Yes. Consider that some elements on the left have been calling for the same sort of censorship, but they have a very different idea of what media sources would be affected, and how.
That's a bit of the gamble, I think. Whether it's judge or judge-and-jury, just the sheer threat of real financial liability may be enough to temper the discourse that's been coming out of mainstream media more and more over the past couple of decades.
I'm wary of anything that puts any branch of the government in charge of determining what is true and what is false. Perhaps a Jury trial could work in these cases, but we'd all likely need to spend a lot more time performing jury duty.
That's why I advocated for civil penalties. Criminal, I think, protections absolutely stay in place as the 1st. I'm focused on the financial. That's really the part that makes media companies pay attention. Judge and jury ruling on monetary punishment, not incarceration or the like.
I have also been pondering and studying this; It's a conundrum to be sure. We have some vastly different perceptions of reality that we seem to be living in in our society, and those are mostly dictated by two (actually many many more than two, but two are dominant) viewpoints being expressed to us through our media. And it's caught in a feedback loop: Media source finds a viewpoint that sells to a certain group of consumers --> that group of consumers becomes more entrenched in that viewpoint --> media pushes even further toward that view to continue capturing their consumers --> loop.
Agree with all above.
I'd be okay if... media sites, just as people.. are held accountable and responsible for the content and speech they provide.. including the relative censorship/choosing what to post publicly and what to remove..... and are held responsible for the things they say/post.
This is a proven system, it is something recognized by the SCOTUS. None of that " we are not responsible, cannot be held accountable for whatever we say/post/allow to be posted"
If the government was doing the stripping of rights, I would be much more concerned. Private companies follow a profit model, and just like Newsmax and MSNBC, they will push whatever viewpoint and agenda pays them. The majority of the free market is rejecting MAGA, and I don't blame them. MAGA is not a great PR look for broad market appeal at this point.
Hahahaha. Ideas are protected, including lethal ideas and how to achieve them... else, we wouldn't have reams of books or data on the most efficient ways to execute people, or to prepare meat for cooking, and cannibalism storiesGreat
Now I gotta go pull that paintball/lighter fluid idea quick...
If you want truth go to a philosophy forum.
In media, that is not so. The majority of media is owned by a select few super corporations, and has always been on one particular side, against the rest. If there were actual free market, we would have two vastly different groups of media companies and the Associated Press would not be solely in the pockets of certain companies
Legally, according to SCOTUS rulings
OMG.....he's advocating for a violent overthrow of the overseers.
