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.

 

A.G. Nominee WILLIAM BARR Supports Arresting Journalists-Reporters for Serious Violations.

page: 1
34
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+11 more 
posted on Jan, 21 2019 @ 10:42 PM
link   
January 21, 2019

William Barr has been chosen by President Trump to replace former Justice Dept Attorney General, Jeff Sessions. Last week was his confirmation hearing. The following exchange stunned the Media and Journalist community.


Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar asked Barr, "If you're confirmed, will the Justice Department jail reporters for doing their jobs?"

After a brief pause, Barr said he could "conceive of situations" where this might happen as a "last resort". Especially if a news organization has "run through a red flag."
More at: www.businessinsider.com...

Check out this list of the 10 Biggest Trump-Russia LIES from the MSM: theintercept.com...

I wonder how A.G. Barr defines a news organization as, "running through a red flag"?

IMO, printing maliciousness against the U.S. President, like the two BuzzFeed Trump-haters did last week, should make journalists indictable. Extreme terrorist-like hate, as broadcast to the world by CNN and MSNBC 24 hours @ day, should be considered as crossing a red line too.


-CareWeMust

edit on 1/21/2019 by carewemust because: (no reason given)



+21 more 
posted on Jan, 21 2019 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Freedom of the press is not the freedom to lie, or the freedom to aid and abet terrorists or the freedom to fabricate stories of a political bias for vengeful, vindictive or malicious purposes. It's about bloody time reporters and their handlers were held accountable for the hate and lies they spread in the name of "tolerance" lol. Maybe this Barr will get the job done.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 1/21.2019 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2019 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Is there something in the U.S. Constitution that gives the media "special protection" status? Or, do they just see themselves as being more important than they really are? Especially in this day-and-age of instant, mass communications.



posted on Jan, 21 2019 @ 11:22 PM
link   
coin has 3 sides,do you control information or information con-troll you?
maybe you should stop watching news and tv generaly(any kind of wiolent info),i did,it really helps to find that yellow brick road that resonates with truth.



posted on Jan, 21 2019 @ 11:28 PM
link   
If some so called journalist who gets a fake news article published which is slanderous and proven untrue then the network/news paper should both be liable and be fined. Depending on how egregious the story was set the fines at the hurt level especially for the net works and news papers whose editors are not doing their jobs.

Many/most people are smart enough to realize to many of the news stories are just propaganda. However their is certainly a percentage who believes every word of some fake news organization like CNN. Sad really as I do believe most of the fake news is detrimental to our republic. CNN could be hung out to dry for all I care and by making an example of them it would make others think twice.



posted on Jan, 21 2019 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Report reality or have yours taken away. False info is a serious threat. Herds of mindless,blind sheep should not lead the way.



posted on Jan, 21 2019 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Dp
edit on 21-1-2019 by Sabrechucker because: dp



posted on Jan, 21 2019 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

He mentioned as a last resort and red flags and all that. Libel is illegal. Are commentators really news? They have an audience they can purposefully lie to and incite violence... they can collude with politicians... I don't know.

Your title makes it sound worse than what he actually said. But I agree it can be a slippery slope. No different than some politicians calling for the end of guns in America.

If some kind of case he describes is actually brought up, it'll probably end up in the supreme court.



posted on Jan, 21 2019 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Is there something in the U.S. Constitution that gives the media "special protection" status? Or, do they just see themselves as being more important than they really are? Especially in this day-and-age of instant, mass communications.


Not special protection. Freedom of Religion doesn't allow you to conduct human sacrifices. Right to Bear Arms doesn't mean you can go on a shooting spree.

When the press intentionally publishes false or misleading information they should be held civilly and criminally accountable. But if they publish information that is factual and accurate and that causes harm, then so be it.



posted on Jan, 21 2019 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: bob77
You seem to be very satisfied with your chosen path for obtaining information. Congrats!



posted on Jan, 21 2019 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust




IMO, printing maliciousness against the U.S. President, like the two BuzzFeed Trump-haters did last week, should make journalists indictable.


No.



posted on Jan, 21 2019 @ 11:58 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

I'm sure the Dept of Justice under William Barr, will not let U.S.-based media organizations slander the country and our President, without punishment of some kind.


+1 more 
posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: carewemust

Freedom of the press is not the freedom to lie, or the freedom to aid and abet terrorists or the freedom to fabricate stories of a political bias for vengeful, vindictive or malicious purposes. It's about bloody time reporters and their handlers were held accountable for the hate and lies they spread in the name of "tolerance" lol. Maybe this Barr will get the job done.

Cheers - Dave


I personally think after the press's handling of the Catholic school boys this weekend that some of the press should not be allowed to author anything anymore until they have settled their libel suits.

On top of the Buzzfeed fiasco.

They have proven themselves as not only incapable of presenting "news", they have shown themselves as just a PR arm of the DNC and should be held accountable for the damage they cause not only to the people they libel and damage, but also to the American public for the same reason.




posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sabrechucker
Report reality or have yours taken away. False info is a serious threat. Herds of mindless,blind sheep should not lead the way.


At the very least, FAKE NEWS stories should be investigated to determine if they were the result of intentional malice by the reporter, or the organization. They should have no more protection than you or I, in that regard.



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: sine.nomine
Defining what is a "Red Flag", or a "Red Line" is up to the Justice Department. Personally, I think a high-profile person holding up a mock severed head of the U.S. President, should be a Federal Crime. Especially in today's tinder-box environment.



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Agreed, many false stories are put out with full intention of a retraction within 24 hours. The problem with that is only 20% of the original viewers see the retraction. Which leads to 80% of misinformed A** Holes.



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 12:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: carewemust




IMO, printing maliciousness against the U.S. President, like the two BuzzFeed Trump-haters did last week, should make journalists indictable.


No.


I remind you that one of the Buzzard Feeder "journalists" has a history of publishing Fake News. Despite this, all the other MSM outlets viewed his Trump-Cohen story, as if it was coming from Walter Cronkite himself.



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 12:19 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

I remind you of the first amendment:



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.


If people are too stupid, ignorant or lazy to obtain all the facts before coming to a conclusion, then much the same as with the government, we deserve what we get.



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

I must remind you of a legal term too I guess...


libel

1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue.


The catholic school kid has the best cut and dry case for libel I have ever seen in my life.

Hope the family lawyers up and own MSNBC in about a year or so.

From what I read of his rebuttal to the incident, the kid would make an awesome REAL reporter.


edit on 22-1-2019 by Lumenari because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

New York Times Co. Vs. Sullivan


In Sullivan, the Supreme Court adopted the term "actual malice" and gave it constitutional significance.

The Court held that a public official suing for defamation must prove that the statement in question was made with actual malice. In his concurring opinion, Justice Black explained, "'Malice,' even as defined by the Court, is an elusive, abstract concept, hard to prove and hard to disprove. The requirement that malice be proved provides at best an evanescent protection for the right critically to discuss public affairs and certainly does not measure up to the sturdy safeguard embodied in the First Amendment."


The prosecution would need to prove that they published knowingly false information at the time it was published.

While I've no doubt in my mind that someday, maybe even soon, we will see this done in plain and obvious view. IMO, we havn't arrived there yet.




top topics



 
34
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join