Okay --- so WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS?

a reply to: intrptr

You can talk about that as long as you like. Write a book. Make a movie! That's awesome......

I am trying to focus on how things are right now today. And what we should all do.

Here's what Acewombat suggested:

Let It Be: John Lennon

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Oh, I'm gonna watch you hypocrites give up your constitutional rights just like you did under Bush and his Patriot Act! That's a given with Republicans in office!

Do you think Donald is going to forget who elected him? He isn't a lifelong politician. I don't get it. We've been WAITING for someone like this FOREVER.

So what should we do next?

We got him.

This thread is about today and going forward. Not about gloating. There are plenty of threads out there for gloating and mocking and denigrating. Let's move on, please.

NEXT!

What should we do next?

Well, the reason I didn't answer that is because now it's NOT up to us. It's up to him. Remember, the POTUS does NOT directly represent us. He represents the Federal Government. He's in an Executive position. He has autonomy.

The better question is, what should HE do now?

To answer that, just look at this platform and why he was elected in the first place.

a reply to: windword

It has already been established in a court of law that the "press" has the right to lie and misdirect the truth on public airways. Are you trying to say that Fox News doesn't qualify as "press"?

If they are presenting known lies as news for manipulation, then yes, I am saying that. Exactly that. Fox News, CNN, msnbc, NBC, ABC, CBS, the Young Turks, RT, Next News Network... all of 'em!

It's not up the government to decide what is or is not truth, and qualify free speech based upon its definition of said truth.

Er... yes it is. What do you think happens in a courtroom? In an FBI investigation?

As you said, slander is already illegal, and any citizen has the right to sue for damages. So, why tamper with the 1st Amendment by singling out who is and who is not qualified to freely speak to the public on their own truth?

Didn't you just argue that "the press" has the right to lie? Now you say they don't? Which is it?

And if what you say is true here, then why would you have an issue with it applying to everyone?

And, by the way, while your upset about poor Billy Bush and vile Donald Trump being revealed, how about those stolen private emails that were published for the world to see? I bet you're fine with that, so, two sets of rules for applied 1st Amendment benefits?

Oh, dear...

Do I really need to explain the difference between public records and private conversation to you?

Don't fret too much. Trump's official emails going forth from here are public record too. If he mixes them in with private emails, then both both become subject to scrutiny. And Clinton henceforth can talk in private about her sex life and I won't give two rats tails what she says.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Given Trumps stance on the media, I imagine this is going to be a question that comes up in the Supreme Court sometime in the next 4-8 years (depending on how fast it works it's way through the system). Traditional news outlets are dying and being replaced by bloggers and other independent citizens who are using the internet as a form of cheap, mass distribution.

When the Constitution was written, the press was largely centralized groups that could afford to print material. There was a barrier of entry to it, high costs associated with it, and you had to be turning a profit as a legitimate business. Today, there is no barrier of entry to distribution your ideas on a large scale. There is no vetting. The media has become a sideshow of youtube and twitter rants. Trump himself exemplifies this, running a new type of campaign using social media rather than the traditional press as his distribution mechanism.

Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press are morphing into the same entity and that's something we're going to have to address.

originally posted by: windword
It has already been established in a court of law that the "press" has the right to lie and misdirect the truth on public airways. Are you trying to say that Fox News doesn't qualify as "press"?

It's not up the government to decide what is or is not truth, and qualify free speech based upon its definition of said truth.

As you said, slander is already illegal, and any citizen has the right to sue for damages. So, why tamper with the 1st Amendment by singling out who is and who is not qualified to freely speak to the public on their own truth?

The main issue is that freedom of the press and freedom of speech are overlapping in who they protect, but the two offer different protections. While the government can't silence either, free speech allows you to report the truth as you believe it to be. The press has a higher obligation than that because they reach a wider audience. But today, anyone can make a video on youtube or send a tweet to a worldwide audience. The press is no longer a distributor for popular opinions. The question then is if this changes the obligations of either the individual or the press in what they report.

a reply to: Aazadan

I think you're right. I see it turning from freedom of the press to freedom to report news. And it really wouldn't take an amendment to do that... just a resolution from Congress defining the word "press."

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

If they are presenting known lies as news for manipulation, then yes, I am saying that. Exactly that. Fox News, CNN, msnbc, NBC, ABC, CBS, the Young Turks, RT, Next News Network... all of 'em!

Sorry, but that's what you get with the 1st Amendment. Buyer beware. No one is guaranteed the "truth".

