There was a chilling moment on CNN this week in an interview of former FBI Director James Comey, by CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. In the middle of the interview, Amanpour asked Comey if he had wished the FBI “shut down” President Donald Trump’s “hate speech” during the 2016 presidential election. Next week I will be debating an advocate of such speech codes and the criminalization of hate speech at Rice University. This was a particularly revealing moment as one of the top personalities at CNN pressed the former head of the FBI on why he did not simply shutdown Trump’s speeches as hate speech. Amanpour has been an outspoken critic of Trump but this reflect more of the diminishing European view of free speech.
We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in France (here and here and here and here and here and here and here) and England ( here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). There are encroachments appearing in the United States, particularly on college campuses. Notably, the media celebrated the speech of French President Emmanuel Macron before Congress where he called on the United States to follow the model of Europe on hate speech.
Amanpour pressed Comey on why he did not simply send agents to shut up Trump: “Of course, ‘Lock Her Up’ was a feature of the 2016 Trump campaign. Do you in, retrospect, wish that people like yourself, the head of the FBI, the people in charge of law and order had shut down that language, that it was dangerous potentially, that it could have created violence, that it kind of is hate speech? Should that have been allowed?”
While I have been critical of Comey’s conduct during and after his stint as FBI Director, I was not surprised by his immediate and correct statement of the law: “That’s not a role for government to play. The beauty of this country is people can say what they want even if it’s misleading and it’s demagoguery.” Amanpour’s question succeeded in showing not just an unbridled bias against Trump but an unnerving view of free speech. In the United States, we are not “allowed” to speak by the discretion of the government.
It was an embarrassing moment for CNN which has been criticized for his relentless criticism of Trump and the airing of legal experts who spent the last two years assuring viewers that criminal acts by Trump were already well established. What was ironic is that CNN has (correctly) aired criticism of Trump who has called for new legal measures to punish those who voice what he calls “fake news.” At least Trump has been largely calling for civil not criminal penalties. Here was one of CNN top figures treating the criminalization of speech as a discretionary power of the government.
CNN has done nothing to correct the record that Amanpour’s chillingly anti-free speech message was not shared by the network.
The question was a disgrace for any news organization. CNN constantly calls for the protection of the free press with its promotion series “This is an apple.” Yes, that is an apple and Amanpour’s comments are anti-free speech. Perhaps CNN can call that fact for what it is.
WAIT, WE’RE SUPPOSED TO DEFEND..
TRUMP’S RIGHT TO TRAMPLE HILLARY’S RIGHTS?
Amanpour’s question to James Comey was ignorant in the sense that Comey had no specific criminal charge to act on. But to suggest that Amanpour ‘disgraced’ herself, or revealed some ominous bias on CNN’s part, is a disturbing overreaction.
Turley’s defense of ‘free speech’ here completely ignores the fact that Hillary had not been indicted on any charges, let alone convicted. And the fact that Turley ignores this is a shocking reflection on him. Indeed one could say that Turley ‘disgraces’ himself by overlooking this obvious fact.
In the right-wing media bubble, Hillary is so obviously guilty of ‘whatever’ that no one should have to defend Trump’s use of incendiary language.
But ‘outside’ the right-wing media bubble, Trump was an irresponsible demagogue taking presidential campaigns to a Banana Republic-like level. Curiously Trump supporters now wonder why their man is so intensely hated. ..Go figure..!
You see, in the right-wing media bubble Hillary is so guilty of ‘whatever’ we shouldn’t even have to discuss what it is she’s guilty of. The question of Hillary’s guilt shouldn’t even matter! Obviously the woman is an authentic 21st Century witch who needs to be burned at the stake as soon as possible. And anyone who doesn’t think so should be purged from society.
One has to wonder if Professor Turley has been dumbed-down sufficiently by right-wing media that he is even more clueless than Ms Amanpour.
Call the waahmbulence. Between you and Anon, we’re all getting a view of the entitlement mentality of partisan Democrats.
Tabby, ‘partisan Democrats’? Like there are ‘good Democrats’ who recognize Trump’s obvious ‘patriotism’..?? Not in my party.
there are for example honest liberals who didn’t buy the Russia collusion hoax and I have linked them here often and you studiously ignore them
there are also liberals who respect the first amendment but you said yesterday you want to pass a law to force the Catholic Church to redraw its policies according to your tastes. Hence, you reject the separation of church and state doctrine.
