Project Veritas has followed through with the pledge of its founder James O’Keefe to sue CNN over coverage of the ban imposed by Twitter (The group also sued Twitter in a separate lawsuit). There has been an explosion of such defamation lawsuits including a suit by Dominion against Fox News (For full disclosure, I am a Fox contributor). The lawsuits raise interesting but challenging grounds for media lawsuits.
As in past controversies, Twitter has refused to respond to inquiries on the basis of its suspension or its countervailing treatment of other news and advocacy organizations. The Project maintains that it was banned after one of its reporters confronted Facebook vice president Guy Rosen outside of what appears his home. That is a fairly common encounter with media. However, the issue in the CNN lawsuit is not basis for but the reporting of the permanent suspension.
Project Veritas notes that both CNN and anchor Ana Cabrera knew the grounds for the suspensions since on February 11, 2021, and in subsequent reports, it noted that Project Veritas was permanently banned from Twitter for a video/tweet that violated “the platform’s policies prohibiting sharing—or threats of sharing—other people’s private information without consent.” Brian Fung, “Twitter permanently bans Project Veritas account,” CNN.COM (February 11, 2021), https://www.cnn. com/2021/02/11/tech/twitter-project-veritas/index.html; Ana Cabrera 3 (@AnaCabrera), Twitter (February 11, 2021), https://twitter.com /anacabrera/status/1359977301312761857?lang=en.
However, the Project alleges that ‘on February 15, 2021, CNN made a provably and knowingly false statement of fact to the effect that Twitter had banned Project Veritas on February 11, 2021, because Project Veritas violated Twitter’s rules related to ‘authenticity’ by ‘promoting misinformation’—not, as Twitter itself had claimed, for the violation of Twitter’s policy regarding the truthful dissemination of ‘private information.'” It cites a report from CNN’s Cabrera on February 15, 2021, on being banned for misinformation when she herself reported that the ban was for an alleged privacy violation.
The question is whether reporting a suspension as basis on “misinformation” is defamatory when someone was suspended for violating privacy rules. Both are damaging to reputation but one indicates an effort to deceive. While controversial in its tactics, the Project maintains that it runs truthful videotapes and stories. In advancing a single defamation count, the Project asserts:
“The distinction between Defendant’s false statements about Project Veritas’s ban from Twitter and the statements Twitter itself made about the ban is immensely important and speaks directly to Project Veritas’s fitness to engage in investigative journalism, as that term has been historically defined. Until recent times, truthful and accurate factual reporting was the hallmark of investigative journalism, and great journalism was marked by its neutral portrayal of facts rather than its ability to further a preferred narrative. Project Veritas’s mission requires its faithful adherence to traditional notions of journalistic integrity, and CNN’s false statement Twitter banned Project Veritas for “promoting misinformation,” is injurious to Project Veritas’s professional reputation.”
The question is whether it will be enough to get the Project to discovery by defeating an expected motion to dismiss. The Project recently won a significant victory in defeating such a motion from the New York Times. If they are able to get into discovery, the Project could seek depositions with Twitter and CNN officials — a prospect neither company would relish.
Project Veritas has been accused of misleading edits or accounts. Last September, Stanford University and University of Washington researchers wrote that a Project Veritas video alleging voter fraud with unidentified sources was what a “a domestic, coordinated elite disinformation campaign looks like in the United States.” However, that does not appear to be the reason for the Twitter suspension. There remains many questions about the suspension from Twitter which has shown little sense of obligation to clarify its actions against a conservative media outlet. There are legitimate concerns that Twitter is using a different standard in banning the Project than it applies to other media and public interest organizations.
What is most interesting about the lawsuit is that there is long-standing animosity between Project Veritas and CNN. Indeed, the Project has repeated targeted CNN figures and O’Keefe posted a video of his crashing a private CNN teleconference in December. That could be cited as evidence of malice.
The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. This is precisely the environment in which the opinion was written and he is precisely the type of plaintiff that the opinion was meant to deter. The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. As such, public officials and public figures must show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth.
Over at Fox, the network is facing lawsuits by the company Smartmatic as well as a $1.6 billion lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems over the coverage of allegations of fraud and election tampering made by Trump lawyers. Fox maintains that it was merely covering the allegations while the company insists that hosts went beyond reporting and affirmed the allegations as true. Hosts Maria Bartiromo, Jeanine Pirro and Lou Dobbs are also named as defendants.
The Smartmatic lawsuit is far more detailed and comprehensive. However, it is focused on debunking the claims of Trump lawyers like Giuliani and Powell and then accusing Fox hosts of giving unwarranted credibility to the claims in interviews. The complaint cites, for example, this statement by Dobbs after allowing Giuliani to recount his allegations:
“And Rudy we’re glad you’re on the case and, and pursuing what is the truth and straightening out what is a very complicated and difficult story. And by the way, it’s not only difficult, it has the feeling of a cover up in certain places, you know, putting the servers in foreign countries, private companies, we don’t have transparency with those servers. This is, this is an election nightmare, as well as a battle.”
In its complaint, the company also cites reports like this one on November 15 from Bartiromo who also interviewed Giuliani. Bartiromo stated “One source says that the key point to understand is that the Smartmatic system has a backdoor that allows it to be [ ] or that allows the votes to be mirrored and monitored, allowing an intervening party a real-time understanding of how many votes will be needed to gain an electoral advantage.” She then showed a graphic, explaining that it was “showing the states where they stopped counting, which I thought was also strange to stop counting in the middle of election night.”
Fox insists that she was recounting accurate what the lawyers were arguing and that “To the extent Bartiromo linked Smartmatic and Dominion in her voice-over of the Dominion graphic, she simply misspoke, later clarifying that the graphic referred only to Dominion voting machines.”
The company disagrees: “The Fox anchors knew what Giuliani and Powell would say on their shows, asked questions to elicit lies about Smartmatic, and endorsed Giuliani’s and Powell’s investigation. The Fox anchors added their own defamatory comments about Smartmatic for good measure. This was a scripted performance by the Fox anchors, Giuliani, and Powell to defame and disparage Smartmatic for personal gain.”
On the day, Project Veritas filed against CNN, Fox responded to Smartmatic’s lawsuit:
“Smartmatic may be frustrated that it became embroiled in a heated national controversy, but one cannot supply voting technology and expect to avoid the spotlight. Controversy comes with the territory. And it was the President’s allegations, not the press’s coverage of them, that put Smartmatic in the spotlight. Smartmatic’s effort to hold Fox responsible for ensuring that the public understood what the nation’s highest elected official was claiming (and what numerous government agencies were investigating) is a profound threat to the ‘uninhibited, robust, and wide-open’ debate that the First Amendment safeguards.”
