If Trump collusion is proven, should "conservative" media be prosecuted?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: butcherguy

Is there a requirement that I answer your question?

No. But if you are not interested in answering the question, why are you here?

Am I going to be banned now for failung to answer your question?

No, but since this is not the Mud Pit you might want to avoid being rude...

Will I have to start worshipping you also?

... like that.

I read your OP and had an opinion.
Asking my question wasn't rude.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Do you think that newspapers and other media should be punished by the government if they knowingly pass on false news?

Yes, I thought I made that clear - 'knowingly' being the key because it implies intent.

Then you favor government censorship?

Are you implying that government prosecuting media outlets for, and I quote your exact words, knowingly pass on false news is censorship?

In order for there to be censorship, there has to be real news associated with it doesn't there? not fake dribble because you're being bankrolled to spew it.

a reply to: GraffikPleasure

Well there is that too. It's a massive attempt at gotcha.

a reply to: ketsuko

Agreed...

The media has turned themselves into a transnational multi billion dollar national enquirer on steroids.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Be that as it may, should it turn out that some media outlets had actual proof of a crime,any crime, but suppressed it, should the government charge them with conspiracy? To take this out of the hypothetical, there are crime reporters who have had informants in organized crime tip them off about murders. Journalists have defended their right to keep these informants' identities secret.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Do you think that newspapers and other media should be punished by the government if they knowingly pass on false news?

Do you? Where are the memos?

Just hang on to that question for a couple weeks because I assure you, they're coming.

When Comey testifies before the Senate committee, he's gonna tell you all about his memos.

Just like most law enforcement personnel, they regularly take notes. Notes that are usually admissible in court.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Are you implying that government prosecuting media outlets for, and I quote your exact words, knowingly pass on false news is censorship?

Do you trust the government to determine what is true and what is not?

ETA: Historically, the government has asked the media to pass on stories that everyone knew to be untrue. Should the media be punished for lying on behalf of the government? What if the lies are detrimental to the nation? Gulf of Tonkin, Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction," etc.

a reply to: DJW001

If they know a murder is going to occur before hand and they do nothing then yes, they can be charged and no amount of screaming about the 1st amendment will protect them. If they have critical info they came upon after the fact and opt not to disclose that info to police and are discovered then yes they can be charged.

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.[1]

Please point out where in the 1st amendment does it say journalists are immune from prosecution for "doing their jobs". The fact journalists have gone to jail for refusing to identify sources, imo, drives the point that they arent immune home.

There is a difference between what a journalist does and obstructing a criminal investigation solely to report a story. All a journalist has to do is report the information as an anonymous tip.

a reply to: Xcathdra

If they know a murder is going to occur before hand and they do nothing then yes, they can be charged and no amount of screaming about the 1st amendment will protect them. If they have critical info they came upon after the fact and opt not to disclose that info to police and are discovered then yes they can be charged.

So if a member of the government drunkenly boasts about betraying the country to a journalist, but the journalist decides not to publish it because he supports that person politically, he is guilty of obstructing justice, or even conspiracy? Do journalists have a duty to report wrongdoing?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Are you implying that government prosecuting media outlets for, and I quote your exact words, knowingly pass on false news is censorship?

Do you trust the government to determine what is true and what is not?

I don't trust the shadow government, the players who surpass presidential term limits and have shaped Washington into the nest of filth that it is today, the same players who collude and conspire behind closed doors to push fake news propaganda so as to achieve a secret agenda to usurp power.

So no I don't trust that government but at the same time, do I want ISIS decapitations on the 6 o'clock news? No, of course not so I'm happy with that censorship of real news. If I use the words of Trey Gowdy, the media has special rights and protections afforded to it so it can keep the government in check. So, if the media is exploiting their privileges, prosecute them to the full extent of the law - no prisoners.

Government should not police censorship - impartial, non-political, non-profit, public run media should be the oversight of any type of censorship if the current media cannot be trusted to tell ALL the truth ALL the time, not a government or media outlet with a vested interest in staying alive for personal financial gain.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Government should not police censorship - impartial, non-political, non-profit, public run media should be the oversight of any type of censorship if the current media cannot be trusted to tell ALL the truth ALL the time, not a government or media outlet with a vested interest in staying alive for personal financial gain.

But non-profits can have their own agendas; that is why Russia curtails NGOs.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Xcathdra

Be that as it may, should it turn out that some media outlets had actual proof of a crime,any crime, but suppressed it, should the government charge them with conspiracy? To take this out of the hypothetical, there are crime reporters who have had informants in organized crime tip them off about murders. Journalists have defended their right to keep these informants' identities secret.

Problem is there is no crime to charge them with. First a presidential candidate can't collude there is no law for it. A citizen can commit treason. To prove treason you have to show he did something to overthrow the government. Being a candidate that would be impossible to prove. There is nothing illegal that Trump could have done unless he actually told them how to destroy the country.

The whole Russia scenario is fake we now have a prosecutor without a crime. What ctimes is our prosecutor investigating?? We have a prosecutor investigating a crime but we have no idea what crime.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Government should not police censorship - impartial, non-political, non-profit, public run media should be the oversight of any type of censorship if the current media cannot be trusted to tell ALL the truth ALL the time, not a government or media outlet with a vested interest in staying alive for personal financial gain.

But non-profits can have their own agendas; that is why Russia curtails NGOs.

