• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump threatening NBC?

Of course policy objectives are opinions. The candidate is expressing their opinion of what they consider to be the best policy for the nation, or least what they hope voters will believe it to be.
 
BillC said:
Of course policy objectives are opinions. The candidate is expressing their opinion of what they consider to be the best policy for the nation, or least what they hope voters will believe it to be.
Click to expand...

If they think it is the best option is not relevant. I don't care what they think of the policy. Stating they will enforce that policy is not an opinion.
 
newyorkguy said:
This is not really accurate. The OP is about the president of the United States threatening to close down TV networks.
Click to expand...

Sure, but that's irrelevant to Travis's post. He said NBC and Infowars are quite different. That's a statement about the two (broadly speaking) media outlets, not about who's clamoring to shut them down.

You're right that no one who's in a position of power has advocating shutting down Infowars, but the question is this: If shutting down NBC[1] because of what they say is a violation of the First, then isn't shutting down Infowars[2] because of what they say a violation of the First?

Assumption: the shut down comes from the government and "what they say" hasn't been a violation of the law despite First Amendment rights.

In any case, I agree with your main point. When the President advocates shutting down media sources he doesn't like, that's a hell of a lot more troubling than when some nobody on a nothing internet forum does the same.

[1] Not that it's clear how it could be done.
[2] Ditto.
 
phiwum said:
In any case, I agree with your main point. When the President advocates shutting down media sources he doesn't like, that's a hell of a lot more troubling than when some nobody on a nothing internet forum does the same
Click to expand...

And I disagree
 
BobTheCoward said:
How so? I don't think I set any goalposts previously.
Click to expand...
I asked about FCC licenses, not vague nonsense you pulled out of your ass.

ETA: perhaps non sequitur is more appropriate. Maybe just completely useless statement that indicates a lack of ability to grapple with the subject matter (which, according to precedent, is still technically attacking the argument).
 
Last edited:
I see a distinction between Wilson's and Trump's motivations. The former clamping down on the specific grumbling against the draft concerned a policy that was deemed of national importance in time of war. The latter's concern is only about his person.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
I asked about FCC licenses, not vague nonsense you pulled out of your ass.

ETA: perhaps non sequitur is more appropriate. Maybe just completely useless statement that indicates a lack of ability to grapple with the subject matter (which, according to precedent, is still technically attacking the argument).
Click to expand...

You mentioned fcc licenses. Of course Infowars does not have one. Because Infowars does not have one is what makes stopping them far more intrusive than pulling an fcc license.
 
BobTheCoward said:
You mentioned fcc licenses. Of course Infowars does not have one. Because Infowars does not have one is what makes stopping them far more intrusive than pulling an fcc license.
Click to expand...
Who's stopping them?

It's one thing to derail this into a false equivalence (2 of them, actually), worse still when one of them is utterly contrived woo-mongering.

ETA: for comparison, was Stormfront's shut down more or less insidious than threatening to pull NBC (affiliate) licenses?
 
Last edited:
Delphic Oracle said:
Who's stopping them?

It's one thing to derail this into a false equivalence (2 of them, actually), worse still when one of them is utterly contrived woo-mongering.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No one is stopping either Infowars or nbc.

Being shut down is way worse than someone wondering when someone will challenge fcc licenses for slander.

ETA depending on who is doing the shutting down. They could both be indifferent events.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
No one is stopping either Infowars or nbc.
Click to expand...
If a man pointing a gun at me threatens to shoot me and a naked quadriplegic with no visible weapon also makes the same threat, should I be equally alarmed in both instances?

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
 
Delphic Oracle said:
If a man pointing a gun at me threatens to shoot me and a naked quadriplegic with no visible weapon also makes the same threat, should I be equally alarmed in both instances?

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

We don't disagree on this point. The disagreement is about IF someone is pointing the gun.
 
BobTheCoward said:
We don't disagree on this point. The disagreement is about IF someone is pointing the gun.
Click to expand...
Then no comparison to non-empowered individuals saying nonsense needs be made in furthering that point.

Maybe that's why you're making no headway.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Then no comparison to non-empowered individuals saying nonsense needs be made in furthering that point.

Maybe that's why you're making no headway.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I don't ask to make headway. I just want to be on record disagreeing with the premise.
 
There's no instance I can recall of a president shutting down something comparable to Infowars. But there is an instance of a presidential candidate doing so.

In 1964 Barry Goldwater ran for president as the Republican candidate. He was far to the right on many issues, and many of his supporters were even farther to the right. He was opposed to civil rights laws and the civil rights movement, believed in a communist conspiracy to take over our country and the world, and suggested in an interview that if he were president he'd use nuclear weapons in Vietnam.

Many on the left feared Goldwater might actually be crazy enough to do it. And a couple of months before the 1964 presidential election, Fact magazine published an issue devoted to saying just that. The issue consisted of a 20-page article from publisher Ralph Ginzburg quoting many of the crazy things Goldwater had said over the years and a 42 page article quoting the opinions of more than 100 psychiatrists regarding Goldwater's mental condition (most of whom shared Fact's view that he was not of sound enough mind to be a good president).

Goldwater sued. In 1967 he won $1 in compensatory damages and $75,000 in punitive damages, which I believe was a key reason why Ginzburg stopped publishing Fact magazine later that year.

Fact magazine specialized in somewhat sensational articles on social and political issues of its time (with a little sex thrown in). Here's an online item I was able to locate which gives a little sense of what the articles were like. Fact was not nearly as into crazy conspiracy theories and dishonest misinformation as Infowars, but both strike me as similar in being sensationalistic outlets printing stories designed to attack people they dislike rather than news outlets printing news stories.

I was (and still am) a fan of Fact magazine, which printed a number of valuable articles the mainstream media of the time wouldn't touch, but I think Goldwater was within his rights to file suit against Fact and I do not think his action in doing so is equivalent to what Trump is threatening. If anyone (citizen, politician, or even president) were to take similar action against Infowars and as a result Infowars ceased to be I would not have a first amendment problem with that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom