Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire I Wish The 1st Amendment Required Truth From The Free Press

Imagine if the press were constitutionally required to be as truthful as possible, to benefit from the right to freely present their output.
A Few Of The Many Intentionally Dishonest Acts By The Press
Example 1: One of the TV press outlets showed film of a large gathering of people who were openly carrying long guns and handguns.
This outlet described the gathering to include, that there was information that the gathering was rooted in the KKK, and the KKK working
toward becoming more active in recruitment. Within a couple of days FOX news showed the RAW footage. That raw footage showed
that black people were participating in the gathering, happily interacting with the whites, and everyone in general. We all know that
happy interaction between assorted races, including black people, and everyone is openly armed with guns, would NOT happen at a
KKK gathering.
Example 2: In January 2017 the FBI publicly released a statement reporting that NO evidence was found to support the claims that
the TRUMP campaign had engaged in collusion with Russia. YET, right through the November 2020 election day, (and even beyond)
the press intentionally, continuously put out stories that were clearly indicating that the unsubstantiated lie, was indeed truth, and fully
substantiated. This behavior was purely driven by a political agenda.
Example 3: Decades ago, one of the press outfits filmed a roll-over exhibition of a Suzuki Samurai mini-jeep. Suzuki sued, stating that
what had been presented featured a tampered with vehicle. Suzuki proved to the court that their vehicle would NOT roll over under the
circumstances that the lying press outfit had filmed. The press outfit was forced to admit that they added strategically placed weight in
the Samurai jeep to destabilize it for the filming.

The government does a lot of things that are unconstitutional. Just because the law requires it doesn’t mean they’ll do it.

Being truthful is part of the problem. The other part is what they choose not to cover, because it does not fit their political agenda.

Your idea would require that a govt agency determine what the truth is, and then enforce adherence to it.

Sorry, I'm gonna disagree with that idea.

Free speach means what it says. The courts need to deal with dishonesty.

Who gets to decide what constitutes "truth" Faucci?

Contemporary media and news enterprises are massive profit driven corporations. Enshrining these businesses as pillars of democracy is mistake enabled by virtues the Cold War. They are not the Free Press the Founders elevated as fundamental to our Republic.

The straightest path to getting the media to be more truthful is to deny the franchise to ethnic Jews.

Having a government agency being the arbiter of ‘truth’ for the media may be the dumbest idea I have seen posted on this site.

I was proud to witness the evolution of the Free Press during all those BLM and Antifa riots the last 2 years.

It brought a tear to my eye watching as all those brave, independent, blogging journalists, badged with scotch tape and hand written PRESS with a Sharpie giving us, the viewer, the truths on what was happening across our once great land.

Don’t film Antifa. Don’t film people burning and looting. Don’t film any assaults on police...Only film police aggression after the fact.

Fûck!

🦫

What if consumer protection law like MA Ch 93 were used to ensure that corporate media enterprises do not engage in "unfair or deceptive" practices?

Section 230 conflates the notion of corporate media enterprise with the "Free Press".

Independent journalists like Brendan Gutenschwager are exactly who brought us the truth from those events.

He wasn’t the norm.

Most had the progressive, aggressive, liberal agenda for pursuing an angle of propaganda for the left.

🦫

Word!




Just like the Prayer in School crowd.

Think it through.


Who's prayer, who's truth?

Exactly.

If a kid can't go to school wearing a bomb vest, isn't that suppression of religious beliefs?

The problem we have isn't so a free speech issue as it is an engaged citizenry. We do have a big problem with a media hat has been taken over by democrats but We allowed it to happen. Too many people like to listen to and watch the pretty empty headed bigots lying their collective asses off. It would be nice if we could somehow separate actual news from opinion but it'll never happen. It is perfectly legal for candidates to lie. Too many people actually believe the lies their favorite candidate dreams up against his opponent.

You get it, unfortunately most people are goy retards.

Why bother having a First Amendment.

Independent journalists were the anomaly that gave the public a view into those events. Independent journalist are absolutely vital and have been a godsend. They are the Free Press the Founders were talking about. So are all the writers and journalists who've been de-platformed, fired from or lost their contracts with big papers, kicked off of Twitter, taken off the air, and demonetized by YouTube. The majority of who have all moved to Substack.

Think about it. We already have untruth being suppressed and not allowed to be reported and you have Politifact and Snopes doing fact checking and ferreting out the lies.

The big problem seems to be that they label truth a lie. And a lie the truth.

Your idea is really bad. We already are under that system.