[quote pid="1660851" dateline="1731281083"]
(11-10-2024, 07:14 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: So, who was practicing censorship in those cases? The Dems have a Constitutional right to not talk about anything they want to not talk about. So do the news agencies. So do large companies. All those entities have a Constitutional right to talk or not talk about anything. And, thankfully, the government does not have a right to make someone say or not say anything.
Now, if the Labor Department deliberately misstated the jobs numbers, that would be something, but that's not censorship. It might be fraud or something, but that's not censorship.
Now, if he aimed this idea of his at universities who take government money and then censor conservative speakers, I would be in favor of that. I don't think they should get government funds and then censor conservatives. But of course if you prevent them from censoring anyone, they'd have to let Hamas speak, or ISIS, or some group that wants kids to have sex change operations. No censorship means no censorship. You can't do it halfway. It's either free speech or it's not.
Shouldn’t the news agencies report the news? You don’t think the numbers used to tout how well the country is doing being so much different than they actually are is news? Cuz if you’re not reporting news that is bad for one particular side, you’re no longer a news source but a mouth piece of a political party.
[/quote]
Go back and listen again. Fat Donald as usual cleverly talks about censorship but he slips in what he really wants. Listen for:
Federal agencies are banned from “categorizing” information. For example, if news agencies ask a Federal agency if something is true or not they can not comment.
And most importantly his fourth point.
Fourth:
We need to break up the industry that tackles “myths and disinformation.”
What he is really wanting to do is to censor information that he doesn’t like!
(11-10-2024, 07:24 PM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: (11-10-2024, 06:06 PM)TDOSS Wrote: I have a concept of the intention to do that.
He’s definitely being burdened by that has-been.
(11-10-2024, 07:14 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: So, who was practicing censorship in those cases? The Dems have a Constitutional right to not talk about anything they want to not talk about. So do the news agencies. So do large companies. All those entities have a Constitutional right to talk or not talk about anything. And, thankfully, the government does not have a right to make someone say or not say anything.
Now, if the Labor Department deliberately misstated the jobs numbers, that would be something, but that's not censorship. It might be fraud or something, but that's not censorship.
Now, if he aimed this idea of his at universities who take government money and then censor conservative speakers, I would be in favor of that. I don't think they should get government funds and then censor conservatives. But of course if you prevent them from censoring anyone, they'd have to let Hamas speak, or ISIS, or some group that wants kids to have sex change operations. No censorship means no censorship. You can't do it halfway. It's either free speech or it's not.
Shouldn’t the news agencies report the news? You don’t think the numbers used to tout how well the country is doing being so much different than they actually are is news? Cuz if you’re not reporting news that is bad for one particular side, you’re no longer a news source but a mouth piece of a political party.
Go back and listen again. Trump as usual cleverly talks about censorship but he slips in what he really wants. Listen for:
Federal agencies are banned from “categorizing” information. For example, if news agencies ask a Federal agency if something is true or not they can not comment.
And most importantly his fourth point.
Fourth:
We need to break up the industry that tackles “myths and disinformation.”
What he is really wanting to do is to censor information that he doesn’t like!