The different lawsuits will test the leeway afforded media in such coverage. Both networks insist that they were characterizing or summarizing claims. These cases are expected to produce major new precedent on the protections afforded media organizations under the defamation standards.
It’s morning and since last night Anonymous the Stupid has posted 6 more of his stupid messages to me though surprisingly half had a tinge of content, nonsense content, but perhaps he is learning.
Examples:
“What a troll…, but that’s S. Meyer.
S. Meyer isn’t just stupid, he’s completely off his rocker.
you’re an insignificant troll and an a$$, S. Meyer/Anon @ 9:04”
His best content was written in an anti-social manner but he was more correct. I didn’t check my work over and called the earth an oblate sphere. In an anti-social manner he corrected me and called it an oblate spheroid which, of course is correct. For that correction I thank him but not in the manner he acted.
S. Meyer: “Turley didn’t discuss the issue [Fox News lawsuit] as much as you want because it wasn’t yet ripe. If it ever gets to court then it might be right for Turley to discuss the legal issues surrounding the case.”
Nonsense. Turley discussed the Project Veritas suit soon after it was filed unlike the Fox lawsuit.
S.Meyer: “Don’t you think he [Turley] should have the right to post what he wants on his blog?”
Beside the point. Of course Turley CAN post what he wants; my complaint is about what he SHOULD have posted.
S.Meyer: “Perhaps you aren’t used to other people running their own lives and feel someone else has to run their lives for them. Is that the case?”
Absurd. An asinine presumption.
S.Meyer: “You said: ‘If you don’t believe that Trump is a chronic and habitual liar, then, yes, you are a liar.’”
Absolutely. I stand by that accusation. You should be relieved that I don’t consider most Trumpists of being too stupid to realize that Trump is a conman. The vast majority are not that stupid; they pretend that Trump is an honest man because they believe lying is justified in a culture war.
S.Meyer: “Jeff, one of the reasons Turley probably chose to talk about Project Veritas is because so many conservatives have been silenced by Twitter and lied about by CNN.”
No excuse. Turley is an academic. He should not play favorites. On the other hand, his intellectual honesty has been compromised by his allegiance to the far right conservative Fox News.
S.Meyer: “PV has successfully been fighting the NYTimes and won their last case against them.”
Wrong. PV merely overcame CNN’s motion to dismiss. The merits have not been heard. Read Turley’s post again to know about what you are talking.
S.Meyer: “They [PV] also have won in a row seven cases in court including damages. That is pretty cool isn’t it?”
Prove it. Even Turley acknowledges that “Project Veritas has been accused of misleading edits or accounts.” I wouldn’t trust James O’Keefe to give me the time of day.
S.Meyer: “Don’t you support freedom of the press and freedom of speech? If so you probably support Project Veritas even if you may not like their politics.”
Everyone has the freedom to speak, but no one has the right to be HEARD. I have the freedom to ignore you. And owners of platforms have no obligation to amplify your speech. You are free to speak to only those who care to listen. And your freedom of speech is not without its costs, that is, you are not free of your rhetoric’s consequences. You can be ostracized by your friends, marginalized by the public and dismissed by your employer. After all, we don’t live in a safe zone.
“Nonsense. Turley discussed the Project Veritas suit soon after it was filed unlike the Fox lawsuit.”
So you say, Jeff, but the Project Veritas suit separates it from most suits. It’s a David vs Goliath where the NYTimes, in particular, lost when trying to prevent the next step, discovery. Project Veritas is one of the few success stories fighting MSM lies. The total budget of PV is smaller than just the attorney fees for these large corporations.
What makes an unripe case between two Goliaths more interesting than a David vs Goliath? What unique legal points of view do you want Turley to discuss in the Fox case other than you don’t like Fox.
“Beside the point. Of course Turley CAN post what he wants; my complaint is about what he SHOULD have posted.”
Should have? By whose standards? What special knowledge do you have that puts you in the position of knowing what should be posted? Why do you feel your judgment is better than Turley’s? Are you a professor of law? What are your credentials?
“Absurd. An asinine presumption.”
What is asinine about Turley posting on his blog those things he wants to post? Must you be in control of the world?
You call people liars, but you can’t say what significant lies Trump made as President in his presidential duties. What are you hiding?
Do you believe that if you don’t believe that Obama “is a chronic and habitual liar, then, yes, you are a liar” Does that statement make you or any other Obama supporter a liar?
The difference between you and those supporting Trump is that they have shown where Obama lied in his significant Presidential duties and they have proven it. You talk, but when the proof is required you are silent.
All Presidents lie, but I think Trump has been the most truthful and the most transparent of recent Presidents.
” You should be relieved that I don’t consider most Trumpists of being too stupid to realize that Trump is a conman. “
Why should I be relieved. I don’t have such a high opinion of you. I think you might have a much higher opinion of yourself than justified. You haven’t demonstrated any superior knowledge of the blog. You have ducked providing facts to back up what you have said. Where have you proven Trump to be worse than Obama or Biden? What knowledge have you demonstrated of American history or the law?
“No excuse. Turley is an academic. He should not play favorites.”
Turley, a center-left individual, is supporting freedom of speech and civil liberties. You are playing partisan politics. He is running a blog discussing legal issues where he tries to remove his political feelings from his decisions. You are the opposite. Your politics enters into virtually every complaint you have about Turley or anyone else. You even make unfounded accusations against professor Turley that are quite unseemly.
“Wrong. PV merely overcame CNN’s motion to dismiss”
No, your mind is too filled up with an unfounded opinion. Firstly, it was the NYTimes, not CNN. Secondly, the victory for the case to continue was a big victory if you recognize the legal history of such suits. Turley does, You don’t. That is why you should have nothing to do with what Turley chooses to post. You don’t have the requisite knowledge to choose what differentiates one case from another. Turley discusses points of law that you seem to have little interest in except for how those points of law affect your politics. I don’t think most people are here to listen to your legal expertise or your politics.
“Prove it” (that PV won 7 legal cases in a row)
You can go to their website and the website can give you all the answers along with the cases.
““Project Veritas has been accused of misleading edits or accounts.”
You are talking about accusations that have failed in court and have led to suits won by Project Veritas. Additionally, PV has well over 300 retractions from various news sources because of such accusations.
