Nick, your comment has nothing to do with this post, but I published it so we can see that MAGA cultists embrace Communist actions: Banning press coverage that the dictator doesn't like.
You MAGAs have the nerve to label Democrats as "Communists" when you're doing all the heavy lifting for them?
Or are you just too stupid to understand what you're cheering for?
Freedom of the press in the United States is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.
What It Means: No Government Censorship: The government cannot stop news outlets or creators from publishing lawful content, even if it is controversial or critical of leaders.
Protection from Retaliation: Officials cannot jail, fine, or punish journalists simply for reporting facts or uncomfortable truths.
Applies Broadly: Through the Fourteenth Amendment, this protection applies to federal, state, and local governments.
Modern Definition: It covers traditional newspapers, television, radio, digital media, independent bloggers, and podcasts.
You, NIck, disgust me and every American who cherishes the freedom of the press guaranteed by our laws.
You're cheering on a lawless Trump who has no respect for the Constitution and the rule of law.
Well look at this, look at what I found....... on March, 2021 CNN's Brian Stelter does a segment on if President Biden should remove Fox News from the White House Press Pool. Censorship for thee, just not for me...
Some social media commentary and political conversations have attempted to deflect from Trump's press bans by falsely claiming that Biden previously enforced similar removals against conservative media outlets like Fox News. However, there is no factual record of the Biden administration banning Fox News from the press pool, nor did Stelter make any such claim.
President Joe Biden did not ban Fox News from the White House press pool. Throughout the Biden administration, Fox News maintained its regular standing and participation in the five-network daily television pool rotation alongside ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC.
You don't know difference between a "what if" and an actual ban?
Even after donating billions, her real-time net worth fluctuates right around $27.6 billion to $33 billion based on daily market changes, almost strictly tracking Amazon's ticker
The problem is that unless you confiscate wealth directly, you can only tax it as "income" when she sells part of it. It's an "income tax" not a "wealth tax".
btw - $ donated to charity is "tax free". What makes you think that if all of her wealth had all been "taxed" ads a wealth tax, that the money would have gone to the people and not simply held by the government as a piece of owning the "means of production" (Amazon proper)?
For all those obscenely wealthy MAGAts like Musk et all who disdain safety nets, a reminder: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
tump and the rest of the obscenely wealthy oligarchs will not escape their karma. They could bvery well be reborn into a slug's existence in their next life.
It is always easy to tell someone who didn't earn the money how it should be spent. You are free to spend your money the way you choose so why is it obscene for others to spend theirs no matter how much they are worth.
Ms. Shaw, What trump did with banning certain news outlets has nothing to do with the first amendment. Free speech is about saying what you want but doesn't grant any access to anyone. He has never been known for having thick skin and he has the right to let anyone he chooses into a press conference. Making it illegal to print or say what they wanted would be against the 1A.
Legal experts note that while a journalist does not have an absolute right to enter any government property at any time, a designated press pool or briefing room functions under specific rules. Once the government opens a forum to the press, it cannot selectively ban specific reporters as a retaliatory measure for critical reporting without violating freedom of the press and equal protection principles.
Viewpoint Discrimination:
While the White House or government agencies have the authority to establish reasonable, content-neutral rules for press credentials (such as security clearances or space limitations), they generally cannot revoke credentials or ban specific journalists simply because the administration dislikes their coverage. This constitutes viewpoint discrimination, which is heavily restricted under the First Amendment.
Legal Precedent: During President Trump's first term, several legal challenges addressed this issue. For example, when the White House revoked CNN reporter Jim Acosta's press credentials in 2018, a federal judge ordered them restored, citing Fifth Amendment due process concerns regarding how the credential was revoked.
In another case (Karem v. Trump), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the arbitrary revocation of a journalist's pass, emphasizing that the government must follow explicit, clear, and non-arbitrary standards.
Shaw, Excellent explanation. Do you think any of it will sink into Skud's brain?
1st 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.
Apparently, skud, you would have sided with England against our Founding Fathers when it came to freedom of the press. Why is that? If this had been, say, former Presidents Obama or Biden, how would you have reacted?
And NO! Trump does NOT have the right to restrict some media while allowing others.
Every single American who knows the Constitution and our history should be wildly against what Trump and his courtiers are doing.
"...the founders were clear in emphasizing, 'That freedom of the press meant the freedom to say things that the government did not like.' As James Madison wrote, 'To the press alone, chequered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression."
Yeah skud, my point is Musk's obscene wealh, a trillion dollars plus, will never spend by him (or his family) in their lifetimes. Yet he (along with others of great wealth) was willing to create suffering for million by his DOGE activities. Most to benefit guess who? The wealthy. I'm not picking on just Mus as there are a very many others just like him. Including trump, the criminal president. People who escape paying a reasonable share if their vast wealth through loopholes the non wealty have no access to.