Honest liberals do exist. Do you want to be part of that crowd or just an internet soldier for the Hillary strike that now Kamala is your designed leader. Please do tell.
Where did you find them, Diogenes?
How many laterns did you use up in that search?
Kurtz, it appears you wish to promote this fantasy that ‘honest liberals’ exist who realize Trump is actually a ‘responsible leader’.
These ‘honest liberals’ are friends of the ‘good Blacks’ who are deeply grateful to Trump for leading them off the ‘Democratic plantation’.
These, and other Republican fantasies, are presented each day Fox News. Consult your local cable listings.
putting words in other people’s mouths which they did not say, is a bad habit peter. stop.
“putting words in other people’s mouths which they did not say, is a bad habit peter. stop.”
Kurtz, don’t blame Peter. He learned that habit from the Washington Post.
Good one, Lily 🙇♀️
Curiously Trump supporters now wonder why their man is so intensely hated. ..Go figure..!
Not at all. I’m fascinated at how much rent-free cerebral real estate he occupies in Leftyland; so much that they’ve gone out of their collective minds trying to find an escape in some really bizarre territory. Protect illegals, open borders, murder babies that survive abortions, illegals to vote, voting age at 16, Social security benefits for illegals, socialism, Green New Deal, No electoral college, no presumption of innocence. Lawfare. Gender dysphoria. And on, and on.
More popcorn please.
Olly, if you ever break out of the right-wing media bubble, you will discover things are more complicated than you’ve been told.
This from the man who fancies a commission of Democratic Party lawfare artists on federal salaries should be dictating the contents of formation programs to Catholic dioceses.
Ah, yes, it was so incorrect of me to suggest a simple solution to prevent an epidemic of child abuse. But Libertarian fundamentalists like Tabby would have us believe the Catholic church should literally go to hell before the public has any input whatsoever.
Ah, yes, it was so incorrect of me to suggest a simple solution to prevent an epidemic of child abuse.
1. It’s not simple.
2. It’s not a solution.
3. The premise of your remarks was that the Catholic Church should hold to your convictions. Which is rather incongruent with notions of free association. But not surprising arriving from you.
Tabby, if you think celibacy is normal and that normal people should be okay with celibacy, that betrays a certain cluelessness on your part.
And if you think women have no right to hold leadership positions in one the world’s biggest institutions, that also betrays a certain cluelessness on your part.
P. Hill, you have no clue of what you are talking about. It is amazing how you think the church needs to water down it’s policies to suit you.
Why don’t you focus on your govt. run monopoly public school epidemic of child abuse?
Jim, we’re supposed to believe that the epidemic of child abuse by priests is just some passing fluke? Like sooner or later all the bad priests will be rooted out? No need to change policies?
If these are your beliefs, I seriously question your ability to analyze daily news events.
Jim, we’re supposed to believe that the epidemic of child abuse by priests is just some passing fluke?
Social institutions are given to cycles of corruption and reform, Peter. There’s a reason prosecutors in Boston attempting to put John Geoghan behind bars picked a case that turned on the uncorroborated account of a single witness who admitted he could recall no secondary details (e.g. what year the incident happened or how old he was; the incident he related was that Geoghan had squeezed his butt-cheek at a swimming pool). They picked that case because it was the only case they had which wasn’t time-barred. They had not a single complaint they could use against a Boston priest which referred to an event in the previous 10 years. And with the case they did pick, they relied on the converse of jury nullification.
Feel free to root out all the baddies in the Shaolin Temple too Peter. They’re celibate too.
Oh wait, the Communists only let them operate with a license anyhow. Same thing the Catholic Church. Hey, you might like it there!
“Jim, we’re supposed to believe that the epidemic of child abuse by priests is just some passing fluke?”
Peter, are we supposed to believe that the epidemic of killing (over one-hundred million people outside of war in the 20th century) by leftists is just some passing fluke?
“Tabby, if you think celibacy is normal and that normal people should be okay with celibacy, that betrays a certain cluelessness on your part. ”
Is it normal for males to be monogamist? Probably not. So let’s go down that path. Should males be able to take anyone by physical strength? Wouldn’t that be natures normal?
And if you think women have no right to hold leadership positions in one the world’s biggest institutions, that also betrays a certain cluelessness on your part.
Strange as it may seem to you, Peter, not everyone is inclined to run their organization according to the tropes made use of in Ms. magazine, ca. 1972, nor to insist that freely associating persons allocate functions in their organization according to Peter Shill’s born-yesterday precepts. (Or to speak of vocations in the language of individual rights and entitlements0.