EVERYONE, even you, has their own agenda. If you think there is such a thing as a true *agendless* agency, then you are smoking something. Even the mainstream press that you currently have on a pedestal has an agenda.

a reply to: dragonridr

First a presidential candidate can't collude there is no law for it.

It is called "conspiracy." Anyone can be charged with it. The media have been polite by calling it "collusion." Conspiracy, like treason, requires proof of intent.

A citizen can commit treason. To prove treason you have to show he did something to overthrow the government.

A Presidential candidate is a citizen, and therefore can commit treason. A charge of treason does not require that the government actually be overthrown, only that someone intended to betray it in some way. Again, intent is difficult to prove.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Government should not police censorship - impartial, non-political, non-profit, public run media should be the oversight of any type of censorship if the current media cannot be trusted to tell ALL the truth ALL the time, not a government or media outlet with a vested interest in staying alive for personal financial gain.

But non-profits can have their own agendas; that is why Russia curtails NGOs.

EVERYONE, even you, has their own agenda. If you think there is such a thing as a true *agendless* agency, then you are smoking something. Even the mainstream press that you currently have on a pedestal has an agenda.

I'm not disagreeing with you; I am pointing out that no-one is impartial enough to determine the "truth" for others. The pseudo-liberals shouting down conservative speakers are as guilty of impeding free speech as the thought police in Russia or China.

ETA: Liberal democracy is based on the concept of the "marketplace of ideas." That is the intent of the First Amendment. Bad ideas-- in theory-- should prove unpopular and go away. Good ideas should prove popular because they are successful. It doesn't always work that way. Should the "marketplace of ideas" be regulated? And if so, by whom?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Xcathdra

If they know a murder is going to occur before hand and they do nothing then yes, they can be charged and no amount of screaming about the 1st amendment will protect them. If they have critical info they came upon after the fact and opt not to disclose that info to police and are discovered then yes they can be charged.

So if a member of the government drunkenly boasts about betraying the country to a journalist, but the journalist decides not to publish it because he supports that person politically, he is guilty of obstructing justice, or even conspiracy? Do journalists have a duty to report wrongdoing?

He / She would be guilty of conspiracy. Obstruction would require the journalist to refuse to cooperate. All citizens are required by state law to report a crime, especially if you have knowledge and know it has not taken place yet. People are also required to identify if they are a witness.

A person who witnesses a crime and does not disclose it to the police and is discovered to have the info can have a material witness warrant issued for them to compel their testimony. The justice system is required to error on the side of the defendant and the 1st amendment does not grant immunity.

a reply to: Xcathdra

A person who witnesses a crime and does not disclose it to the police and is discovered to have the info can have a material witness warrant issued for them to compel their testimony. The justice system is required to error on the side of the defendant and the 1st amendment does not grant immunity.

So, hypothetically, if the publishers at Breitbart know that Bannon has been conspiring with hostile powers, they, too, would be guilty of conspiracy if they did not report it?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Xcathdra

A person who witnesses a crime and does not disclose it to the police and is discovered to have the info can have a material witness warrant issued for them to compel their testimony. The justice system is required to error on the side of the defendant and the 1st amendment does not grant immunity.

So, hypothetically, if the publishers at Breitbart know that Bannon has been conspiring with hostile powers, they, too, would be guilty of conspiracy if they did not report it?

Which again relies on the assumption that there actually is a conspiracy in the first place. I know you stick the word hypothetical in there, but your OP's premise is that since conservative sources are skeptical for the reasons given to you and in other threads they are colluding to pass fake news.

Since when is skepticism "fake news"?

There is a difference between wanting to see the evidence rather than have it interpreted for us by anonymous others and simply asserting that a thing cannot be so.

How many people in the cryptid threads would accept that Bigfoot exists based on a story of someone reporting on a smoking gun video proof that they had no actually seen but only heard about from an anonymous source who told them about that source's own viewing?

Especially when you consider the ramifications ... you are talking about invalidating the voting will of the majority of states in the last election on what is at this point simple hearsay.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Xcathdra

A person who witnesses a crime and does not disclose it to the police and is discovered to have the info can have a material witness warrant issued for them to compel their testimony. The justice system is required to error on the side of the defendant and the 1st amendment does not grant immunity.

So, hypothetically, if the publishers at Breitbart know that Bannon has been conspiring with hostile powers, they, too, would be guilty of conspiracy if they did not report it?

If they have a suspicion they would need to report it. The only caveat to this whole thing is knowing a law was broken. If the people at Breitbart dont know a law was broken then there is not much that can be done about it. If the people at Breitbart get a heads up from a guy who is planning a 7 state shooting spree and fail to act then you have legal issues.

The 1st amendment guarantees a free media and with that comes the requirement of responsibility and common sense.

a reply to: ketsuko

Since when is skepticism "fake news"?

Skepticism is the first line of defense against "fake news." All of the centerist media are being careful to report the second hand nature of their accounts. The hypothetical assumes that some media are downplaying what they know directly for political reasons, and that others may be generating disinformation to undercut what is actually known. To name names, globalresearch.ca is a known Russian disinformation organ. During the election, they published distorted accounts to skew opinion away from Clinton. If, hypothetically, members of Trump's team had been coordinating with them, could they be held accountable for conspiracy? Or are they protected by "editorial privilege?