Taxes as a percentage of their vast wealth should exceed that of the average working man and woman who makes 25 to 30 dollars per hour and cam barely make ends meet. Some making even less.
The obscene wealthy are those who spend their energies figuring out how to pay the very least possible in taxes, and then blame the working man and woman for the economic problems the nation is facing because they're lazy and don't want to work. Which is bullshit and it always has been bullshit. It's the narative of the wealthy capitalist class and it's time the bullshit stops. Because of it doesn't the problems we face now will look like a holiday compared to what's to come.
I know you're stuck in the government bad, business good loop skud. But government is not bad and its job is to work for the people, helping to improve society for all. Business is neither bad or good. It simply prides goods or services. But when wealthy business and corporations use loopholes to escape taxes they should be paying, for the benefit of the country and its people that is indeed bad.
Hopefully when the democrats and democratic socialists take charge there is a swa change in how this country does business AND how it treats people. All people. Regardless color, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, sexual preference.
I know I've strayed off topic Shaw, I apologize for it. But I think skud's comment above demanded a response. If you think otherwise simply don't release my comment.
Ms. Shaw, Very good reply with one exception. trump did not deny any journalist he denied the network. He shouldn't be so intent on being in the news 22 hours a day but that goes against his narcissistic personality. He needs to do what biden did and stay out of sight and out of the news.
The journalists who were denied entry and had their press badges confiscated or deactivated at the White House following President Donald Trump's ban on their outlets were Betsy Klein of CNN, Akayla Gardner of MS NOW, and Cheyenne Haslett of Politico
Those were human being who WORKED for the cable news and a digital news organization.
LMAO! CNN is being forced to do their live shots from the SIDEWALK outside the White House after their press badge were CONFISCATED by Secret Service
ReplyDeleteNick,
DeleteWhy do you hate America?
Nick, your comment has nothing to do with this post, but I published it so we can see that MAGA cultists embrace Communist actions: Banning press coverage that the dictator doesn't like.
ReplyDeleteYou MAGAs have the nerve to label Democrats as "Communists" when you're doing all the heavy lifting for them?
Or are you just too stupid to understand what you're cheering for?
Freedom of the press in the United States is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.
What It Means: No Government Censorship: The government cannot stop news outlets or creators from publishing lawful content, even if it is controversial or critical of leaders.
Protection from Retaliation: Officials cannot jail, fine, or punish journalists simply for reporting facts or uncomfortable truths.
Applies Broadly: Through the Fourteenth Amendment, this protection applies to federal, state, and local governments.
Modern Definition: It covers traditional newspapers, television, radio, digital media, independent bloggers, and podcasts.
You, NIck, disgust me and every American who cherishes the freedom of the press guaranteed by our laws.
You're cheering on a lawless Trump who has no respect for the Constitution and the rule of law.
Shame, shame, shame on you and your ilki!
Shaw Kenawe your disgust goes both ways
DeleteI disgust you for wanting Trump to follow the Constitution and the 1st Amendment? That tracks with you and your MAGA weirdos. LOL!
DeleteFascist tactics used by authoritarians of all stripes to control and shutdown all criticism of their dictatorial regimes.
ReplyDeletetrump is an authoritarian wannabe dictator Fuhrer. It's why he admires Hitler and desires to emulate him in the present, in the USA.
Well look at this, look at what I found....... on March, 2021 CNN's Brian Stelter does a segment on if President Biden should remove Fox News from the White House Press Pool.
ReplyDeleteCensorship for thee, just not for me...
DeleteAnother LIE from MAGA.
Some social media commentary and political conversations have attempted to deflect from Trump's press bans by falsely claiming that Biden previously enforced similar removals against conservative media outlets like Fox News. However, there is no factual record of the Biden administration banning Fox News from the press pool, nor did Stelter make any such claim.
President Joe Biden did not ban Fox News from the White House press pool. Throughout the Biden administration, Fox News maintained its regular standing and participation in the five-network daily television pool rotation alongside ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC.
You don't know difference between a "what if" and an actual ban?
Trump ACTUALLY banned CNN, MSNOW, and Politico.
Biden NEVER banned Fox News.
Even after donating billions, her real-time net worth fluctuates right around $27.6 billion to $33 billion based on daily market changes, almost strictly tracking Amazon's ticker
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that unless you confiscate wealth directly, you can only tax it as "income" when she sells part of it. It's an "income tax" not a "wealth tax".
btw - $ donated to charity is "tax free". What makes you think that if all of her wealth had all been "taxed" ads a wealth tax, that the money would have gone to the people and not simply held by the government as a piece of owning the "means of production" (Amazon proper)?