Tabby, if you think celibacy is normal and that normal people should be okay with celibacy, that betrays a certain cluelessness on your part.
Peter, there were about 200,000 people in my birth cohort who have never married. Since the year 2000, marriage rates have declined such that one can predict about 30% of those born ca. 1992 will never marry.
That aside, Peter, the religious life is a vocation. It’s not for everyone and it’s not meant to be. So many people in your subculture think like juveniles they cannot comprehend normal adults who understand trade-offs and commitments.
Tabby, stop for a moment and think: “What kind of man would be drawn to a profession requiring a vow of celibacy?”
Chances are that man is sexually conflicted. It happens to some people and the answer is therapy. These men need help and guidance. But the Catholic church completely ignores these realities. For that reason the church has had a decades-long pattern of sexual abuse by men who never should have been trusted around children.
Furthermore, the Catholic leadership has been completely incapable of coming to grips with this epidemic. It would seem the issue is so widespread that no one in the church wants to open a discussion that could take could go in other directions. For this reason, abusive priests have been transferred around to unsuspecting parishes. How sad!!
And here your are, Tabby, pretending this issue is really no big deal. At the same time you’re pretending that anyone concerned about this issue is somehow a troublemaker who wants to ‘trample religious rights’.
So priests devoted to God need therapy, but a boy who thinks he is a girl or visa versa doesn’t.
Tabby, stop for a moment and think: “What kind of man would be drawn to a profession requiring a vow of celibacy?”
Someone who cared more about otherworldly matters than he did about sex.
What is it with you? You’ve spent so much time blowing guys in public toilets that you’ve lost track of the rest of the world?
Tabby, if we’re going to stoop to that level, I have long suspected that your snooty, dismissive putdowns are indicative of a certain type who is somewhat less than masculine.
“Rest of the world” … or did you mean rest of the other worldly.
Where is that exactly?
Are there any limits on this board?
Tabby, if we’re going to stoop to that level, I have long suspected that your snooty, dismissive putdowns are indicative of a certain type who is somewhat less than masculine.
Evasion and deflection noted.
Junior high level put down noted.
Inability to distinguish between a rhetorical question and a put-down noted.
I think more likely a flashback to the old days.
Jim, I think so-called TG’s need serious therapy. And I don’t agree with this movement to recognize their ‘real gender’ until they have had serious therapy.
“Ratings for CNN and MSNBC continuing to crash, as viewers migrate to Fox News prime time”
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/04/ratings_for_cnn_and_msnbc_continuing_to_crash_as_viewers_migrate_to_fox_news_prime_time_.html
“Karma has come calling at CNN and MSNBC, the avid broadcast-promoters of the Russia hoax. Viewers who deserted the conspiracy theorists after it turned out that Mueller reported no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia are staying away and — even worse! — migrating to Fox News.”
Peter Shill, Diane, Natacha, et al
Send mo Bling Benjamins to CNN
😜
Uh, no.
“….Fox News Channel once again came out on top of the cable news ratings for the first quarter, but not without stiff competition from MSNBC and Rachel Maddow in particular.
In the primetime 8-11 p.m. slot, Fox News averaged 2.4 million total viewers (down 1% from the year-ago quarter), with including 421,000 in the key 25-54 demo, while MSNBC averaged 1.9 million total viewers (up 3% from 2018) and 333,000 in the 25-54 bracket.
MSNBC struck back in the 25-54 demo for individual shows, with Maddow beating out Sean Hannity’s FNC program in Q1. Maddow drew 549,000 viewers in the key news demo on average, compared to Hannity’s 547,000 and Tucker Carlson’s 532,000….”
https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/cable-news-q1-ratings-fox-news-msnbc-1203178758/
Forcing the Catholic Church to end its thousand year old institution of priestly celibacy is a radical Jacobin idea that would be unconstitutional and wrong. It would also NOT solve child abuse. Every day there are victims of child abuse who are abused by their own non-celibate, “heterosexual” and “homosexual” parents.
Child abuse and child sexual abuse really is not a function of religious celibacy or chastity or the lack of it. It is just abuse
Okey dokey. You should have no difficulty identifying which of these Democrat positions the right-wing media bubble has reported is false.
Protect illegals, open borders, murder babies that survive abortions, illegals to vote, voting age at 16, Social security benefits for illegals, socialism, Green New Deal, No electoral college, no presumption of innocence. Lawfare. Gender dysphoria.