I don’t care that you don’t trust James O’Keefe. What he produces is taped so you hear and see the people being revealed in their voices.
“Everyone has the freedom to speak”
Does that freedom extend to James O’Keefe? The MSM has tried to destroy him, but he has proven them to be liars in the courts of law prevailing in seven consecutive cases without a loss.
Meyer,
As I warned before, we will never see eye-to-eye. Our world view’s are incompatible. Like Israelis vs Palestinians, people of faith vs atheists, there can be no bridging the gap between Trumpists and non-Trumpists. It’s foolish to try to reconcile our beliefs because you will never concede that Trump is a conman as I believe, and I will never ignore his lies in order to make peace with Trumpists. We will just have to go our separate ways. Regrettably, Trumpism will be fought over for many years long after he is dead and gone. There are those who still defend Nixon in spite of what is revealed on his tape recordings.
This war is not about politics. It is not even as much cultural as it is psychological. What’s at stake is who gets the last laugh? That is why we are digging in our heels because it’s personal.
“As I warned before, we will never see eye-to-eye. Our world view’s are incompatible.”
Jeff, it seems you have taken Hitler’s approach so I will quote what he said.
“When diplomacy ends, War begins.” __Adolph Hitler
FWIW, Jeff, Allan S(tupid) Meyer has been presented with vast evidence of Trump’s lying, such as this database — https://projects.thestar.com/donald-trump-fact-check/ — and he ignores it. Allan is unwilling to have a truthful discussion of Trump’s lying, because Allan himself is not truthful.
The problem, Anonymous the Stupid, is you linked to series of so called lies and I took a few of those lies and proved neither your link nor you were being honest. I don’t deny Trump has made mistakes and at times has not been as forthright as I would like. However compared to previous Presidents Trump has been far more honest and far more Transparent.
Anytime you wish to compare Trump to other Presidents or prove your case I will gladly debate you on those facts. The problems is you do not have the intellect for honest debate.
“I took a few of those lies and proved neither your link nor you were being honest.”
Allan, this is another example of what I referred to yesterday, where you claim that you did something in the past, but provide no proof that you did it. You haven’t linked to any comment where you “proved” what you claim here, despite your claim elsewhere that “I provide proof in debate and prove my points” (https://jonathanturley.org/2021/04/29/university-of-north-carolina-give-hannah-jones-a-chair-in-journalism/comment-page-1/#comment-2086221)
As I said then, “You regularly avoid providing proof. You handwave that you presented proof at some unspecified time in the past that you can’t be bothered to link to, you claim that things are obvious as if your opinion were a fact, you use endless excuses to try to justify your failure to present proof.”
I have no desire to debate you about which president is most dishonest. I consider you a troll, and I believe that debating you as if you were sincere is a waste of time. My only goal is to note some of your trolling (your dishonesty, the pleasure you take in denigrating others, etc.)
““I took a few of those lies and proved neither your link nor you were being honest.””
Since when does an individual have to prove anything to a non-entity? You don’t exist. We can’t verify anything you say. Yes, Anonymous the Stupid, you have provided links to loads of details and most of the time your links don’t pan out. You are worthless and non-credible.
John Say has also taken you apart time and time again, yet you continue to bloviate and lie.
“You don’t exist.”
Unless you think I’m a bot, I clearly do exist.
Anonymity has no implications for anyone’s existence. Plenty of people have written anonymously over the centuries.
“We can’t verify anything you say.”
This is false. You can verify factual statements from me to the same extent that you can do so from anyone else. The commenter’s name or lack thereof has no bearing on the verifiability of that person’s factual statements.
“you have provided links to loads of details and most of the time your links don’t pan out. ”
A claim you’ve made repeatedly, but have not proved.
“You are worthless and non-credible. … you continue to bloviate and lie.”
You again project your own weaknesses onto others.
9 more replies from Anonymous the Stupid to just me over a period of less than 8 hours. A lot more garbage has been sent to others. A sampling follows: Take note of a mind that has no imagination.
“little would-be dictator…
He just can’t help himself,…
links”
No more need be said. He is an anti-social character who thrives off of anonymity.
He makes the mistake of saying “Plenty of people have written anonymously over the centuries.” Firstly he forgets that more commonly they use a pen name which is an alias just like the alias one can create on this blog. Secondly, when we identify an anonymous of the past, he doesn’t exist either. He is gone and no one can take credit for his existence.
Anonymous the Stupid, you do not exist. He is an embarrassment to himself and anyone he comes in contact with.
You continue to refer to multiple people as “he,” Allan, instead of “they.”
I posted two of the replies (the same number as your replies to me). I did not post the rest. This will be my third reply.
“He is an anti-social character … He is an embarrassment to himself and anyone he comes in contact with.”
Allan, you continue to project your own weaknesses onto others.
If you want to decrease the number of anonymous comments, ignore us. I doubt you will, though.
Anonymous the Stupid, you are a liar and not credible. You posted the 9 and as usual want to blame someone else. If I am wrong, prove it. We have gone through this before. It is true I might make an occasional mistake, but the bulk are non other than Anonymous the Stupid.
How does a non-credible person who is anonymous prove anything? He can’t. You are the 9 people.
“Anonymous the Stupid, you are a liar and not credible.”
Once again, Allan, your insults are projection.
“You posted the 9 and as usual want to blame someone else.”
No, I only posted 3 of those. This is my fourth in this particular exchange.
“If I am wrong, prove it.”
I can’t prove it using the tools I have access to here. But it’s true. (Just like it’s true that my hair is gray, even though I can’t prove that to you with the tools here either.) Since you doubt it’s true, ask Darren. Specify the comments you’re asking him about, and ask him whether they were all posted by a single user. He should be able to determine that using the tools available to him as a moderator, and he can confirm that I’m telling the truth.
“I can’t prove it”
That is right. You can’t prove the number correct or incorrect. Yet you want others to involve themselves and prove that to be true. What a crock of BS. You have full opportunity to prove it yourself. You can create a false address and have your own unique icon to prove that all those comments are not yours. You refuse because most of them are yours. Your label Anonymous the Stupid is an appropriate label for your type of posting.
Now you can go back to posting unintelligent responses that are nasty under your anonymous label and icon so you can blame someone else. Your lack of honesty is one of the most noticeable characteristics you have.
“‘I can’t prove it’ That is right. You can’t prove the number correct or incorrect.”
You can’t prove your claim either. One of the many differences between us is that I truthfully state that I cannot, and you avoid truthfully admitting that YOU cannot either.
“Yet you want others to involve themselves and prove that to be true.”
You’re the one who doubts it’s true, so I told you “Since you doubt it’s true, ask Darren.” Totally up to you whether you choose to do that or not. But don’t pretend that your claims are true when you don’t know the truth of it, are avoiding seeking out the truth of it, and cannot bring yourself to admit that you don’t actually know and can’t yourself prove what you’re claiming.
“You have full opportunity to prove it yourself. You can create a false address and have your own unique icon to prove that all those comments are not yours.”
Even if I were to start posting with my own icon, it would NOT prove that my earlier (May 1, 2021 at 4:41 PM) claim “I posted two of the replies (the same number as your replies to me). I did not post the rest. This will be my third reply” is true. Which is what we’re discussing.
“Your label Anonymous the Stupid is an appropriate label for your type of posting. Now you can go back to posting unintelligent responses that are nasty under your anonymous label and icon so you can blame someone else. Your lack of honesty is one of the most noticeable characteristics you have.”
You continue to project your weaknesses onto others, Allan. I truly feel sorry for you.
“You can’t prove your claim either. One of the many differences between us is that I truthfully state that I cannot, and you avoid truthfully admitting that YOU cannot either.”
Anonymous the Stupid, I have stated that I can be wrong at times, wrongfully including or excluding one of your comments. My credibility can be confirmed by what I said in the past and what I say in the future under an identifiable name and icon. Yours cannot and the only explanation I can think of is the well-known fact that you are a liar and not credible.
All of this can be resolved by you. You can carry an identifiable alias and icon. You can even carry several under different names but at least the specific icon will permit people to judge that icon’s credibility. Right now you have no icon. You are a non-person.
It is inappropriate for Darren to supply the answer, but ethics and morality are something beyond your capabilities. If Darren were to indicate the willingness to do such a thing he would be violating a major feature of the blog and at the same time he would be injuring the reputation of Professor Turley. I recognize that you don’t understand such ethical obligations but a lot of others do.
The simple solution is that you take the action of creating an identifiable icon and name.
“Even if I were to start posting with my own icon, it would NOT prove “
Since your logic fails on all other points, you have taken a new tactic. The tactic that correcting the problem won’t solve the problems of the past. Firstly, it can be apparent for future postings at least for the name and icon. Then others can decide for themselves whatever they wish. None of this rises to a high level of importance.
“I have stated that I can be wrong at times, wrongfully including or excluding one of your comments”
But the truth is that you’re wrong on a daily basis, as every day you address more than one person as ATS. You are wrong at least as often as you’re right. For example, you attributed NINE comments to a single person when only THREE of them came from me, and the rest came from one or more other anonymous commenters. You cannot admit right now that you are wrong about these nine.
“It is inappropriate for Darren to supply the answer”
No, there’s nothing inappropriate about Darren simply stating that the 9 comments you specified come from at least two different people. He wouldn’t be revealing any private information in saying that.
As for your desire that I and others stop posting anonymously, too bad. I don’t know about the rest, but your behavior here is actually what convinced me to start, and no matter your desire to command me, I do not take commands from you. You’ve made your bed, now lie in it.
Your continuing insults reflect who you are.
“But the truth is that you’re wrong on a daily basis, as every day you address more than one person as ATS.”
You are creating a fact out of ignorance and your incessant ability to lie. That isn’t even the issue. The issue is you hide your lies and comments behind an anonymous name and icon. That is the only way you can obtain doubt since you are not a credible person. You already have admitted directly or indirectly most of which I claim.
9 comments came from you. If it were only 8 or 7 or if I didn’t include 1 or 2, that would be fine with me. Any way we look at it you are a liar and try to obscure the facts by using an anonymous name and icon. All I have done is provided you with a notable label to identify you so others can form their own opinions.
“No, there’s nothing inappropriate about Darren simply stating that the 9 comments you specified come from at least two different people. He wouldn’t be revealing any private information in saying that.”
That would impose a moral obligation for future inquires and in future inquires a denial to do so would indicate a position. As I said you don’t understand ethical or moral obligations. You also don’t understand game theory. All you understand are the talking points of the left that you mold into your own words. You don’t realize that and that is why you fit the description of Anonymous the Stupid.
“As for your desire that I and others stop posting anonymously, too bad. I don’t know about the rest, but your behavior here is actually what convinced me to start”
That is a lie. That you also used a real icon in the past I believe is true, but you did so while also using an anonymous icon with all sorts of variations of anonymity, icons, and names. I believe you came here significantly earlier than my appearance or at least you stated facts that make it appear that way. You were doing these things without any comments from me.
You are copying what I said in earlier responses. You irritated me enough that I decided to focus on you and your anonymity. That has led to a lot of entertainment for me
“You are creating a fact out of ignorance”
No, Allan, I know for a fact which comments are mine and which comments are not mine, so I know for a fact that my claim — “you’re wrong on a daily basis, as every day you address more than one person as ATS” — is true, because I know for a fact that every day you respond to some of my comments calling me ATC and every day you also respond to comments that aren’t mine and call one or more other persons ATS. I am speaking out of knowledge.
“9 comments came from you.”
No, Allan, the 9 comments you’re referring to came from anonymous commenters, but only 3 of them came from me.
Three. Not 8, not 7, not 6, not 5, not 4. Three. The rest came from one or more other anonymous commenters.
“That would impose a moral obligation for future inquires”
No, it would not. Darren has no moral obligation to act on any request of this sort, and he could easily say that he’s willing to do it this time with no promise for the future. Once again, you pretend that your personal opinion is a fact and then insult the intelligence of those who dare to have different opinions than you do.
“That you also used a real icon in the past I believe is true, but you did so while also using an anonymous icon with all sorts of variations of anonymity, icons, and names.”
No, I exclusively used an identifiable name and icon for months after I arrived, and your harassment during those months is one of the reasons I decided to start posting anonymously.
“I believe you came here significantly earlier than my appearance or at least you stated facts that make it appear that way.”
I didn’t do either one. Once again, it’s the fact that you conflate me with other anonymous commenters that leads you to believe false things about me.
“That has led to a lot of entertainment for me”
Only a sick person would find it entertaining.
As for the rest of your insults, once again, they describe you better than me.
“No, Allan, I know for a fact which comments are mine and which comments are not mine, so I know for a fact that my claim — “you’re wrong on a daily basis, as every day you address more than one person as ATS” — is true, “
Anonymous the Stupid, you are a liar and not credible. you say whatever suits you at the time. Truth is something you have no interest in.
As additional proof you are a liar, recently you stated that you have been here for ten years. I wasn’t here anywhere near that long so once again you are making things up.
Regarding what Darren and Turley can or cannot do. They can do many things but they protect their good reputations, something you know little about. Your idea stretches the envelope and that is not a good for them. My entire life was based on my reputation so I don’t think about those cheap tricks you like to engage in.
The easiest thing is for you is to face the blog and the replies with an identifiable icon and name. In that way you can create something you have never had, a reputation.
Yes, I see that Meyer is simply prevaricating with me by insisting that I prove Trump a liar. I will not argue the point. As I have said before: if one can’t see that, I can’t help them, I can only pity them.
“Yes, I see that Meyer is simply prevaricating with me by insisting that I prove Trump a liar. I will not argue the point. “
Jeff, is this the type of civil behavior you advocated? I don’t think so. You tell me I am prevaricating by asking for proof about those things involving presidential duties. To date you haven’t provided anything of substance while at the same time seem to place the blame elsewhere. I have tried to keep things civil with you because you openly stated that you wanted reasonable honest opinions. I hope what you wanted then is what you want now.
I’ll give you proof of Trump’s lying after you give me proof that Turley has ever criticized Fox News.
Jeff, you have already given me what you consider proof of Trump lying. None of it had to do with significant Presidential affairs. The rest requires discussion as to what is or is not a lie. You should be able to find some lies since I have, but when compared to recent Presidents Trump lied the least, lived up to his campaign promises better than the others (recent) and was more transparent.
You can think what you will of Turley.
From James O’Keefe
—
LEGAL UPDATE: NYT FORCED by court to ANSWER Veritas’s defamation allegations, STUNNING Admissions
The lawsuit was filed last fall in response to a series of defamatory New York Times stories by political reporter, Maggie Astor, and media news reporter, Tiffany Hsu, calling Veritas’ Minnesota Ballot Harvesting videos “deceptive” and accusing Veritas of being part of “a coordinated disinformation effort” because Veritas shared an advance copy of the video with influencers and reporters.
In the answer filed last week, The New York Times admits it did the same thing: having received an advance copy of the blog post they reported on before the post was published.
New York Times repeatedly claimed ignorance on various issues related to the story: “Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations.”
Even after the New York Supreme Court rejected the New York Times’ claim that Astor’s and Hsu’s articles were merely “unverifiable expressions of opinion,” calling such a claim “deceptive” and “disinformation,” the Times doubled down on the “opinion” defense in the Answer, while admitting neither Astor nor Hsu are “opinion” writers.
The New York Times admits Minnesota’s ban on ballot harvesting was never suspended after Astor’s still-uncorrected article claimed it was.
The Times admits it never contacted any of Veritas’ named sources for comment – including a source the Times admits it used over 10 times.
Project Veritas will win against CNN, just like they’ve won every other lawsuit they’ve filed.
Also, a Veritas undercover video exposed election fraud in Texas which led to a conviction.
I’m surprised no one has congratulated me for my success- after months of needling and shaming Turley- to get him to FINALLY discuss the defamation lawsuits against his employer Fox News. You’re welcome. I’m joking of course!
It is peculiar that he chose to bury the far more consequential Fox News lawsuits in an article headlined by Project Veritas’ measly lawsuit against CNN. I’m guessing he rather his headline reads “Project Veritas sues CNN in Latest Media Defamation Lawsuit,” as opposed to “Smartmatic and Dominion sue Fox News for Defamation.” No sense rubbing such a headline in the noses of his Fox bosses. Well played, Turley.
As I indicated, Turley had no professional ethical conflict in discussing a lawsuit against his boss provided he disclosed his allegiance to Fox as he did. But is is striking that he did NOT analyze the legal merits of the Fox lawsuit as he did in the case of the CNN lawsuit. He chickened out! He merely quoted the allegations in the Smartmatic complaint and the defense in Fox answer. The only judgment he allowed himself was to note that these Fox lawsuits could establish a new precedent in this area of the law which I had noted was the reason he could not avoid discussing it. It will be interesting if he publishes this article on The Hill website where it would reach a far wider audience than this puny blog.
One cannot help but wonder, however, why he waited so long. After all, he did not wait but a few days to comment on the filing of the Project Veritas suit. I suspect that Turley is somewhat sheepish that he has aligned himself and become closely associated with a network being accused of deliberately broadcasting “fake news.” On the other hand, as an academic he does not have the courage NOT to mention these lawsuits for fear that he would never be able to explain away his hypocrisy and the resulting damage to his credibility.
While I was criticized by some on this blog for my persistence in demanding that Turley speak about his Fox lawsuits, I don’t flatter myself in thinking that it had any effect. It might have, but I will never know.
+10
“It is peculiar that he chose to bury the far more consequential Fox News lawsuits in an article headlined by Project Veritas’ measly lawsuit against CNN.”
Jeff, don’t you think you are going a bit overboard? Turley didn’t discuss the issue as much as you want because it wasn’t yet ripe. If it ever gets to court then it might be right for Turley to discuss the legal issues surrounding the case. Don’t you think he should have the right to post what he wants on his blog? Perhaps you aren’t used to other people running their own lives and feel someone else has to run their lives for them. Is that the case?
You claim Turley “ He chickened out!”, but to date what have you done to prove your claims about Trump / Biden based on our last pleasant and polite discussion? Did you chicken out or are you in the process of gathering information for a more informative discussion?
For the purpose of reminding you of the response I am talking about that I am sure you completely remember you called a whole bunch of people liars including me though I don’t think you intended to do that. You said: ““If you don’t believe that Trump is a chronic and habitual liar, then, yes, you are a liar.””
Jeff, one of the reasons Turley probably chose to talk about Project Veritas is because so many conservatives have been silenced by Twitter and lied about by CNN. PV is one of the few that has been successful in getting people to listen. Live videos demonstrating others lying or promoting illegalities is a strong indictment against such abuse. PV has successfully been fighting the NYTimes and won their last case against them. They are fighting lies about them in the left wing media and now have way over 300 retractions and more coming. They also have won in a row seven cases in court including damages. That is pretty cool isn’t it? They have multiple cases already filed against a number of others including CNN and Twitter.
This is a David and Goliath story so Turley is correct in following the case. It is unique.
