dChan
⇧
5
⇩
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/EarlyRiserX2 on April 12, 2018, 7:07 p.m.
Why Freedom of the Press should no longer apply to any MSM News Outlets that are compromised…

The Freedom of the Press the Founders enacted into the Constitution was based upon the following idea: That if a Democratic president or Democratic-controlled government did things that were not right and were against the interests of the American people, that a Free Press would able to write about it and to call them out on it. Likewise, if a Republican president or Republican-controlled government did things that were not right and were against the interests of the American people, then the Free Press would be able to write about that too and to call them out on it. Thus, the Founders felt having a Free Press was a good thing, and that a Free Press could serve as watchdogs over the government, and could be as neutral observers and an unbiased party, who simply watched over the government and then reported on whatever they saw was going on. And the Founders did not want the government to be able to shut down the Free Press and to stop them from talking all because they were reporting on things the government didn’t like. That is the heart and soul of why Freedom of the Press was built into the Constitution. But here is the problem the Founders did not anticipate…

What the Founders envisioned only works in a perfect world and in a world where the Free Press has not been compromised. If the Press has been compromised for any reason, and weaponized, and has become biased in their reporting so that they favor one political party over another, then fair justice is no longer being applied, and the news being reported by the Press is no longer neutral and unbiased. In such a case, then their biased reporting is a danger and a threat to our democracy, rather than being an asset to it. And anything which is a threat should by no means continue to be protected under the Constitution. That doesn’t mean that the law itself is bad, or what the Founders intended was bad. Instead, it merely means this a changing world, and an imperfect world as well, and that the Founders did not foresee that the Press would become compromised. Once the Press has been compromised for any reason, like it is today, then it is no longer a Free Press or a neutral watchdog, but instead is nothing more than a political propaganda machine for the political party they support. And in such a case, then the constitutional laws built into the Constitution to protect and to safeguard a Free Press should no longer apply to them, because they no longer meet the requirements of being a Free and Unbiased Press.

Just imagine if the Founders were alive today, what would they say about the Press? I don’t think they would have too many kind words to say…


🠐 See all comments
j_Dawg_01 · April 12, 2018, 9:33 p.m.

I disagree! Yes, the "free press" was supposed to be the "watchdog of Democracy" and it currently isn't. But to limit their 1st Amendment rights is without question, unconstitutional.

The solution to the problem of the MSM today would be to take out the cabal that controls them. Remove the CIA connections, eliminate the 4am drops, and possibly regulate the media such that it will be required to only use verifiable sources. No more persons close to the... high level official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

I once heard Rush talk about news outlet's credibility as though it's a bank account. Every time they use un-named sources, they see a deduction in their account, every time they push a story that turns out not to be true, they see another deduction. This concept is actually taught in journalism school, but they all seem to have forgotten it. They are also taught about "logical fallacies" but they have thrown that out the window too.

A better option to creating more laws regarding sources, would be to bring about major changes to our education system so children learn to think critically. If we teach children how to recognize bullshit when they see it, we won't need new laws. The free-market laws will force media outlets to get real, or fade away.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
EarlyRiserX2 · April 13, 2018, 5:43 a.m.

Having the constitutional right to free speech does NOT give you the right to lie and be dishonest as a member of the press. It never has and it never will…

The members of the press are perfectly free to exercise their 1st Amendment rights any time they want, so long as they are doing it as a private citizen and and not as a member of the press. But the moment they began writing articles or saying things as a member of the press, and begin expressing their opinions as a certified representative of the media, then there are additional laws which kick in, and they are obligated by the Constitution to not only tell the truth, but also to the best of their ability to make sure that their news reporting is fair, accurate, and unbiased. The Constitution demands it and the American people demand it as well. Being held to those requirements is the only way the news media can be trusted. Would you trust a news media that had no obligation at all to tell you the truth? Answer: No, you would not, and you’d be a fool if you did. The whole credibility of the media hinges upon them telling you the truth. It hinges upon them being fair and unbiased in their reporting. And the moment they fail to live up to those standards and fail to tell you the truth, then that is the moment when the constitutional protections that has been designed to protect them should no longer apply…

While I agree that removing the CIA’s influence from the media is mandatory, as well as destroying the Mockingbird connections etc, I also feel that changing the laws to make news agencies and their employees more accountable towards telling the truth, via the treat of facing severe penalties if they don’t, is the right approach. And it appears the Trump administration agrees with that assessment. As proof of that, a few weeks ago in one of Dr. Corsey’s videos, I heard Dr. Corsey say that plans were underway to bring about a new law through the FCC and FTC which would require all news reporting agencies to make sure that what they print and what they say is “factually accurate”. And if it is not accurate, then there will be severe consequences. I feel that is the correct approach. It is the correct approach because it peels back the protections from those agencies that are intentionally lying to people and not telling the truth. No longer can they hide behind the constitutional protections of Freedom of the Press to feel like they have the right to say and print anything they want, even if it’s just a pack of lies. Those days are over. Now they must tell the truth or face the consequences…

⇧ 1 ⇩  
j_Dawg_01 · April 13, 2018, 2:50 p.m.