At least half of those are utterly false, Olly. But I honestly don’t have the time to go over each of them. And I’m sure you calculated that in advance.
Every last one is true.
“But I honestly don’t have the time to go over each of them.”
All you have to do Peter is pick out the one you believe to be most false. That doesn’t require the time to respond to all the points Olly made. You won’t because you can’t. You never can.
Gosh, how in the world could I or anyone else here ever have calculated P. Hill would not have the time to be honest? 🙂
As you have asked many times of me ‘why do you bother to respond’ to such jerks? Now it is my time to ask you.
You are both knowledgeable and intelligent. Peter and Anon have little to none of those traits. Don’t you find it frustrating to have a dialog with them as they are hit and run drivers spreading ignorance in their wake?
You’re right Allan. I’m not sure frustrating is the right word, but I would be lying if I didn’t wonder how much paint they ingested as children.
At least half of those are utterly false, Olly. But I honestly don’t have the time to go over each of them. And I’m sure you calculated that in advance.
I calculated you would prove your right-wing media bubble assertion to be a bald-faced lie. Everyone of those Democrat positions is a proven fact. Perhaps you will claim they are taken out of context. They are what the context boils down to.
You say you don’t have the time? Bullsh!t! You’ve got the time to continue writing other posts. Now I will accept being proven wrong. But you are going to have to bring more than P. Hill says.
Olly, remember early in Trump’s admin, progs cried from the rooftops in unison: “HE’S DESTROYING OUR INSTITUTIONZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
They’ve cried a lot about things his administration was supposedly doing, beginning before he was even sworn in. Now that is one powerful President.
it is shockingly ignorant statement from a lady who has covered SCOTUS on NPR for years. i am amazed but not surprised. They have grown bold and need a severe spanking.
Certain social problems which can’t be freely debated and negotiated, leave a situation where opposing sides can only resolve conflicts with violence. Is that what she wants? Are they really ready for this?
We better be, because that is where they are taking it.
This P. Hill is hilariously stupid. He(it) thinks that someone’s right to declare that Hillary needs to be prosecuted and thrown in jail depends on Hillary having already been indicted and thrown in jail. What an idiot. Your disingenuous arguments are pure sophistry.
Correct-the-Record isn’t sending Turley their best.
Yes, whenever I hear speech I don’t like I call the FBI. There is nothing fascist about that at all. If I don’t approve of the speech then law enforcement needs to stop it! I hope the SWAT team will arrive if the FBI is unavailable. Sincerely, war promoter and free speech “advocate”, CNN!
P.S. When Hillary Clinton called others “deplorable” that was not hate speech. I agreed with what she said and I don’t like poor people so that speech is perfectly acceptable!
I would have replied back to her, “There is no such thing as hate speech”.
There is such a thing as ‘hate speech’. It’s just that it cannot be defined securely enough to be proscribed in the penal code, that legal proscription opens the door to all sorts of abuses by one faction contra another, that constitutional government presupposes few closed questions, and that nothing Trump said constituted incitement to riot or criminal solicitation.
(One might have also said that whatever ‘hate speech’ is, it certainly isn’t ‘remarks considered outre in Christiane Amanpour’s social circle’).
I hate those who would presume to throw me in prison for expressing my lawful ideas. They hate me, and I hate them. Very easily I do!
Hate has a place in the human heart like other emotions.
It is expored in the greatest work of American literature, Melville’s Moby Dick”
“To the last I grapple with thee; from Hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee. ”
Hate is a very American feeling. We are deeply capable of feeling and acting on hate. And yes hate too has a place in the cosmos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYPsoxpt0BU
hear a good rendition of the memorable words from a Mexican actor Ricardo Montalban, playing an alien, not quite as good as Gregory Peck but youtube keeps scrubbing that one for copyright
How can something that can not be defined exist? What would then be an example of hate speech in the U.S.?
Pick a public utterance by Theodore Bilbo. The trouble is differentiating cases and defining boundary conditions.
It’s another indication, in case we needed one, that the press corps is chock-a-block with mediocre people.
I don’t watch her so I can’t reply.
Thanks for sharing.
Dear America, Donald Trump is your Karma for all the genocides that they have created around the world, Vietnam, Iraq, Yemen, Lybia, Syria, America Latina, Ukraine, Sudan. What goes around comes around. You cannot destroy the rest of the world, killing children, sending your army to war for fairytales and don’t expect the same tragedy on your own land, now in the White House! None of the countries that you invaded in History were a threat to yours. But we all know why you don’t want to invade Saudi Arabia who did 9/11 to you, so now Trump is killing his own people, deal with it America! MAGA are you great yet?! Signed The World!
