Flip it over. Even with zero restrictions on guns, it is still against the law to murder with one or intimidate. IMO there should be no restrictions on guns or speech, only the responsibility of using them.
The gov't doesn't need to control the media or put any limitations on first amendment rights. What needs to happen is the media needs to be held accountable, just like every other business.
Companies can't put out false financial reports without the execs risking jail time. There are a million things companies can't do, like commit fraud. The media should be held to similar standards.
Sounds like bigger government. If enacted the plan would lead to more liberal bias in news.
Remember, while Trump was busy running companies the democrats were continuing to improve their afterlife voter registration numbers. If the fact-check system would not be Federal but instead locally run, again keep in mind local politics tend to lean left (fact checks welcome). If Federal, the concentration of news power would make independent journalism harder.
I would like Fake news to be illegal but I just don’t see a way for fake news to be stopped with legislation.
Perhaps, Civil lawsuits for inciting riots could be filed by city governments against the fake news companies that allowed their Don Lemons say ‘burn it down.’ Or whatever he said.
Not because I trust the media, but because the Founders understood that if you give the government control of media in any aspect, eventually that media becomes captured by the government and you get even worse Fake News than we have now. At least now an alternative media can exist. That can't happen with "journalism licenses".
I would rather have Tort law reform where a few things change:
Make is easier to sue the media for non-factual reporting that isn't Slander. (Perhaps a law regarding willful false reporting? Hard to prove, but devastating if the reporter loses.)
Institute "Loser Pays" reform in lawsuits where the loser has to pay the full cost for the trial. this would cut down on frivolous lawsuits and really hurt the media when the lawsuit is legitimate.
Funding reform in Journalism schools to get rid of the Marxists. Raise a new generation of ACTUAL reporters to replace the shitty ones.
Indirect control we can counter. Direct control we cannot, because it allows the Deep State to lock us out entirely. No more "Citizen Journalists" because "Muh License" allows the govt. to keep people with undesirable agendas like "The Truth" out of the field.
I have a better idea -- break up existing large media and tech companies and stop trying to compete on a global scale against systems that are built around centralization.
if we stayed (with tech) in a suspended state of 30 years ago forever and intentionally kept things old-school small private capitalist, and hobbled the major TV networks and hollywood intentionally, we could split ownership a zillion ways.
this would basically put independent media on a complete even keel economically. the only hard part would be getting people to invest more heavily either in their own tech education (soas to write their own websites again) or in terms or money (pay someone else to do it) as well as driving traffic.
another idea is to disallow advertisers to know what they are advertising on, by law, outside of maybe a few limited restrictions (perhaps by content rating -- id say they can know if its X rated or PG but not any more than that).
this would make it such that a company couldnt pull advertising money from political opponents or even just competing products (see a coke ad over a pepsi video)
you could argue these things limit free speech -- in my view they increase it. way things currently work, if you bump up against a bigger entity than yourself your speech is the one censored, way Id have it censorship would literally be impossible since you'd be buying mystery packages and only basing your continued advertising packages on the results.
if advertisers get to know the content they advertise on, that itself is a big problem that has limited what the news can report on for years, as well as the viability of smaller independent journalists. what If I want to report a story that goes against one of the advertiser's major investments? in such a case, the advertiser should at least be unable to cancel any deals over it and have no control.
I am jewish actually. I guess not in terms of religion now, but hereditarily Im like 95% hahahahahahahha. Im the last person who could ever be a nazi unless i intended to kill myself or was a traitor like soros.
I have no group affiliations though, so my thoughts are entirely independent. I can see how I can come off against stereotypes because of that.
its a very precarious situation since everyone hates me and I hate them equally lol. the nazis cant stand me, and everyone else thinks im one of them. Truly Im neither and prefer the chaos of independence.
its true. because the rest of the world would not do that and have more assets because of it.
but truth be told they already own the media in another way anyway (advertising and stocks give them plenty control as it is)
my thinking is that by keeping everything in a billion disconnected puzzle pieces and not finishing the puzzle prevents any one of those agencies from having too much control or ever reaching too many people on their own.
A big no to the licensing system because leftists will exploit that to the hilt when they get in power locking up all alternative journalists.
Keep in mind that before his leftist gay robot period, Matt Drudge exposed a bunch of things outside the journo network. Ditto for Andrew Breitbart, James O'Keefe, etc.
The Lin Woods model is the way to go. Sue the fuck out of these assholes and make the parent company pay.
Journalism licensing system like the attorneys bar association.
Stiff penalties for misreporting etc.
Wanna make shit up? Ok, you cant be a reporter anymore.
We could also require that publishers put all mistakes, corrections, and retraction on their home page if online and front page if in print.
Trust bust media and social media companies. Scatter them into a thousand pieces.
Last person to use that phrase had his brains blown out by the CIA.