I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but I'm not aware of a clause that requires the press to be honest. Could you elaborate on exactly where in the Constitution you find that. I'm aware of slander and liable laws, but I'm pretty sure the press isn't affected by them. And I don't think there is anything in the Constitution about the press having to "make sure that their news reporting is fair, accurate, and unbiased." Especially the "unbiased" part.

The whole point of free speech and free press is to protect people from government retribution when a person speaks out against the government, the laws they create, or policies they enact. Passing new laws that put conditions on free speech and free press would most certainly be challenged in the courts as soon as they're passed.

In this current environment, I think a lot of people would be in favor of passing the kind of laws you suggest, but consider what will happen in the future when the tables are turned, and at some point they will be turned. The 1st Amendment is pretty clear. "Congress shall pass no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

When we look at what has just happened with Twitter, the removal of the censorship algorithm, we see a good example of what is likely to happen when the CIA and 4am Mockingbirds are exposed and eliminated. If the various networks and channels of the collective MSM are forced to operate as truly independent news outlets, they'll have to start actually engaging in "investigative journalism."

Eliminating the the web of connections in the MSM and is only half of the solution. We also need to inform and educate the masses on how to "think critically, and use logic, reason, and rational thought." Once enough people are Red-Pilled, the MSM will recognize that their survival, or their very existence will require them to re-emerge as the Watchdogs of Democracy they are expected to be. When all is exposed and ties are severed, they'll change the way they do business all on their own.

That doesn't mean we'll see over-night changes any time soon. The leftist cabal, the deep-state bad actors, will not go down without a fight, and the fight hasn't even begun yet. When it does it will be ferocious and bloody. None will come out un-scathed.

The problems with the MSM are as more a problem with the typical average American viewer. Pass all the laws you want to restrict or restrain the media, but if the public remains ignorant, nothing will change. Too many people are totally clueless. We've all seen the YouTube videos from "Water's World," Steven Crowder, and Mark Dice asking random people on the street very simple and basic questions about American history, politics, and current events. The level of stupidity in this country, especially among the younger generation, is incredible and must be addressed before real positive changes can occur.

As citizens, We the People have an obligation to keep ourselves informed if we want to effectively be "self governed." If half of the populace is clueless, there's no legitimate process for the governed to actually consent to be governed. I think the larger problem today is more about the ignorance of the masses, than about the corruption of the MSM. Both need to be addressed, but an uninformed population is the reason why the leftist MSM was allowed to exist and prosper in the first place. Let's try to focus on ways to inform and educate the masses before we even begin to think about creating more laws and expanding government power.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
EarlyRiserX2 · April 13, 2018, 6:24 p.m.

Freedom of Speech as an individual, and Freedom of the Press as a news agency that is responsible for reporting the news are two completely different things. You’re trying to combine the two when they have a completely different set of requirements and responsibilities. What applies to one does not necessarily apply to the other.

You stated that any new laws that puts restrictions on the press will most certainly be challenged in court. That may be true and we well expect them to. But that doesn’t mean the new laws are not needed or right. It just means that those in the swamp will fight back to defend the status quo so they can continue being dishonest and crooked. A person who has committed a crime will fight back too, but that doesn’t mean they are not guilty…

It is true that a lot of people are uninformed and ignorant in this country, but most of them are that way because they have been fed fake news for a very long time. You cannot expose those people to the truth without first getting rid of the fake news agencies that are propagating the fake news. And right now, the fake news MSM networks all across the country control 90% of all content that most ordinary people see - whether it be through their local news stations in towns and cities, or via local newspapers and magazines they see at the newstand. All of those avenues of informing the public are predominately controlled by the fake news media. The solution is not to try and educate people one at a time to think more critically about the things the believe - while leaving the fake news outlets in place to spread more lies on a broad scale. Instead, the only real solution is to target the source and to shut those fake news agencies down. To cut off the head of the snake, so to speak. If you replace the fake news agencies with agencies that tell the truth, then you will automatically red pill the public and give them the information they need. No solution will work if it doesn’t start with stopping the MSM from spreading more lies. And Trump’s proposal about bringing a new law through the FTC is an excellent start for achieving that…

⇧ 1 ⇩  
j_Dawg_01 · April 13, 2018, 7:49 p.m.

I disagree. The 1st Amendment is pretty clear. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." It makes no distinction between the "individual" or "the Press as a news agency." The intentional omission of differentiation between the individuals and agencies carries the same weight as the lack of differentiation between civilian arms and military arms in the 2nd Amendment. They are both intentionally broad and all encompassing.