Dandoha:
Don’t know where you are from, but you don’t sound American.
But here you can say what you just said (stupid as it is).
Try saying something like that (for example) about Iran in Iran, and you would quickly discover the limits of your mortality.
Try focusing on the good in America rather than the bad; life might look brighter to you.
(Dandoha)
Dear World,
You’re alot shorter in person.
1. You’re a witless fantasist.
2. Trump is beneficial for us, not a punishment.
Her only claim to fame was being a semen receptacle for John John Kennedy.
??
She’s worked in broadcasting for 35 years. The two of them lived in Rhode Island during the period running from 1979 to 1983. Lots of men have college girlfriends.
Per Collier / Horowitz, Jackie O and the Shrivers withdrew their children from the (Kennedy) family circle. Supposedly, his best bud among his collaterals was his maternal-side cousin, Anthony Radziwill.
The man’s only public embarrassment during the period running from 1979 until his death was his trouble passing the New York bar exam.
a test case must be taken to the supreme court challenging the constitutionality of the hate speech legislation. How that legislation was passed is another example of the knee-jerk legislation of the left attempting to pacify one of their multiple grievance groups without regard to the constitution. I am surprised that some challenge has not happened but the time for it is now.
I didn’t know that there was any real hate speech legislation passed in America.
I am aware of hate crime enhancements, where a regular crime’s punishment is statutorily enhanced if discriminatory ‘hate’ is also proven as a motivation.
But straight up hate speech statutes? I am not aware of that in America.
Amanpour is sadly so unaware of what it means to be an america that i almost feel sorry for her-almost. The “what about trump”comments are just as pathetic. I frankly wish he would just stfu about 80% of the time-and i voted for him. JT correctly observes the trends across the west limiting free speech across the west are disturbing. For me, if i agree with everything i read and hear, i need to expand my sources.
Unlike Europe, we have the 1st amendment. Maybe JT has heard of it.
He surely has, hence this article.
If Senate Democrats had been successful they would have gutted the First Amendment. On 9/11/14 – a date which should forever live in infamy – Senate Democrats thoroughly disgraced themselves by UNANIMOUSLY voting to repeal and replace the First Amendment.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/09/the-democrats-escalate-their-war-on-free-speech.php
I believe John Hinderaker was correct that the purpose of the disgraceful vote five years ago was not to actually repeal the First Amendment. Harry Reid knew the vote would be unsuccessful when he scheduled it. The purpose was to move the “Overton Window”. To acclimate the public to the idea that there is a need for government to claim for itself the power to criminalize speech it does not like. To convince us to surrender even more liberty to these wannabe tyrants. All for our own good, of course.
“The alibi of the tyrant is always the welfare of the people” – Albert Camus
But she’s not an American. She’s British of Iranian ancestry.
I wont hold her stupid remark against the British or the Iranians. But what she said was very stupid. Sad when a smart lady says something so foolish
Kurtz, if she makes such stupid remarks how can you call her smart?
It’s unfortunate that Charlie Rose, who had a worthwhile PBS show and was a pretty good interviewer, was sidelined.
Amonpooh seems to be an attempt to fill in the void created by Rose’s departure.
I don’t that she’s very good as an interviewer; maybe she was OK as a reporter.
She appears to have carved out a role as a commentator/advocate rather than a legimate journalist or interviewer.
Amanpour made her name as reporter in the field, and she was very good at that. Peter principle?
Good observation:
“Dr. Peter summed up the Peter Principle with a twist on the old adage that “the cream rises to the top” by stating that “the cream rises until it sours.” In other words, excellent employee performance is inevitably promoted to the point where the employee’s performance is no longer excellent, or even satisfactory. According to the Peter Principle, competence is rewarded with the promotion because competence, in the form of employee output, is noticeable and therefore usually recognized. However, once an employee reaches a position in which they are incompetent, they are no longer evaluated based on their output but instead are evaluated on input factors, such as arriving at work on time and having a good attitude. Dr. Peter further argued that employees tend to remain in positions for which they are incompetent because mere incompetence is rarely sufficient to cause the employee to be fired from the position. Ordinarily, only extreme incompetence causes dismissal.”
