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: 16
55
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

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




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



The FCC has defined indecent material as material depicting sexual or excretory functions in a patently offensive way
Doesn't seem to cover lying.




posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth




One of those rules relates to lies and slander.

Not really. Slander is a matter for the courts.


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



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Mattis calls report Trump wanted to expand US nuclear arsenal 'absolutely false'
uk.businessinsider.com...

Can't get much more definitive than that.

So it's the Secretary of defence vs unnamed sources.

NBC lied.



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

originally posted by: UKTruth
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.



No #.

And as I have said, lies and slander are not protected, and haven't been for a while.

Therefore, it's already against the law to intentionally lie: libel and slander.

But that's not the issue here.



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

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth




One of those rules relates to lies and slander.

Not really. Slander is a matter for the courts.




The Commission will investigate a station for news distortion if it receives documented evidence of such rigging or slanting, such as testimony or other documentation, from individuals with direct personal knowledge that a licensee or its management engaged in the intentional falsification of the news.


You posted this earlier.
NBC are guilty as charged.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


NBC lied.


No, they didn't, they reported in good faith.

It was not intentional, therefore not libel/slander.
edit on 11-10-2017 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

That is exactly the issue.
The comment from Trump came after NBC lied.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: UKTruth


NBC lied.


No, they didn't, they reported in good faith.

It was not intentional, therefore not libel.


Of course it was intentional. Broadcasting something 'absolutely false' can hardly be a mistake.
If it was, where is the apology and retraction?
edit on 11/10/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


So it's the Secretary of defence vs unnamed sources.
Or, it's matter of parsing words.

Mattis said:

"Recent reports that the president called for an increase in the US nuclear arsenal are absolutely false,"




Again from NBC:


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.
It seems Mattis would be in that camp.


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.
It that he was not in this camp.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Liquesence

The comment from Trump came after NBC lied.


They reported in good faith. They did not intentionally lie, therefore no libel, says the law.

That is protected by the first amendment.

As well it should.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth




You posted this earlier.

Yes. Yes I did. I also posted said this:

So, all the president has to do is file a complaint, with evidence, against each station, and let the FCC investigate. Would the licenses of all the stations who broadcast a network story be revoked? Probably not.

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



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

So the unnamed sources were in 'that' camp. The named source, and Secretary of Defense no less... says the story is absolutely false.
Who are you trying to kid. NBC knew exactly what they were doing.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Correct.
So the licences can be revoked.
Thanks.

Will they be? Unlikely.
edit on 11/10/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


Broadcasting something 'absolutely false' can hardly be a mistake.


Unless they knew it was "absolutely false," which I'd wager they didn't, otherwise they would not have broadcast something knowingly false, and would therefore be subject to libel/slander law.
edit on 11-10-2017 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth
Mattis said that the president did not call for an increase in the US nuclear arsenal.

NBC said that some of those present did not take what the president said that way (calling for an increase), and two did. Seems their story covered both sides.
edit on 10/11/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


Correct.
So the licences can be revoked.
Thanks.
Not sure about that. Unless the story originated from the station(s) itself. Networks are not licensed.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 07:24 PM
link   
This bears repeating:

Knowingly printing or broadcasting something that is false (unless satire or parody) is already not protected (libel/slander); printing something in good faith that turns out to be false, is protected.

Period.
edit on 11-10-2017 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Which two?
Oh, and no retraction.
Fairly obvious they are lying - intentionally misleading. You only need look at the headline for that.

NBC's defence would be funny to hear.

"Did you lie?"
"No, somebody told us"
"Who?"
"I can't tell you."

Perhaps the next person on trial for libel should use that as a defence... "It wasn't me, Gov!... somebody told me to say it"


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

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



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
This bears repeating:

Knowingly printing or broadcasting something that is false (unless satire or parody) is already not protected (libel/slander); printing something in good faith that turns out to be false, is protected.

Period.


yeah, we got it.
"Knowingly printing or broadcasting something that is false (unless satire or parody) is already not protected (libel/slander)"

Fits perfectly to what NBC did.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 07:28 PM
link   
End indoctrinating propaganda on all stations , yes.
We have folk that eat that stuff up cause it is like an infomercial . "As seen on TV"
With me , after one year of off-air , the station would have to submit written documentation how they were changing for the good. If allowed , they would go back on the air for a one year trial period. If they failed , no more license . Unlike baseball , I dont give 3 strikes . Just 2.
This would apply for every single news outlet.



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join