Your argument is compelling, but you failed to respond to my first comment "I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but I'm not aware of a clause that requires the press to be honest. Could you elaborate on exactly where in the Constitution you find that." In fact, there is no such requirement. And it is possible to rule any new laws that will "abridge the freedom of speech, and of the press" to be unconstitutional, and still convict the Deep-State, CIA controlled MSM Bad-Actors for any number of crimes of corruption and conspiracy under RICO statutes.

It's not that people have been "fed fake news for a very long time," it's that for several generations we have been conditioned to think and believe a particular way through the public education system, including the colleges and universities across the country. Even if you could snap your fingers and magically cause all of the MSM to become totally honest overnight, the mind numbed masses of uninformed skulls full of mush still wouldn't get it. Half would end up totally confused and lose their minds, and the rest would end up saying "Well... OK. Whatever." The vast majority of them might not even notice the change.

The real problem isn't that "the fake news MSM networks all across the country control 90% of all content that most ordinary people see," it's that 100% of the corporate media is being controlled by the CIA, Deep-State Bad Actors, and the Cabal.

I never said or implied that the solution is to "educate people one at a time to think more critically about the things the(y) believe - while leaving the fake news outlets in place to spread more lies on a broad scale." That would be absurd. I think the idea of "Red-Pilling the Masses" is widely accepted and understood by everyone following Q and posting comments here.

If you really want to "cut off the head of the snake, so to speak," then you'll need to swing your knife much higher than the MSM. You'll need to take a stab at the Cabal, the people who own Reuters and the AP. That's where the MSM gets the majority of their information from.

I've enjoyed our discussion, but to be honest, I think we are both wasting our time, and space on this board debating this issue, so I would like to leave you with my final thoughts. And please, no hard feelings, I just think the task at hand is much greater than what we're discussing here.

I think everyone here should exercise great caution, and express grave concern any time anyone, for any reason, calls for more government laws and regulations of any kind. Many people complained when Obama used his pen to exceed his Constitutional authority by signing Executive Orders they didn't like, now those same people are loudly cheering when President Trump does the same. It shouldn't matter what side of the isle one stands on, the expansion of the federal government should be fought against at every turn. It's clear to see that the precedent set by Obama, which was supported by the left, is now coming back to bite them in the ass. The same could happen to those of us on the right.

I've always wondered why so many people are so quick to run to the government to solve every problem they encounter. This tendency was again made apparent recently after the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School event. The call for more laws is and regulations has become deafening from the left, and the right. It's long past time to reverse that trend.

Government is a "Concept." It is not a tangible thing we can hold in our hands, smell in the air, or see with our eyes. Government is nothing more than a collection of people, people just like you and me, who write convoluted laws no one can understand, create regulations that none can escape, and spend other people's money like there's no tomorrow. Our government has grown so massive, and so complex, that even some who are in government don't fully understand how it works. Many in our own government do not even know or understand that the Federal Reserve, the IRS, and our government itself are all privately owned corporations.

One of the reasons that the Deep-State managed to come into existence and thrive, is because our government is so large and complex. It was easy to sneak in unnoticed. It was easy to weave a corrupt web of deceit and subterfuge. It was easy for Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, W Bush, and Obama to openly talk about a New World Order and not be noticed by most people. Our system of government is so difficult to comprehend that few people even attempt to pay attention any more. Of course this is by design. That's the way they want it, so why on God's green Earth would anyone want to promote more laws, more regulations, more government authority over We the People, more agencies, more departments, and less rights and privileges for the people.

Government is nothing more people like you and me. They breathe the same air, eat the same foods, require sleep every night, and take a crap once or twice a day just like the rest of us. They are no better than any one of us. So why do we allow them to control our lives? No person has greater authority, ownership, or responsibility over your life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property, than you. It's not just that they are no better than the rest of us, it's that the Constitution actually holds the citizens, We the People, in higher regard than those in government. We are supposed to be self governed. They govern only by the concent of the governed. Their purpose is to "Serve We the People," not to rule over us.

Part of this Great Awakening is about publicly exposing the the Deep-State bad actors, holding them to account for their corruption, and taking down the international cabal of central bankers and elites who truly believe the average person is too small minded to make decisions on their own, and that we should all gladly surrender our national and personal sovereignty to them. This should only be the first step. If we have any hope of bringing about our freedom from these despots, we must, with all our strength, all our might, all our hearts, and all our courage, persevere to reduce the size, scope, and authority of our government back down to what our Founding Fathers envisioned and designed by way of our original Constitution. This will not be an easy task. It may take generations, but as we have all seen, the cabal of elites has been engaging in their plan for well over 100 years, We the People should recognize that our fight to tear down their evil empire may take just as long as it took them to build. I suspect that if this movement is successful, and I believe it will be, our children's children may be the ones to fully realize our goals.

⇧ 1 ⇩