No worries. By the time the lawyer for the Covington kids gets through with them there may not be a CNN. As for “fake news” — perhaps the professor could suggest a different name for the sort of crap that CNN and MSNBC have been broadcasting for the last 2+ years.
How about freedom of the press instead of fake news?
Yes, freedom of the press, even IF it is fake news.
Notwithstanding sheer defamation, the policing should be done by popular assessment and consumer value, not by any civil or criminal law.
JT sure writes some BS columns on nothing burgers. Amanpour has the same right to be an idiot – until she gets fired -as do any number of jerks and idiots on Fox and talk radio. If this event was worth a column, get busy JT, this happens hundreds of times on our free airwaves. When someone in the government – like the president – says crap like this it’s newsworthy.
This isn’t.
You want text on your interests, get your own blog.
And it is a matter of interest that a princess of the broadcast media is among those who think public discussion should be controlled by the people in her social circle. It’s impossible to imagine Robert MacNeill or Ted Koppel giving voice to such a sentiment.
Yes, as it would Fareed Zacharia or Jake Tapper, but Tucker or Jeannie or Rush or Hannity, etc. – give me a break.
You might try sobering up so your posts are coherent.
Continuous blabbering idiocy.
Ted Koppel wrote a whole book on EMP threats to the American electrical infrastructure and economy. A serious issue that could literally throw us back to the stone age given a sufficient terror attack or a random solar coronal mass ejection. But he was ignored, it was not sexy enough for the liberals.
TRUMP hail our Great Leader and POTUS wisely took up the issue with a recent xo.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-first-president-to-protect-electric-grid-from-emp-cyberattacks
Btw, the correct answer to that question was not Comey’s measured reply. It was: “That’s a strange question to ask in America. Maybe you never took basic civics but hearing things we may not like comes with your citizenship badge. We severely constrain government control on what people say and think. Have done so since 1787. I would hope a purported senior journalist would understand the need for open debate to weigh ideas but then again this is standardless cable news. Next question, please.”
Christiane Amanpour is listed in her wikipedia article as a “British-Iranian” journalist, and this may be where her particular difficulty lies – in an upbringing with no deference to individual rights of freedom of expression.
But what excuse can Maggie Haberman, Rachel Maddow and Don Lemon offer? They and other would-be censors of other people’s speech presumably were made to take Civic class in high school.
If only!
I agree with you. The optimal response would have been to slice her to ribbons on the air.
Matt Taibbi’s online series “Hate, Inc.” shines an unforgiving light on the real, effective center of hate speech in America today – journalism.
Not just, or even primarily editorial commentary such as that of Rachel Maddow, MSNBC, Tucker Carlson or Fox News, but so-called “mainstream journalists” such as Christiane Amanpour and her CNN colleagues taking hateful and dangerous ideas such as political suppression of free speech into the mainstream.
The Christiane Amanpours and Maggie Habermans of journalism like freedom of speech just fine – for themselves. When people who disagree with them, especially Trump supporters (be they debate audiences or merely high school kids on a field trip) use that same right, the hate Taibbi speaks of comes out disguised as “responsible journalism”.
When CNN, Time, the Washington Post and the New York Times go beyond political activism to advocating controls on the free speech of others with an absence of reflection, they’ve opened the door to a dark age in America when no one’s right to free speech is safe.
It’s not just that CNN is wallowing in its own cesspit of journalistic malpractice, but that practically no one else in journalism is criticizing them. Leftist hate speech and advocacy of denial of freedom of speech for others is now accepted practice in “mainstream journalism”.
You’re over-reacting.
“When CNN, Time, the Washington Post and the New York Times go beyond political activism to advocating controls on the free speech of others with an absence of reflection, they’ve opened the door to a dark age in America when no one’s right to free speech is safe.”
The disturbing irony of all of this is that these nimrods don’t seem to understand precisely because they’re the news media they themselves have a vested interest in free expression. Their inability to grasp this simple basic point is just truly frightening to me. I guess it’s because they think they’re on the right side of history, they’re willing to cast their lot in with the neo-totalitarians.
They are perfectly confident that the country’s lawfare artists will leave them alone.
CNN, our own little Pravda. Armanpour, another totalitarian propagandist proving yet again that the media are the biggest threat to democracy and not the Russians. Free speech, the thing they hate the most and, not so coincidentally, that we need the most to stop them. Screw you, Armanpour! Yeah that’s hate speech, free speech and totally protected from the likes of her.
Would that Zeus would send down a hot thunderbolt to split her ugly skull like a cracked egg and the purulent jelly of her sick brain to ooze out freely.