Don’t you support freedom of the press and freedom of speech? If so you probably support Project Veritas even if you may not like their politics.
Mr Turley… for all the articles that you publish, please tell us, what exactly does it change in DC? You were highly critical of President Trump, aren’t you happy yet now that we have gone full drooling communist?
A lot of name calling in these comments today. Almost everyone seems to be an “idiot” to someone else. CNN and Fox have done a great job polarizing our views – and we let them.
Social media censorship has fundimental problems that will bite it in the ass.
The core problem is that this type of censorship not only can not be done well – but it really can not be done at all.
While the algorithmic capabilities of social media giants are impressive, they are still small in comparison to the traffic through their cites.
Further the existance of even the poor mass censorship that is possible has created demands for even more.
Florida and other states are passing laws to bar certain types of censorship.
While the EU is barring otthers, as well as demanding specific types of censorship.
India and China are demanding that all criticism of the government be censored.
How are Google. Facebook, Twitter going to deal with myriads of laws in myriads of countries.
A consistent free speech position is defensible worldwide.
But the moment that social media engages in selective censorship – that is an invitation for govenrments to insert themselves into the process – making specific demands to censor or not.
Is Facebook going to abandon the Indian and Chinese markets ? Or comply ?
How exactly does anyone expect a massive global censorship scheme that must be uniquely tailored to the demand of regional lawmakers is going to work ?
John say, “ How are Google. Facebook, Twitter going to deal with myriads of laws in myriads of countries.”
Your lack of understanding in how these “big tech” companies can do what they do is amazing.
If they can create an algorithm that detects violent rhetoric, profanity, hate speech, etc. It’s pretty clear they can determine where their members live and post from. Here’s a couple of big clues. People tell these companies when they sign up which country they live in. The language they use also gives them a bug clue if where they can apply different rules and make appropriate algorithms to comply with laws in those countries.
Or better yet. The United States constitution only applies within our territories boundaries. Gasp! What a surprise, right?
Given that these are still private companies they can do what they want depending on which country they choose to operate in. Here they have the freedoms AND protections our constitution guarantees them and that includes their right to censor and create their own terms and conditions that everyone who uses them agrees to.
Here in this country they CAN engage in selective censorship if they want to because our constitution doesn’t prohibit them from doing so. It prohibits our own government from censoring speech. Not private entities. In fact our constitution prohibits our governments from forcing these companies to carry anyone’s messages because it would be a violation of THEIR free speech rights.
Our Constitution might give them the right of private free speech, but that should invalidate the law protecting them from suit. That law permits the government to limit speech by proxy simply by passing favorable laws for select companies. That limitation is against the Constitution. There are other laws and and precedents that can also be argued against their present behavior.
SM
Anonymous SM, invalidating laws protecting from lawsuits doesn’t prevent them from censoring speech on their platforms. In fact removing those protections will increase censorship. Getting rid of potentially litigious problem posts on their platforms would be a much bigger incentive to censor or remove certain posters.
The government is very limited on how they can force companies to not censor speech. Doing so would require that government first violate these companies first amendment rights. Therefore government wouldn’t really be able to do what you think they can do.
“invalidating laws protecting from lawsuits doesn’t prevent them from censoring speech”
That is reasonably true but it opens the companies up to some of the normal constraints we presently see. Take note the NYTimes and CNN are being sued. They don’t have the protections of the high tech platforms covered by the law.
“government first violate these companies first amendment rights. Therefore government wouldn’t really be able to do what you think they can do.“
Actually certain companies have actually been placed by government into the position where they are not free to act similarly to Twitter. Think of the Bell Telephone company, later AT&T. They were broken up. Do you think these companies can take away your phone to silence your political thought? How about the electric company?
Svelaz, you have a lot of half-baked ideas.
SM
““And Rudy we’re glad you’re on the case and, and pursuing what is the truth and straightening out what is a very complicated and difficult story. And by the way, it’s not only difficult, it has the feeling of a cover up in certain places, you know, putting the servers in foreign countries, private companies, we don’t have transparency with those servers. This is, this is an election nightmare, as well as a battle.”
I’m no fan of Dobbs, but this, THIS is supposed to be some sort of grounds for defamation? You’ve got to be kidding. We see worse than this in the first 5 minutes of every single Rachel Madcow show!
Although this just touches on the issue of privacy, I don’t understand why Twitter allows any doxing, most especially of private figures, on its site.
Twitter in real-time is just an algorithm that distributes postings as links. The algorithm might have some anti-doxxing feature added to it, but it can easily be defeated by a determined adversary. By the time a human at Twitter is responding to a doxxing complaint and the post removed, it has already been disseminated to the activists it was intended to reach.
A dumb algorithm doesn’t have the judgmental capacity to “allow” or “disallow”.
Here is hoping for a victory by Project Veritas. It will be a hard climb, but if it gets to the discovery phase, that alone will be a gigantic victory.
Listening to the Project Veritas videos all Americans should be horrified by the actions of CNN and much of the news media.
FYI for the useful idiot left posting here. According to reports CNN is losing an alarming amount of viewers but you already knew that. Amazing how the useful idiot left posters no matter what the topic their replies revert to: President Trump, Fox News.
An even bigger question is why anyone watches Fox. Yesterday, Tucker Carlson told his viewers that if they see children wearing masks outside, they should treat it as child abuse and “call the police immediately, contact child protective services.”
It is child abuse. Only a village idiot would put a mask on a child. And his reporting on the silliness and the downright anti-science basis of politicians forcing folks to wear them, is not only lunacy, it’s disgusting!!!!!!!!!!!
It is not child abuse. Only a village idiot would consider it child abuse.
As for Carlson’s “reporting,” he is not a reporter, and his own lawyers have said so in court, arguing that no reasonable viewer would treat his claims as factual. A judge ruled that the “‘general tenor’ of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not ‘stating actual facts’ about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in ‘exaggeration’ and ‘non-literal commentary.’ “
Are you forgetting you are writing to the top of the class idiots.
Ten bucks says Turley has cocktail parties where he digs up comments from this blog and enters them into an evenings biggest freak contest. Wagering amongst the guests. The whole nine.
EB
Anonymous:
While I don’t agree with Tucker Carlson that putting a mask on a child, at all, is tantamount to child abuse, he does have a point that there are medical and psychological risks for children due to long term mask wearing.
Very young children cannot follow proper masking protocols. They will exchange masks with their runny-nosed classmates. A kid will leave home wearing a panda mask and come home with a unicorn one. They will wipe their noses on their masks. They’ll play on the floor of an airplane and touch their mask.
