The government will control what the media says . . .

They only want to ban lying.
You know, like when Stalin allowed free speech, as long as you didn’t slander the Soviet Union…by disagreeing with Stalin.

3 Likes

Man, they should have tried to get this passed earlier than since Donald “the press is truly the enemy of the people” Trump would surely have signed it into law.

Did you read what I posted? People can still say whatever they want. Websites and individuals can continue to lie as much as they do now. If you want to say things as a licensed news reporter, you’d be expected to follow guidelines to ensure there are actual facts to your reporting. That way, if people wanted to easily know if they were receiving information from a fact based source, they could look for someone who is a licensed news reporter.

That’s a main emphasis of media literacy. Knowing if a source is fact or opinion based.

And guess what that would mean? All licensed reporters toe the government line to avoid losing their license. Why would any sne person believe anything they said after that?

3 Likes

Yes they do. Paladins gonna parade, yo.

The other way is Britain’s brutal libel laws.

Pretty sure they don’t have a first amendment.

2 Likes

Can you imagine the reliance Democrats would have had in an official Trump licensed journalist?

1 Like

First amendment doesn’t ban private libel lawsuits. Egads, these ‘constitutionalists’…

from On Libel And The Law, U.S. And U.K. Go Separate Ways : Parallels : NPR

Then, the U.S. Congress acted on it. Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., spoke on the House floor about the bill, known at the federal level as the “Speech Act.”

“While we generally share a proud common law legal tradition with the United Kingdom,” Cohen said, “it is also true that the United Kingdom has laws that disfavor speech critical of public officials, contrary to our own constitutional tradition.”

The bill passed the House and the Senate unanimously, and President Obama signed it into law in 2010. It prevents U.S. courts from enforcing British libel rulings.

“We were quite shocked,” says Afia, “because it was sort of raised as a national threat to U.S. constitutional issues, which as an ally was quite shocking to hear.”

Seems congress disagrees with you. Unanimously.

It’s like you didn’t read that it’s a law. Revocable, replaceable.

No, seems you didn’t read it and find out congress reasoning for passing it. I mean it was even in the part I quoted.

Passing a law means that the 1a doesn’t confer the protection.

lol, too funny

Do CPAs toe the government line when it comes to accounting? How about architects, attorneys or barbers? Lots of professions require occupational licenses. That doesn’t mean they become an agent of the state. I’ll make sure to look out for all that liberal nonsense being pushed by licensed home inspectors and message therapists.

I believe you better go read the first amendment.

Oh. If only it were so simple.

Please though, by all means. Use your first amendment rights to threaten someone with imminent harm. March down to the police department and make a false report to express yourself. Write a book where your creativity compels you to say untrue things about people to hurt them.

First amendment doesn’t say no to any of those expressly. You should be in the clear.

1 Like

Anytime one begins a sentence with “ya know like when Stalin” one should probably go for a walk and get some fresh air.

You obviously don’t realize US libel and defamation laws are what they are for a reason. Reason being, a few hundred years of pushing up against the first amendment by the legislative and executive being adjudicated by our courts.

The best part of all of this is that people think this would be done under first amendment libel/defamation laws.

Good stuff!