This hateful comment added anonymously consistent with the First Amendment freedom to speak anonymously. You’re welcome
While Trumps hate filled rhetoric is within the boundaries of free speech it is certainly a disparagement of what is needed from the leader of the free world as are so many of his behaviors
Says you. The rest of us find the unfiltered truth refreshing.
Trump and truth…………okkkkkkkk.
Well Mueller proved him right yet again. Okokokokok.
“Trump and truth…………okkkkkkkk.”
Trump fibs, CNN lies.
That’s the key Mark, unfiltered. Folks like Anon have been gobbling up BS for so long that when they actually hear or read the unfiltered words of President Trump, they naturally believe them to be a lie. It’s painful for them to hear things that contradict their conditioning. These are the folks that watched Col. Jessep’s courtroom speech in A Few Good Men and were shocked to discover he ordered the Code Red? They just can’t handle the truth.
LTJG Kaffee: Colonel Jessep! Did you order the Code Red?!
Judge Randolph: You don’t have to answer that question!
Col Jessep: I’ll answer the question. You want answers?
LTJG Kaffee: I think I’m entitled to them.
Col Jessep: You want answers?!
LTJG Kaffee: I want the truth!
Col Jessep: You can’t handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know — that Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall — you need me on that wall. We use words like “honor,” “code,” “loyalty.” We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said “thank you” and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand the post. Either way, I don’t give a DAMN what you think you’re entitled to!
LTJG Kaffee: Did you order the Code Red?
Col Jessep: I did the job —
LTJG Kaffee: — Did you order the Code Red?!
Col Jessep: YOU’RE GOD DAMN RIGHT I DID!!
You missed the plot here – what do we do when journalists don the censor’s robes and decide whose speech is free and legally protected, and whose is not?
Nothing. She’s a journalist. She makes no laws and has no power. There are thousands of them. We need an informed public with some ability to detect BS.
Not so fast Trump supporters!
She works in word and image production. A generation ago, such people were commonly absolutists about free speech. She’s not, and it’s a reasonable wager she sees people like herself as occupying a tutelary role vis a vis ordinary Americans (who have no more right of free speech than a youth in an elementary school classroom).
By the way, her husband used to be head flack for the Department of State and has been a consultant for Hellary’s campaigns. The relationship between the Democratic Party and the major media is incestuous.
She makes no laws and has no power.
If she makes no laws and has no power, then why would it be necessary to have a public with the ability to detect BS?
It is because she and the “thousands” like her have the power to influence what laws get made that the public needs more than some ability to detect BS. They need, as Jefferson said to Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
OK Olly, we would like a public with the wit and vision of Jefferson, but we ain’t getting it.
Some ability to detect BS would be a huge improvement, the purpose of which would be to sort out the best sources from the thousands now presenting news and opinions.
Unfortunately, most those on this site have no ability to detect BS which is why they are Trump supporter and like to make mountains out of mole hills if it involves a hated bogeyman.
Boo!!!
I thought Trump was “the hated Boogeyman”.
Unfortunately, most those on this site have no ability to detect BS
And that’s why most of us that have that ability challenge the likes of you and Peter and Natacha and L4D as often as we do. It’s why we will use a variety of sources and a plethora of facts when we do. And it’s why when you fail to respond to those challenges or dismiss them with perfunctory regard that you confirm every Lefty stereotype.
Try me. What challenges have i failed to respond to? Your buddies can’t answer simple questions, then pretend it’s my fault.
Your buddies can’t answer simple questions, then pretend it’s my fault.
Your buddies can’t ask simple questions, then pretend it’s my fault.
There, I fixed it for you.
You’re welcome.
As you were.
Take note Olly as Anon always asks questions and when answered runs away or spouts inane generalizations.
1. How did the Deep State manage to screw up Hillary’s campaign 2 weeks before the election while protecting Trump’s campaign from the same revelation – both were under FBI investigation. Keystone Deep State?
As usual no answers from Anon, only questions:
Anon, you are a waste of time as you repeat the same things over and over again never stepping forward when additional information is added. We can take unemployment and the U 6. Traditionally as unemployment gets closer to full employment the reduction in unemployment falls dramatically.
Obama .4
Trump 1.5
More than 3 times as fast under Trump even thought unemployement should fall slower not faster.
We can go through more of the metrics but you have no knowledge of economics even though you do your own taxes. Most everything you say is wrong or a distorted talking point from the left. I will take one item at a time only after you respond with fact and logic.