Didn't you just argue that "the press" has the right to lie? Now you say they don't? Which is it?

The press does have the right to lie, and so do you and Mr Trump, unless it's under oath or to law enforcement. Yes, there are restrictions to freedom of speech, like not yelling "fire" in a theater. But, the rest, the right to sue for slander, libel and such are about the consequences of freedom of speech. The government can't intrude and tell you that you can't lie.

Defamation is actionable, not illegal. I should have clarified that before.

But people who are in the public eye and/or are asking for public approval and permission to serve as the public's representative, have less of a say in what other's say about them. But, they still have the right sue, didn't Hulk Hogan just win a huge lawsuit against the "press"? Then there was that rape case, that wasn't that got The Rolling Stone (?) in trouble.

Er... yes it is. What do you think happens in a courtroom? In an FBI investigation?

Investigations are conducted to find out if a "crime" has been committed. Courts are about reviewing evidence, proving damages, recourse and consequences/punishment. Courts are not there to determine what should or should not be free speech.

Do I really need to explain the difference between public records and private conversation to you?

Those Wikileaks from the DNC, The Podesta Files, etc., were NOT public documents, they were private documents that were stolen and then publicly displayed. I'm pretty sure that their theft was illegal. This is exactly the thing that got Nixon in trouble, breaking into the Watergate Hotel to steal DNC private correspondence and strategies.

Donald Trump was miked up and doing a TV show, Hollywood Access. He had no expectation that ALL of his conversation didn't belong to the show and was "private". The show owned everything they recorded and had the right to edit it and air it the way they saw fit. There was no "off the record" contract made, otherwise Trump would and could be suing the producers. But, he isn't, because he signed a waiver before he was miked up!

I can't believe that I have to argue the need to preserve the 1st Amendment with a conservative ATS member. Like I said, now we have to be vigilant, and hold the GOP and President Trumps feet to the fire, and protect our constitutional rights.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I see it turning from freedom of the press to freedom to report news. And it really wouldn't take an amendment to do that... just a resolution from Congress defining the word "press."

So, you see limiting who can report the news, and bar them from opinion, as a solution to a constitutional non crisis? Is the 1st Amendment really so broken that it needs fixing? Or is it under attack?

a reply to: windword

The First Amendment really is broken, because press protections need to exist for the press, but they also need to not exist for ordinary people due to issues like calling people into court to testify and being able to reveal their sources. This means we need to define what the press is and isn't. As well as answer the question of if the press is allowed to lie or not (basically revisiting the previous Fox decision).

In practice, we'll probably figure all this stuff out, and people will circumvent libel/slander laws by saying they believed their information to be true at the time they distributed it. Which holds as an excuse as long as they correct things later if it comes out they lied.

a reply to: windword

Sorry, but that's what you get with the 1st Amendment. Buyer beware. No one is guaranteed the "truth".

No, they'really not. But everyone is entitled to seek damages if they are harmed by abusive speech... aka "slander."

Unless the slandered is a "member of the press."

Yes, there are restrictions to freedom of speech, like not yelling "fire" in a theater. But, the rest, the right to sue for slander, libel and such are about the consequences of freedom of speech. The government can't intrude and tell you that you can't lie.

What? Do you think I am advocating government action against the press? I am advocating allowing CIVIL charges, aka lawsuits, against members of the press who maliciously lie to the public.

"Be it hereby resolved by the Congress of the United States of America that the word "press" as used in the First Amendment for the United States Constitution is deemed to refer to any citizen lawfully engaged in disseminating information to the public which they reasonably believe to be true and correct, without malice. All persons not meeting this definition are thereby subject to the same rules and policies of the United States and the individual States therein as any other citizen."

Something along those lines. No one is talking about criminal charges for lying.

Investigations are conducted to find out if a "crime" has been committed. Courts are about reviewing evidence, proving damages, recourse and consequences/punishment. Courts are not there to determine what should or should not be free speech.

I wouldn't say that to a judge if you ever stand in front of one.

And I do believe you started this discussion with a report on how the Supreme Court had ruled on what was and was not free speech...

Those Wikileaks from the DNC, The Podesta Files, etc., were NOT public documents, they were private documents that were stolen and then publicly displayed. I'm pretty sure that their theft was illegal.

According to the FBI, many contained classified information. That's sorta the definition of "public."

Donald Trump was miked up and doing a TV show, Hollywood Access. He had no expectation that ALL of his conversation didn't belong to the show and was "private".

