PDA

View Full Version : ‘Fake News’ Is Not a Fake Term



jimnyc
07-25-2018, 02:12 PM
---

‘Fake News’ Is Not a Fake Term
June 8, 2018

The left and Trump-opposing right are predictably annoyed at President Trump’s persistent description of the liberal media as “fake news.” Like it or not, the term as he uses it has merit.

Trump’s opponents hysterically claim he threatens the free press when he uses that term to describe them, just as they accuse him of other alleged abuses of constitutional power. In fact, unlike President Obama, Trump has governed within his constitutional authority. If his rhetoric scares them, then maybe they should find a safe space.

Before you accuse me of your favorite discussion stopper, “whataboutism” — supposed efforts to excuse Trump’s alleged misbehavior by citing equal or worse behavior from Obama, Hillary Clinton or other Democrats — let me repeat: I am arguing that Trump has not abused his executive powers, so I’m not seeking to excuse him at all.

As I’ve said before in response to Trump critics, not every criticism of Clinton and Obama is designed to take the heat off Trump. It is important to hold Democrats accountable, even for their past actions, and to showcase their hypocrisy.
I have often detailed President Obama’s misdeeds and the liberal media’s deliberate refusal to report on these and therefore won’t provide another comprehensive list here. But it is important for us all to understand that Democrats, as a rule, don’t much care about abuses of constitutional power — by the executive branch or by the legislative and judicial branches, not to mention the unaccountable administrative state — when they advance their leftist agenda.

Before you scoff at this, there’s a logical reason for this beyond their hyper-partisanship. They don’t care as much as we do about the Constitution — at least not as originally written. It’s undeniable from their history of supporting liberal judicial activism alone, wherein liberal judges bend, amend and upend constitutional provisions and principles when it suits their policy preferences. Liberals speciously accuse conservatives of activism when our constitutionalist judges merely reverse their lawless rulings, just as they accuse President Trump of abusing his executive authority when he dips his executive pen into White House ink to lawfully repeal Obama’s unlawful orders.

As just one example, President Obama repeatedly and publicly lamented his lack of executive authority to change immigration laws when he was trying to pressure Congress to pass the DREAM Act. But when his efforts failed, he dipped his executive pen into his executive ink and grossly abused his authority to advance his cause. And he did these types of things routinely — thwarting the will of the people by usurping the authority of Congress.

The liberal media, who hold themselves out as objective journalists, rarely, if ever, criticized Obama for such lawlessness. They are advocacy commentators disguised as journalists, and reporting on these abuses didn’t serve their agenda. Seems pretty fake to many of us. Yes, many commentators on the right are biased, as well, but they usually admit their biases rather than masquerade as objective observers.

Those who insist Trump is abusing his executive authority are the same ones who are hot and bothered about his “fake news” moniker for the liberal press, arguing that it somehow threatens the First Amendment. This is nonsense.

Trump doesn’t jeopardize anyone’s free speech rights by calling them fake. At the risk — again — of whataboutism charges, Presidents Obama and Bill Clinton were often in public fights with Fox News and conservative talk radio. Did they threaten free speech in such instances? Moreover, are critics suggesting that Trump has a constitutional or moral duty to remain silent in the face of endless criticism from the media — the media that are so preoccupied with discrediting him and undermining his agenda that they spend almost all their time on scandal-mongering and almost none on reporting substantive news?

The critics’ incessant and unsubstantiated claim that Trump is a threat to the Constitution is itself irresponsible. Most of the examples they cite have to do with his tough rhetoric rather than his actions. They just can’t stand him and have an irrational fear that he’s going to end the world, maybe even the universe.

Rest - https://www.davidlimbaugh.com/5556/fake-news-not-fake-term/

Abbey Marie
07-25-2018, 03:08 PM
“Seems pretty fake to us.” Indeed.

What is a threat to speech is all the protesting and boycotting whenever they don’t like what a Conservative says.

Noir
07-26-2018, 11:49 AM
“Seems pretty fake to us.” Indeed.

What is a threat to speech is all the protesting and boycotting whenever they don’t like what a Conservative says.

Protesting sure, plenty of opportunity to quell free speech there, but boycotting? Not so much.

Abbey Marie
07-26-2018, 01:14 PM
Protesting sure, plenty of opportunity to quell free speech there, but boycotting? Not so much.

Tou think so? Nothing stifles a business owner and thereby his employees from speaking like the threat of lost sales.

Noir
07-26-2018, 01:33 PM
Tou think so? Nothing stifles a business owner and thereby his employees from speaking like the threat of lost sales.

So if you chose not to buy from somewhere becuase of their stance on say a social issue, you think you would be stifling free speech?

Black Diamond
07-26-2018, 02:07 PM
So if you chose not to buy from somewhere becuase of their stance on say a social issue, you think you would be stifling free speech?
Say what you want. Do what you want. Don't complain when the bill comes.

Oh and welcome back.

Abbey Marie
07-26-2018, 03:43 PM
So if you chose not to buy from somewhere becuase of their stance on say a social issue, you think you would be stifling free speech?
Yes. Im sure you know how broadly the courts
define “speech”.

aboutime
07-26-2018, 03:52 PM
https://constitution.laws.com/the-supreme-court/speech


SUPREME COURT DEFINITION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH
Supreme Court Definition of Freedom of Speech

The application of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech
to minors was addressed in the landmark case heard before the Supreme Court of
Tinker v. Des Moines. The defendants in this case were a pair of siblings in high
school and junior high who were prevented by school policy from wearing black
armbands to express their opposition to the Vietnam War. This policy had not
existed before the students made their plans in 1965, but was created shortly
before the planned protest, possibly in anticipation of it, to mandate the
suspension of any student wearing an armband. When the Tinkers chose to go
ahead with their protest, they were accordingly suspended by the
administration. An appeal was lodged on their behalf by the Iowa Civil
Liberties Union, which claimed a First Amendment violation, and by 1968 the
case had reached the Supreme Court.

A Supreme
Court majority decided in favor of the Tinkers’ claim that their First Amendment
rights to freedom of speech had been violated, finding that the school
administration did not sufficiently establish that overall discipline would be
compromised by the Tinkers’ exercise of freedom of speech. Later Court cases
established limits to the freedoms granted to students.

Freedom of speech defined by the Supreme Court
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution declares, "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 ...
Freedom of speech in the United States - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States

Noir
07-26-2018, 05:10 PM
Yes. Im sure you know how broadly the courts
define “speech”.

So taking a policy which I know you to care about - if you were to discover that a local store you shop in was donating 50% if it’s annual profits to an abortion clinic, you would not chose to stop shopping there, because doing so would mean you were stifling free speech?