I don’t know if you’ve ever looked at the masks that little kids wear, but they usually look really gross. It’s not only adults. I picked up food and was horrified to see the employee wearing a fabric mask that looked like it had never been washed. Ever. It had old food stains and I don’t know what else all over it. Simply requiring everyone to wear masks doesn’t meant they follow proper mask procedure.
There is an even more concerning issue, however, and that is reparatory dangers to wearing masks. Some masks have more lint than others. Breathing in lint is one of the earliest known industrial diseases. (See “fluff” in Elizabeth Gaskell’s North and South.) Putting a mask on a child that sheds a lot of lint could have risks. Some masks are harder to breathe in than others, and build up CO2. Children and adults both have fainted when wearing a mask while exercising.
I, myself, nearly fainted when I loaded up 6 50-lb feed bags into the back of my truck. I got really dizzy and nearly passed out. As soon as I pulled my mask down, I felt fine. That particular mask had a very tight weave, and I have an underlying respiratory condition. I also had trouble wearing that mask while climbing a few flights of stairs. Since I experienced this personally, any claim that this is a myth holds no weight with me.
Accidentally smothering babies and toddlers is a tragically too common occurrence. Parents put their hands over their children’s mouths to stop their crying. The child can’t breathe well through their nose, and smother. Fighting with a 2 year old to keep a mask on could lead to tragedy. If the child has any respiratory condition, or a runny nose, a mask might make it harder to breathe. Masks are contra indicated in people with impaired respiratory function, if the mask makes it harder to breathe, but people have been targeted when they claim exemption.
There have been multiple deaths reported of children who died while exercising wearing a mask. Social distancing is recommended, instead. (https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1005609/after-multiple-deaths%2C-officials-call-for-no-masks-in-gym-class)
The WHO listed several medical risks for long term mask wearing, of both adults and children, which is why they advised against masks at the start of the pandemic:
“Aside from the highly variable protective effects, WHO mentions several negative aspects of frequent / long-term use of facemasks, fuelling the debate as to whether the benefits outweigh the drawbacks [10].
Many people report claustrophobic experiences and difficulty getting sufficient oxygen due to the increased resistance to inhaling and exhaling. This can lead to an increased heart rate, nausea, dizziness and headaches and several other symptoms [15,16]. In an inquiry among Belgian students wearing mouthmasks for one week, 16 % reported skinproblems and 7 % sinusitis, Also problems with eyes and headaches and fatigue were frequently mentioned [14]. Furthermore, face masking can provoke an increase in stress hormones with a negative impact on immune resilience in the long term [17]. Facemasks prevent the mirroring of facial expressions, a process that facilitates empathetic connections and trust between pupills and teachers. This potentially leads to a significant increase in socio-psychological stress. During childhood and puberty the brain undergoes sexual and mental maturation through hormonal epigenetic reprogramming [18-21]. Several studies show that long-term exposure to socio-psychological stress leaves neuro-epigenetic scars that are difficult to cure in young people and often escalate into mental behavioural problems and a weakened immune system [22-26]. A recent study by the CDC concludes that in young adults (18-24 years), the level of anxiety and depression has increased by 63% (!) since the corona crisis. A quarter of them think about suicide. As a result, the use of antidepressants has increased by 25% [27]. Several researchers have shown a relationship between the increase in stress experiences and the risk of upper respiratory tract infections and mortality [28-31].”
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3021/rr-6
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7537728/
“Specifically, the FDA warned the risks of wearing N95 respirators for people with chronic respiratory, cardiac, or other medical conditions that make breathing difficult and, because a proper fit cannot be achieved on children or people with facial hair, N95 respirators are not suitable for them to wear.”
“There seems to be, however, an important piece missing in the suite of standards and volumes of research on inhalable environmental contaminants. None of these standards, including the ASTM standards (F1862, F2100, F2101, F2299) and NIOSH regulation (42 CFR 84), which are adopted by the FDA in regulating medical face masks and surgical respirators in the U.S. (FDA, 2020a), regulate respirable debris such as micro(nano)plastics that may be present in these products. In fact, such neglect is not unique to US standards: a review of current ISO standards (ISO 22609, 16900), EU standards (EN 140, 143, 149, 14683) and Chinese standards (GB 19083, 2626; GB/T 32610, 38880; YY 0469; YY/T 0969) on masks and respirators found no information pertinent to this particular type of hazard. With these becoming a necessity for many in their daily life and work, questions must be raised over this apparent regulatory gap concerning their long-term use safety. This is especially important given that there is already a growing body of evidence on the inhalation of micro(nano)plastics and their adverse effects in humans and animals.”
I wear a mask when required. I can’t tolerate a mask in any sort of strenuous activity. My child wears a mask when required. We are homeschooling this year because my son didn’t learn anything distance learning the last couple months of school in 2020. I would not want him to wear a mask for hours at a time due to the health risks noted in this and the above comment. Given the choice between the two, I’d rather he had fun video chatting with friends without masks, than be in school having to wear a mask, unable to see anyone’s expression, and forbidden to play with anyone.
Karen, I wasn’t suggesting that masks are always appropriate (they aren’t), nor that they have no risks (there are risks, though they generally vary with specifics, such as whether someone has an underlying respiratory condition).
I was simply saying that kids wearing them does not constitute child abuse, and it’s ludicrous for Tucker Carlson to make a sweeping claim that they’re child abuse.
Would the government interfering with optimal child development potentially constitute abuse?
“This could interfere with language development, as well as interfere with kids’ abilities to read and understand facial expressions.”
To the extent that masks interfere with kids’ language development or abilities to read and understand facial expressions, that is because other people are wearing masks, regardless of whether the child is wearing a mask. It is most detrimental for infants/toddlers, who do not wear masks. Kids are also adaptable and although those they interact with sometimes have masks, other times (at home), they don’t.
The government interferes in optimal child development all the time. Public schools as they currently operate aren’t optimal, the current SNAP regulations aren’t optimal, … Optimal is a very high standard. My opinion is that “not optimal” isn’t abuse.
“It is most detrimental for infants/toddlers, who do not wear masks. Kids are also adaptable and although those they interact with sometimes have masks, other times (at home), they don’t.”
Disadvantaged kids who may spend a fair bit of time in daycare are also less likely to get strong language and vocabulary development at home–spoken language is less complex, the vocabulary used is less robust, and just the amount of words communicated is less, too.