ReplyDeleteThen why haven't the MAGA suck-up oligarchs and billionaires done what the former Mrs. Bezos has done?
Deletebecause they wouldn't waste their money on bogus Sojus and environmental causes that throw money at non problems.
DeleteA typical cynic’s answer.
DeleteFor all those obscenely wealthy MAGAts like Musk et all who disdain safety nets, a reminder: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
ReplyDeletetump and the rest of the obscenely wealthy oligarchs will not escape their karma. They could bvery well be reborn into a slug's existence in their next life.
It is always easy to tell someone who didn't earn the money how it should be spent. You are free to spend your money the way you choose so why is it obscene for others to spend theirs no matter how much they are worth.
ReplyDeleteMs. Shaw, What trump did with banning certain news outlets has nothing to do with the first amendment. Free speech is about saying what you want but doesn't grant any access to anyone. He has never been known for having thick skin and he has the right to let anyone he chooses into a press conference. Making it illegal to print or say what they wanted would be against the 1A.
Access to Public vs. Non-Public Forums:
DeleteLegal experts note that while a journalist does not have an absolute right to enter any government property at any time, a designated press pool or briefing room functions under specific rules. Once the government opens a forum to the press, it cannot selectively ban specific reporters as a retaliatory measure for critical reporting without violating freedom of the press and equal protection principles.
Viewpoint Discrimination:
While the White House or government agencies have the authority to establish reasonable, content-neutral rules for press credentials (such as security clearances or space limitations), they generally cannot revoke credentials or ban specific journalists simply because the administration dislikes their coverage. This constitutes viewpoint discrimination, which is heavily restricted under the First Amendment.
Legal Precedent: During President Trump's first term, several legal challenges addressed this issue. For example, when the White House revoked CNN reporter Jim Acosta's press credentials in 2018, a federal judge ordered them restored, citing Fifth Amendment due process concerns regarding how the credential was revoked.
In another case (Karem v. Trump), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the arbitrary revocation of a journalist's pass, emphasizing that the government must follow explicit, clear, and non-arbitrary standards.
Shaw,
DeleteExcellent explanation. Do you think any of it will sink into Skud's brain?
1st 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.
Apparently, skud, you would have sided with England against our Founding Fathers when it came to freedom of the press. Why is that? If this had been, say, former Presidents Obama or Biden, how would you have reacted?
DeleteAnd NO! Trump does NOT have the right to restrict some media while allowing others.
Every single American who knows the Constitution and our history should be wildly against what Trump and his courtiers are doing.
"...the founders were clear in emphasizing, 'That freedom of the press meant the freedom to say things that the government did not like.' As James Madison wrote, 'To the press alone, chequered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression."
Yeah skud, my point is Musk's obscene wealh, a trillion dollars plus, will never spend by him (or his family) in their lifetimes. Yet he (along with others of great wealth) was willing to create suffering for million by his DOGE activities. Most to benefit guess who? The wealthy. I'm not picking on just Mus as there are a very many others just like him. Including trump, the criminal president. People who escape paying a reasonable share if their vast wealth through loopholes the non wealty have no access to.
DeleteTaxes as a percentage of their vast wealth should exceed that of the average working man and woman who makes 25 to 30 dollars per hour and cam barely make ends meet. Some making even less.
The obscene wealthy are those who spend their energies figuring out how to pay the very least possible in taxes, and then blame the working man and woman for the economic problems the nation is facing because they're lazy and don't want to work. Which is bullshit and it always has been bullshit. It's the narative of the wealthy capitalist class and it's time the bullshit stops. Because of it doesn't the problems we face now will look like a holiday compared to what's to come.
I know you're stuck in the government bad, business good loop skud. But government is not bad and its job is to work for the people, helping to improve society for all. Business is neither bad or good. It simply prides goods or services. But when wealthy business and corporations use loopholes to escape taxes they should be paying, for the benefit of the country and its people that is indeed bad.
Hopefully when the democrats and democratic socialists take charge there is a swa change in how this country does business AND how it treats people. All people. Regardless color, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, sexual preference.
I know I've strayed off topic Shaw, I apologize for it. But I think skud's comment above demanded a response. If you think otherwise simply don't release my comment.
Ms. Shaw, Very good reply with one exception. trump did not deny any journalist he denied the network. He shouldn't be so intent on being in the news 22 hours a day but that goes against his narcissistic personality. He needs to do what biden did and stay out of sight and out of the news.
ReplyDeleteSorry. No.
DeleteThe journalists who were denied entry and had their press badges confiscated or deactivated at the White House following President Donald Trump's ban on their outlets were Betsy Klein of CNN, Akayla Gardner of MS NOW, and Cheyenne Haslett of Politico
Those were human being who WORKED for the cable news and a digital news organization.