2016 9.9 9.7 9.8 9.7 9.7 9.6 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.5 2016 Obama
2017 9.4 9.2 8.9 8.6 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.3 7.9 2017 Trump
The Left has no followers, no credibility, not even persuasive
_____
Tucker Carlson Beat All of CNN’s Prime Time Shows … Combined
For years now the far-left network has done everything in its power to bring Carlson down. By any measure, CNN has conducted what can only be described as a straight up, deliberate demonization campaign.
CNN has also participated in the effort to have Carlson blacklisted by advertisers due to his right-of-center political beliefs. Since the fake news outlet cannot beat Carlson in the ratings, it is hoping to drive him off the air through McCarthyism.
Obviously this has backfired in a big way.
Throughout all of last week, CNN’s primetime lineup averaged a limp 2.474 million viewers, while all on his own, Carlson averaged 3.475 million viewers.
Here is the specific breakdown according to Nielsen:
Anderson Cooper: 810,000 viewers
Chris Cuomo: 875,000 viewers
Don Lemon: 789,000 viewers
This means that Carlson not only beat all three of these left-wing hacks combined, he beat them by a cool million total viewers.
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/04/03/nolte-tucker-carlson-beat-all-of-cnns-prime-time-shows-combined/
Anon Anon, Tucker as you likely know has diverse political views that substantially differ from the Republican Party. Trump has significant views that differ from the Republican Party and probably from Tucker. Paul Ryan, former Speaker, had a lot of views differing from Tucker and Trump. We can go on and on, but one thing is certain, diverse ideas exist outside of the left where all seem to act in locksstep.
The other Anon follow’s the same voice as almost all on the left, but in a second he would change what he says if suddenly the wind changed directions. He has no commitment to the truth and has no intellectual honesty.
Sorry, that didn’t make any sense, let alone be funny.
In the meantime, here’s 2 of those questions that maybe you can answer:
1. How did the Deep State manage to screw up Hillary’s campaign 2 weeks before the election while protecting Trump’s campaign from the same revelation – both were under FBI investigation. Keystone Deep State?
2. How did Hillary rig those primaries where she kicked Bernie’s ass worse than she did Trumps (Bernie lost by 4 million votes instead of 3 million)?
Take your time, and send some to me.
PS I work and have a social life, so if you post and it goes unanswered maybe I didn’t see it. Grab me next time you see me here live.
1. An entire book was devoted to answering that very question, get a copy on your bookshelf today. It’s called What Happened?
2. That would be a question for the DNC. Maybe the answer exists in her book as well.
I didn’t think so.
Yes…sometimes
The TRUTH is hate filled!!!
While Trumps hate filled rhetoric
It’s only ‘hate-filled’ to people with disordered sensibilities.
Maybe…
She’ll get suspended for 2 weeks?
She’ll get a parade down 5th Ave. It’s CNN.
Amanpour obviously believes in free speech – for herself and her friends, and no one else.
Bingo.
Trump’s campaign speeches were explicitly political speech. An agency of the United States cannot “shut down” the explicitly political speech of a candidate for public office. And whatever in the world does Amanpour mean by the words “shut down”? Protesters could heckle candidates for public office. But sworn law-enforcement officers cannot censor by prior restraint the explicitly political speech of any candidate for any public office. The most that Comey could have done was make a criminal referral to The Justice Department for hate speech prosecution against Trump. That would have been a clear cut violation of Justice Department regulations against interference in election campaigns. AG Lynch would have had to have fired Comey for that. And if she had done so before Comey had held his infamous press conference in which he exonerated Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server, then . . . Whoa, Nelly. Who knows what would have happened after that? Intriguing.
CNN=ConspiratorsNutsNitwits. I would say that the Brit itchBay is a Nitwit. As a female she is not likely to have nuts. I saw the interview and was glad Comey made that answer. The Brits should leave the EU: Pull Out Now Like Your Father Should Have!
The Americans should not watch CNN. MSNBC has gone downhill. She talks about Trump and “Hate Speech”. I did not hear much of that in the campaign or since. It is not hate speech to call CNN “Fake News”. Hate speech was back when Hillary castigated “BILL!” for having sex with that woman named Monica. FDR was a lame duck President for not attacking the areas of Europe where the concentration camps were killing millions during WWII. FDR did not care. FDR had a segregated armed forces. Truman came on board and desegregated the armed forces. Truman was one of the best in the past 74 years.