Until the show starts, he certainly did. A bus interior, like a dressing room, is not a part of the final production and is therefore considered private. Once he steps on a stage or set, then everything he says is fair game. Would you have this attitude if someone posted dressing room photos of, say, Beyonce? Without her knowledge any cameras were on?

Of course not. You're hurt and scared. I understand. I spent 8 years like that.

ETA and consolidate:

So, you see limiting who can report the news, and bar them from opinion, as a solution to a constitutional non crisis? Is the 1st Amendment really so broken that it needs fixing? Or is it under attack?

The suggested wording I just posted makes anyone who reports news a member of the "press." How exactly is that limiting?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Aazadan

I know that journalists don't have to reveal their sources, but is that due to 1st Amendment wording? I understand that it's to protect sources from intimidation, for the benefit of a free flow of information. Does the 1st Amendment protect news sources?

a reply to: TheRedneck

What? Do you think I am advocating government action against the press? I am advocating allowing CIVIL charges, aka lawsuits, against members of the press who maliciously lie to the public.

I believe they can do that now, if they can show damages.

"Be it hereby resolved by the Congress of the United States of America that the word "press" as used in the First Amendment for the United States Constitution is deemed to refer to any citizen lawfully engaged in disseminating information to the public which they reasonably believe to be true and correct, without malice. All persons not meeting this definition are thereby subject to the same rules and policies of the United States and the individual States therein as any other citizen."

Something along those lines. No one is talking about criminal charges for lying.

What would happen to a journalist who defied that resolution and told a lie in order to hurt the chances of a competitor? Should the right not to be slandered by the press be a Constitutional right/protection? If so, what is the punishment for violating my constitutional rights?

How about opinions expressed by the press, as they are reporting news. This sentence is "press qualified" but this other one is not?

According to the FBI, many contained classified information. That's sorta the definition of "public."

I think you're confused. The FBI never reviewed, investigated or released the hacked DNC's emails and private correspondence. That was all Wikileaks. I haven't heard of any classified information in them. The FBI is investigating the theft of those documents.

a reply to: windword

I believe they can do that now, if they can show damages.

Then what are you arguing against?

I was under the impression that journalists were protected from lawsuits. Are they not?

What would happen to a journalist who defied that resolution and told a lie in order to hurt the chances of a competitor?

They could be sued for damages by the competitor. I'm not real sure how someone could "defy" such a resolution, though... what would they do? Demand a dictionary?

How about opinions expressed by the press, as they are reporting news. This sentence is "press qualified" but this other one is not?

I stated early on some sort of protection for editorial opinions on a limited basis. I believe there are laws on the books to protect editorial speech already, but I could be wrong on that.

I think you're confused.

I may be. I was admittedly thinking Hillary's SoS emails. My apology.

Of course, police regularly seize assets for investigation... so there's that...

TheRedneck

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Aazadan

I know that journalists don't have to reveal their sources, but is that due to 1st Amendment wording? I understand that it's to protect sources from intimidation, for the benefit of a free flow of information. Does the 1st Amendment protect news sources?

It does, but not anonymous ones. If a reporter has a legitimate source that does want to be identified, they are protected. If someone is just making up crap to spread on crap sandwhich, then that someone is not protected.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Then what are you arguing against?

I'm arguing against Trump's call to change the 1st Amendment.

I was under the impression that journalists were protected from lawsuits. Are they not?

They are not. Gawker and Hulk Hogan Reach $31 Million Settlement

U-Va. dean sues Rolling Stone for ‘false’ portrayal in retracted rape story

However, here in the USA, like everybody else, reporters, journalist and their editors, etc., are innocent until proven guilty.

If Donald Trump is president, he’d like to make some changes to the First Amendment.

In an interview with WFOR, CBS’ Miami affiliate, Trump was asked if he believes the First Amendment provides “too much protection.”

Trump answered in the affirmative, saying he’d like to change the laws to make it easier to sue media companies. Trump lamented that, under current law, “our press is allowed to say whatever they want.” He recommended moving to a system like in England where someone who sues a media company has “a good chance of winning.”

Trump is right that he would have a better chance of prevailing under English law where an allegedly defamatory statement is presumed to be false. There, it is up to the defendant in a libel suit to prove that their statements are true.
thinkprogress.org...

They could be sued for damages by the competitor. I'm not real sure how someone could "defy" such a resolution, though... what would they do? Demand a dictionary?

They can be sued already. One could "defy" the resolution by lying with malicious intent.

