You can't be more incorrect. I remember a conversation I had with my Uncle when the inflation of the carter years was starting to come down under Regan. He was complaining about high interest rates how nobody could afford to buy things with a 20+% interest rate on credit cards. I was in 8th or 9th grade and asked why are the rates so high. He said because the banks want to make a bunch of money. I asked why the government can't make a law to lower the rates. He said because it's a feee country. I said, well that doesn't make since, if it's better to have the government lower the rates we should give up being a free country. This about the only time I've ever seen him lose his temper. He said he didn't fight in the Vietnam war and spend 20 years of his life in the military for the new generation to just give up their freedoms. That one brief conversation changed my perspective for life. It really hit home, and I'm surprised at how much I go back to it. Our freedoms shall not be infringed, even if we don't like what other people are doing with them.
Sounds like a liberal argument....you don't know me, but generalize about how I will react. For the record, the 2nd amendment is one I think there should very few, if any exceptions, and right now there are too many and the states are going too far in limiting the second...
There used to be a phrase that conservatives held dear ... "I may not support what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I adhere to that principle.
Also, for the record, I agree with your disgust and the article linked that the media is over hyping and creating panic. But, in a free society, they have a right to do that, and I have a right to find OAN or other outlets like thedonald.win.
When the government tries to limit our rights, when does it stop, and do we really want to roll the dice on the judge that hears the case? The solution to blatant hysteria is to use liability laws like the covington kids. They might have a right to say what theyt want, but if it damages me they are liable.
No. We can have a free presd. Remember that fraud and deception, especially when harmful, is not protected speech. We can hold the press accountable for causing a panic and lying about things and still have a free press.
We're talking about SIX people that have 99% of the influence of news yet we don't have laws to regulate them for being propagandists
Six
Controls the narrative
You can't be more incorrect. I remember a conversation I had with my Uncle when the inflation of the carter years was starting to come down under Regan. He was complaining about high interest rates how nobody could afford to buy things with a 20+% interest rate on credit cards. I was in 8th or 9th grade and asked why are the rates so high. He said because the banks want to make a bunch of money. I asked why the government can't make a law to lower the rates. He said because it's a feee country. I said, well that doesn't make since, if it's better to have the government lower the rates we should give up being a free country. This about the only time I've ever seen him lose his temper. He said he didn't fight in the Vietnam war and spend 20 years of his life in the military for the new generation to just give up their freedoms. That one brief conversation changed my perspective for life. It really hit home, and I'm surprised at how much I go back to it. Our freedoms shall not be infringed, even if we don't like what other people are doing with them.
Sounds like a liberal argument....you don't know me, but generalize about how I will react. For the record, the 2nd amendment is one I think there should very few, if any exceptions, and right now there are too many and the states are going too far in limiting the second...
There used to be a phrase that conservatives held dear ... "I may not support what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I adhere to that principle.
Also, for the record, I agree with your disgust and the article linked that the media is over hyping and creating panic. But, in a free society, they have a right to do that, and I have a right to find OAN or other outlets like thedonald.win.
When the government tries to limit our rights, when does it stop, and do we really want to roll the dice on the judge that hears the case? The solution to blatant hysteria is to use liability laws like the covington kids. They might have a right to say what theyt want, but if it damages me they are liable.
No. We can have a free presd. Remember that fraud and deception, especially when harmful, is not protected speech. We can hold the press accountable for causing a panic and lying about things and still have a free press.
WE can have a free press, AND hold them accountable when they cause damage or incite violence or panic.
A free press would look nothing like what we have today. What we have today are a bunch of Chinese propagandists spreading propaganda in dissension.