnigmaticHat]

https://www.volkskrant.nl/media/dutch-agencies-provide-crucial-intel-about-russia-s-interference-in-us-elections~a4561913/

If Trump gets impeached don't forget to thank us

The last sentence in that article implies the website released this info without the Dutch government's blessing.

They don't need to, we have independent media. Snowden's leaks wouldn't even be a crime here, he'd probably have gotten a few yearly journalism prizes.
It's the US that's censorship crazy like that.

I was going somewhere else with that question.  As in releasing state secrets can hurt intelligence agencies, and the author seemed to have high praise for the organization he was leaking from.

I'll give the US credit, free press is just about sacred here.  The press wasn't censored for receiving and publishing the Snowden's leaks.  Only Snowden himself faced consequences, but that's less an issue of free press and more an issue of who deserves special protection as a whisteblower.  Remember, even in the first two years of Obama when congress was blue, Fox never faced so much as a libel charge.  Now CNN/NYT/ect. are thriving even tho Trump openly hates them.

[Lord Shonus]

Of the non-Trump ones, I see two by Al-Jazeera, one by Russia Today, an opinion piece by Chelsea Manning, and an opinion piece from a British newspaper about the state of the press in Britain. Al-Jazeera is a state-run media outlet from a government that has had issues with the US, Russia Today is primarily a propaganda front for the Russian government, and the British report is - so far as I can tell - utterly irrelevant. That leaves a bunch of articles about Trump, which are valid but fail to prove your claim, as he's only been President for a year.



But I'm tired of arguing. You win. I admit that the US is a fascist hellhole where nothing not sanctioned by God-Emperor Trump can ever be published. Happy now?