Obscuring people’s facial expressions is a bit different than public school and SNAP. Many public schools are quite good. SNAP certainly needs improvement. Neither are justifications for interfering with kids’ language acquisition and social emotional development (especially if some of these things are already somewhat impaired due to lousy circumstances).
Again: having a child wear a mask does not interfere with the child’s development. It is others wearing masks that may interfere. So this issue simply doesn’t apply to Carlson’s ridiculous claim that a child wearing a mask constitutes child abuse.
As for “Many public schools are quite good,” yes, some are. Others aren’t. It still isn’t child abuse. “Quite good” doesn’t even rise to the level of “optimal.” “Optimal” is a very high bar.
Kids’ psychosocial development is important. Lots of things can interfere with optimal development. Few of them constitute child abuse.
Anonymous,
I wasn’t rebutting your rebuttal of Carlson. I was exploring another avenue in which masks may cause unintended harm. I do have concerns about masks causing mild hypoxia, too (I have experienced an increased heart rate when attempting to draw bigger breaths through the mask).
I think what he said was hyperbole; however, I also think that there is a fair bit of security theater surrounding the wearing of masks, particularly while outside.
“Again: having a child wear a mask does not interfere with the child’s development. It is others wearing masks that may interfere.”
I don’t agree with what I assume Tucker was saying. However, you have no proof even if others don’t wear a mask that child development is not interfered with.
Are we to accept your word? How has an anonymous poster become credible when we have no prior comments to judge the individual by? But, we do have a lot of comments from Anonymous the Stupid that we already know in advance are most likely not credible. That makes all anonymous comments not credible.
S. Meyer,
I agree that is frustrating to have so many different anonymouses. Too hard to figure out the individual voices muddled together under that heading.
“That makes all anonymous comments not credible.”
I hesitate to paint all anonymous comments with a broad brush though. If the comment has merit, then it is credible enough, I think, whether or not the poster is anonymous. I do dislike trying to respond to an anonymous, though. I prefer some kind of moniker to help keep things straight.
I think the issue of masks and child development is an important point to explore–either those worn by children or those around them.
Do they increase as anxiety?
Can they they decrease exploration or cause kids to be inhibited or less inquisitive?
I haven’t observed playgrounds where all the kids are masked–do kids play less robustly while wearing them or are they just as active?
Are there more playground disagreements because kids cannot read one another’s facial expressions?
Do the masks cause mild hypoxia, even in kids? If so, how does that affect their physiology? –especially with kids with asthma, obesity, or T2D?
Are kids’ immune systems developing differently because they are not interacting with germs, pollens, etc in the same way because the masks either block these things or hold different things near their faces?
” If the comment has merit, then it is credible enough”
Prairie, if the comment has merit it has merit (not credibility). But even in that case one should be suspicious since the particular arrangement of words can make a statement seem meritorious when it is not. One learns that from multiple discussions if that person carries a recognizable and an individual name.
There are many comments made by an anonymous figure that I agree with, but if the comment is one of persuasion I find an anonymous comment to be less valuable. Thus, even though I have significant agreement with such comments for the most part they are wasted.
S. Meyer,
“Prairie, if the comment has merit it has merit (not credibility). ”
Yes, you are right.
Prairie Rose, children don’t wear a mask 24/7. Any concerns about child development are not backed by any evidence to date.
Svelaz,
“Any concerns about child development are not backed by any evidence to date.”
Seems a tad premature to draw any conclusions. We have had 1 year of this nonsense. Effects probably won’t really be evident for a few more years, and, it will probably be seen most evidently in kids who either already have some trouble with language or who have to spend a great deal of time in daycare. There may be differences, too, that are locale-dependent.
Give it two more years at least, probably 3 because of when speech therapy often starts.
Thanks for clarifying, PR. I agree that masks aren’t always needed outdoors — only if one is in a crowd. I also agree that masks can have unintended consequences.
Re: Carlson’s hyperbole, my concerns is how it’s heard by his viewers. It exacerbates polarization, and if anyone were to call CPS, they are required to investigate.
Karen,
I am also concerned about the psychosocial development of kids when not only they, but everyone around them, is wearing a mask. This could interfere with language development, as well as interfere with kids’ abilities to read and understand facial expressions. I am concerned about babies in daycares whose caretakers are constantly masked so the babies cannot interact with a person’s whole expression. I hope daycares only require face shields so the face is not obscured.
A
Agreed.
I have stated here several times that each of us ought to develop our own trusted news sources.
I use the WSJ for news, GPF for insight, and Glen Greenwald for trends.
Obviously there are others, but this gives a flavor for the integrity that is out there.
Oh, don’t forget Turley for legal insights.
Turley’s legal insights are now questioned because of his work for the RNC and FOX.
Yes, they are questioned by idiots like you, who are shills for the DNC.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
FW
If you don’t trust Turley, then move on.
Only an idiot visits a site that he doesn’t trust.
Actually the dark humor of it is a guilty pleasure for me.
EB
I think it’s important to read some commentary that I disagree with.
You think it’s good for people to stay in bubbles where they only hear things they agree with?
I think you misread my comment. I totally agree with you that we should all be able to listen and civilly debate people with opposing viewpoints. I wish that still existed.
Anti-Americans watch CNN MSDNC NBC ABC CBS. Real Americans watch FOX 🦊 NEWS OAN=One America News & NEWSMAX.
I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Your claim is nonsense. Real Americans watch whatever they want.
It is child abuse — inside. Outside, it’s criminal insanity. You don’t compel a non-infected child to wear a mask. And if he is infected, he stays home.
Funny how criminal-huggers chant: “I can’t breathe.” But when it comes to masked children — deadly silence.
If someone (whether a child or not) cannot breathe, of course you don’t have them wear a mask. But most people can breathe just fine with a mask on.
Many people are unknowingly infected with Covid and can transmit it to others while asymptomatic.
The real question is why anyone watchs CNN.
They are notorious liars and if you watch, you are supporting a propaganda arm of the Dem party.
Worse, if you watch, you are acquiescing to being lied to.
CNN viewers are the media equivalents of cuckolds.
I couldn’t agree more with you. To watch CNN is sheer lunacy. “ tonight we can see peaceful protesting going on”. says the CNN reporter as a couple of police cars behind him are raging with fire, and buildings along with it. Time and again they have done this repeatedly. Called peaceful protest when the opposite, is true. And I will close with this. They are an “Anti-America” channel, and anybody that consistently watches them, are themselves, an Anti-American.”