It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

President Trump Says that Anti-America TV Networks Could Lose Their Broadcast License.

page: 15
55
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 06:50 PM
link   
It makes sense when Darth Vader agrees to blow up planets. What wouldn't make sense is if he said "wait, what about all the innocent people". So I guess Trump and his retard supporters actually make sense in their attack against news networks. It wouldn't make sense if they said "wait, this isn't right" -- lol -- that would be bizarre from a Trump supporter "Wait guys, this isn't right." lol... as if. Besides, the free press is actively revealing Trump's sh*ttiness every day, so they must be stopped at all costs.

Bad guys hate truth. It all makes sense.
edit on 11-10-2017 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: kosmicjack
Has anyone tweeted a link to the constitution @realdonaldtrunp?


#25thamendment

He wouldn't read it anyway.

Too wordy.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

So if news stations wanted to advertise porn, drugs and cigarettes they could, right? Because, you know, first amendment.
A presenter could just say - hey kids, cigarettes are good for you! Try them!... and while you are smoking, here's a link to a cool porn site...



edit on 11/10/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: imitator

There are laws against libel and slander. To be taken up in court, not by suppressing freedom of speech.


I like to see you file for slander against foreigners who influence or control MSM.
edit on 53105331pm312017Wed, 11 Oct 2017 18:53:00 -0500 by imitator because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Someone could draw him a picture.

edit on 10/11/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed


He isn't stopping them from lying, he's saying they will be punished for it.


That is already against the law, and punishable: libel and slander.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence


That law cuts both ways. th enews does not have th e right to slander,lie or influence decisions by others either.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: imitator

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: imitator

There are laws against libel and slander. To be taken up in court, not by suppressing freedom of speech.


I like to see you file for slander against foreigners who influenced or control MSM.

That makes no sense. Why file against foreigners? Do you know what slander is?
edit on 10/11/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 06:53 PM
link   
You know, actually I just thought of an excellent way to educate some people.

Any time someone posts about how the press should be banned, perhaps they too should be banned so they can mull it over.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Greven

Some could draw him a picture.

He can't see so good after staring at the eclipse.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: FHomerK
a reply to: carewemust


The government should not be allowed to revoke broadcasting licenses for something along these lines. That is a dictatorship.

It's this kind of crap that makes me awfully glad I did not vote for Trump. Much the same as I did not vote for anyone, because it was all crap for choices.

If anything should be done to CNN, it should be because what they were calling news was actually opinion. And shy of habitually misrepresenting their "facts" as news, they should not be penalized by loosing their license because the President does not like what they have to say.


According to the Broadcasting rules broadcasting false stories is grounds for license lossage.
Please define a "false story" and cite the regulation which provides for revocation of a station's license for broadcasting such. I couldn't find it myself.



as such it has th eright to censor what it wants to.
False.



Well, Trump's reply seems to have come after the false story about him wanting to increase the nuclear arsenal.
Seems they made it up - or printed some slander from unnamed sources.

General Mattis has already backed Trump up that it was a lie.

Media outlets should not be allowed to lie about things like this.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: KawRider9
a reply to: carewemust

As a Trump supporter, I strongly disagree with him on This. The 1st. Amendment is a constitutionally protected right. I'm not a fan of fake news, but trying to silence them is quite un-American!
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." -- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 (letter to Col. William F. Elkins)



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: imitator

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: imitator

There are laws against libel and slander. To be taken up in court, not by suppressing freedom of speech.


I like to see you file for slander against foreigners who influenced or control MSM.

That makes no sense. Why file against foreigners? Do you know what slander is?


There's a bigger picture going on here... I can get you a restraint to go with your straitjacket.
edit on 00100031pm312017Wed, 11 Oct 2017 19:00:00 -0500 by imitator because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

There you go again. I expected no less.

Advertising porn on a public medium is not covered under first amendment protections far as I know, but porn itself is. Advertising (legal) drugs is also protected as a first amendment right. Advertising cigarettes used to be.

Quite convoluting and twisting the issue in classic form.

SCOTUS has put limits on what is allowed in subsequent precedent, due to indecency, obscenity, etc, but the right of unpopular political speech simply because it's unpopular still remains for the reason it's political and not obscene or indecent, etc.
edit on 11-10-2017 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The FCC has the statutory authority to fine licensees and to revoke broadcast licenses for any indecent utterance in a broadcast. 4 The FCC has defined indecent material as material depicting sexual or excretory functions in a patently offensive way as measured by contemporary community standards for broadcast. 5 Although the FCC has never fully exercised its statutory enforcement powers, it has repeatedly warned broadcasters of its willingness to revoke a broadcaster's license for indecent broadcasts. 6 In the post-Janet world, indecency has become an important issue in the past election year and beyond, and the FCC seems more willing than ever to revoke a license as opposed to simply issuing a fine.

So yes the FCC does have rules against speech that is indecent. such as blatantly lying.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


Well, Trump's reply seems to have come after the false story about him wanting to increase the nuclear arsenal.
Seems they made it up - or printed some slander from unnamed sources.

Media outlets should not be allowed to lie about things like this.


They didn't intentionally lie. They printed in good faith.

That's protected.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Liquesence


That law cuts both ways. th enews does not have th e right to slander,lie or influence decisions by others either.


I never said they had the right to lie or slander.

In fact, I said the opposite.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

So it's he said/he said? You know what's that worth as far as Trump goes. I wonder why that is.

It seems that, whatever Trump said, it was interpreted differently by those in attendance. Pretty hard to say that someone's opinion is a lie.

The president’s comments during the Pentagon meeting in July came in response to a chart shown on the history of the U.S. and Russia’s nuclear capabilities that showed America’s stockpile at its peak in the late 1960s, the officials said. Some officials present said they did not take Trump’s desire for more nuclear weapons to be literally instructing the military to increase the actual numbers. But his comments raised questions about his familiarity with the nuclear posture and other issues, officials said.

Two officials present said that at multiple points in the discussion, the president expressed a desire not just for more nuclear weapons, but for additional U.S. troops and military equipment.

www.nbcnews.com...

edit on 10/11/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

The bottom line is that the media is not allowed to say what it wants. There are restrictions, regardless of the first amendment.
One of those rules relates to lies and slander.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Because CNN is on TV's all over the world, President Trump should direct the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to go after that Anti-America FAKE NEWS network first. Go get em Mr. President!


-CareWeMust



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join