I remember a president who wanted to do something like that with the CIA. It didn't work out so well for him.
This sounds like a damn good idea. Why couldn't news outlets that are starting out hold themselves to these standards without being forced too?
I would think people who really want honest reporting would go to sites like this that kept their standards high.
There is site that does this. Can’t recall name atm.
How isn't this already a thing???
Slippery slope when you start mandating government limitations on a first amendment right. Be careful what you wish for.
I do not advocate 2nd amendment restrictions either; which is exactly my point.
Flip it over. Even with zero restrictions on guns, it is still against the law to murder with one or intimidate. IMO there should be no restrictions on guns or speech, only the responsibility of using them.
The gov't doesn't need to control the media or put any limitations on first amendment rights. What needs to happen is the media needs to be held accountable, just like every other business.
Companies can't put out false financial reports without the execs risking jail time. There are a million things companies can't do, like commit fraud. The media should be held to similar standards.
Well you got to be careful. Who will oversee it? The crazies would right now.
Sounds like bigger government. If enacted the plan would lead to more liberal bias in news.
Remember, while Trump was busy running companies the democrats were continuing to improve their afterlife voter registration numbers. If the fact-check system would not be Federal but instead locally run, again keep in mind local politics tend to lean left (fact checks welcome). If Federal, the concentration of news power would make independent journalism harder.
I would like Fake news to be illegal but I just don’t see a way for fake news to be stopped with legislation.
Perhaps, Civil lawsuits for inciting riots could be filed by city governments against the fake news companies that allowed their Don Lemons say ‘burn it down.’ Or whatever he said.
No. I have to disagree with this idea.
Not because I trust the media, but because the Founders understood that if you give the government control of media in any aspect, eventually that media becomes captured by the government and you get even worse Fake News than we have now. At least now an alternative media can exist. That can't happen with "journalism licenses".
I would rather have Tort law reform where a few things change:
The government or deep state is already in charge of the media indirectly, especially when you consider the propaganda act Obama signed.
True.
So why give them more direct control?
Indirect control we can counter. Direct control we cannot, because it allows the Deep State to lock us out entirely. No more "Citizen Journalists" because "Muh License" allows the govt. to keep people with undesirable agendas like "The Truth" out of the field.
I have a better idea -- break up existing large media and tech companies and stop trying to compete on a global scale against systems that are built around centralization.
if we stayed (with tech) in a suspended state of 30 years ago forever and intentionally kept things old-school small private capitalist, and hobbled the major TV networks and hollywood intentionally, we could split ownership a zillion ways.
this would basically put independent media on a complete even keel economically. the only hard part would be getting people to invest more heavily either in their own tech education (soas to write their own websites again) or in terms or money (pay someone else to do it) as well as driving traffic.
another idea is to disallow advertisers to know what they are advertising on, by law, outside of maybe a few limited restrictions (perhaps by content rating -- id say they can know if its X rated or PG but not any more than that).
this would make it such that a company couldnt pull advertising money from political opponents or even just competing products (see a coke ad over a pepsi video)
you could argue these things limit free speech -- in my view they increase it. way things currently work, if you bump up against a bigger entity than yourself your speech is the one censored, way Id have it censorship would literally be impossible since you'd be buying mystery packages and only basing your continued advertising packages on the results.
if advertisers get to know the content they advertise on, that itself is a big problem that has limited what the news can report on for years, as well as the viability of smaller independent journalists. what If I want to report a story that goes against one of the advertiser's major investments? in such a case, the advertiser should at least be unable to cancel any deals over it and have no control.
Bro cool it w the anti semitism ok?
what?
I am jewish actually. I guess not in terms of religion now, but hereditarily Im like 95% hahahahahahahha. Im the last person who could ever be a nazi unless i intended to kill myself or was a traitor like soros.
I have no group affiliations though, so my thoughts are entirely independent. I can see how I can come off against stereotypes because of that.
its a very precarious situation since everyone hates me and I hate them equally lol. the nazis cant stand me, and everyone else thinks im one of them. Truly Im neither and prefer the chaos of independence.
its true. because the rest of the world would not do that and have more assets because of it.
but truth be told they already own the media in another way anyway (advertising and stocks give them plenty control as it is)
my thinking is that by keeping everything in a billion disconnected puzzle pieces and not finishing the puzzle prevents any one of those agencies from having too much control or ever reaching too many people on their own.
A big no to the licensing system because leftists will exploit that to the hilt when they get in power locking up all alternative journalists.
Keep in mind that before his leftist gay robot period, Matt Drudge exposed a bunch of things outside the journo network. Ditto for Andrew Breitbart, James O'Keefe, etc.
The Lin Woods model is the way to go. Sue the fuck out of these assholes and make the parent company pay.
The problem isn’t the system, but that we have wildly different cultures vying for control of America.
We either need to separate from the Left, or make their perspective illegal.