Do you think that protection from slander and libel by the media should be a constitutional protection? How should a violator be punished for violating a constitutional right? Jail? $$$?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Term limits.
Complete election campaign reform. Place a small limit on personal funds to be used by the nominees. Remove Super PACS entirely. Only single persons allowed to donate to campaigns, something like a $500 maximum. Outlaw lobbying and lobbyists, any elected official shall NEVER be allowed to take any type of funds from anyone other then the employer, the citizens of this country.

End the federal reserve. Create a bitcoin clone, and deem it the national currency. The money will be sound and honest, removing the nasty banking cartels.

End the IRS. Propose a nominal flat tax and sales taxes. Remove property tax completely.

Remove 99% of all laws on the books. Start over fresh. All bills and laws that are to be passed must fit on one standard sheet of paper. Any proposed laws need to have a 90 day waiting period where they are to be reviewed by the public.

Term limits, term limits, term limits. End the revolving door. No more fox guarding the hen house.

Legalize all drugs. Disband the DEA,ATF,NSA,FBI,DHS, Etc. No victim = no crime. Close all private prisons. With drugs being legal, crime rates would drop roughly 80%.

End all wars of aggression. Bring all of our troops home. End selective service. Work on disarming all Nuclear weapons peacefully.

Create a world constitution to be ratified and signed by every nation in the world that protects the basic rights of humans. I imagine it would be pretty similar to the United States Constitution.

And for fun.... begin the prosecution of all the criminals in government, starting with the Clinton family. Begin tribunals where the war criminals would be given fair public trials, and then lock them all up.

That would be a start.

originally posted by: Hefficide

Money in politics. That's the evil and the answer. We HAVE to get the corrupt incentive out of our political process. Until we do the people we elect will only serve those who pay extra for it... and that is NOT what the Framers intended. It's antithetical to everything Americana.

I agree, but the million dollar question is, "how?". I think money in politics is the symptom. Trying to understand things naturalistically, the buying power the rich have is a result of Americans giving it to them. Our lifestyle choices are what allow single entities disproportionate power, whether they be OPEC or Wallmart or Apple. So I'm all for trying to pass laws and electing watchdogs (etc) to curb this phenomenon, but how long before the rich start working hard at dismantling whatever measures we put in place to do this? So it comes back to elevating the discussion of how this happened naturally...we depended on these entities perhaps too much.

So when Hillary, Trump or any person in power talks about Americans working together we should try to understand the full meaning, IMO. Attrition victory over the elite by as much local community and individual self reliance as possible. This is the hard job of a hopeful American future or it won't be long before the rich begin to target the methods we put in place to restrain them.

a reply to: windword

I'm arguing against Trump's call to change the 1st Amendment.

I just checked my ID. Then I looked myself up in the phone book, checked the name on the mailbox, and even called a couple of friends to make sure.

Turns out I'm not Donald J. Trump! Wow...

If you say the media are subject to defamation suits, then fine. That's all I suggested. I wonder why they get away with so much abuse of power, though.

Do you think that protection from slander and libel by the media should be a constitutional protection?

Now that is an interesting question. I'll need to think that over... you might have an idea there.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I just checked my ID. Then I looked myself up in the phone book, checked the name on the mailbox, and even called a couple of friends to make sure.

Fine, but you are the one that first mentioned 1st Amendment issues needed to be addressed, because you were mislead by Trump's ire and frustration, being unable to control what the media is able to say about him......here:

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

How about we try something crazy?

As the law is, a news outlet can say anything they want without any fear of reprisals. To bring up a recent but sore subject, the little deal between Trump and Billy Bush: That was a private conversation publicized over and over on national TV. It had zero to do with issues. It was nothing more than a slander piece. And the people who published this over and over on national TV were immune from any consequences.

Had you or I taped someone's private conversation and aired it on the Internet, we would be hounded by police.

What if we removed that absolute protection from legal consequences? What if we required by law that a news organization had to prove they were speaking what they truly believed to be truth, that they did due diligence investigating, and that they held no malicious intent to be free from prosecution? In other words, as long as you are honest, diligent, and neutral, you are a member of the press and have protection. Stop being one of those and you're no better than anyone else.

That, I believe, would quickly end media bias. We could put in some exceptions for editorial opinions, as long as those opinions accounted for, say, less than 10% of the broadcast time?

What do you think?

TheRedneck

This ^^^^is the conversation and the line of thought that I have been addressing. You're suggesting here that the Press should only have free speech protection when they are telling the truth. But the 1st Amendment doesn't work that way. Trump wants to fundamentally change that, and I think that you've jumped on the band wagon ill informed.