In an interview with podcast host Dan Bongino, former President Trump said he “thinks” he will sue CBS after it was found to have edited an interview with Vice President Kamala Harris, only the latest such allegation against mainstream media. I hope that he will think again about this latest threat of litigation. I agree with the criticism of the media, including CBS, in the bias shown in the election. However, such a lawsuit would be legally groundless, in my view. If it is any solace, the media is doing enough damage to itself.
Many have criticized CBS for its editing of the interview with journalist Bill Whitaker after the network shortened portions of Harris’s answer to a question about the war in Gaza in its initial broadcast. It later provided a full transcript of her remarks online. (For full disclosure, I worked twice under contract with CBS as a legal analyst).
Trump, however, took the matter further in his interview, stating, “[s]o I think I’m going to sue them actually. I think so. No, you know what, they can’t defend it and if they do and even if they win it’s going to be very embarrassing.”
Such a lawsuit would fail. The media is allowed to engage in such editing. Indeed, bias itself is not generally actionable. Moreover, there were moments where Whitaker did press Harris in sharp contrast to most of her interviews on shows like The View, Howard Stern’s SiriusXM show, as well as on Late Night with Stephen Colbert. There were some tough moments where Whitaker pushed Harris to give more than soundbite answers.
I have been a vocal critic of the mainstream media for its embracing of what I refer to as “advocacy journalism” in my book, The Indispensable Right. Many in this country view mainstream media as a de facto state media due to the bias shown against Trump and for Democratic talking points. Indeed, the mantra “Let’s Go Brandon!” was embraced by millions as a criticism of the media as much as it was a criticism of President Biden.
However, the threats of harassing lawsuits destroys any moral high ground for Trump. It is also entirely unnecessary. As I wrote this weekend, “journalism has become a ship of fools who increasingly write for each other rather than the dwindling numbers of actual readers.”
CBS was widely criticized for the performance of Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan as moderators in the presidential debate. That includes reneging on a pledge not to “fact check” and showing manifest bias in their treatment of the candidates.
Television and print outlets are experiencing a sharp decline in revenue and audiences across the industry. As discussed in this weekend’s column, the public is going elsewhere for news. Trust in the media is at a record low. There is no lawsuit that could do the damage that the mainstream media is doing to itself.
Despite my criticism of the rise of mainstream or “legacy” media, I still believe that we need a strong “fourth estate” in a democracy. We need a neutral and objective media today more than ever. CBS is a network with a history of true legends in this field. It has served this country well in its tireless pursuit of important stories, including the disclosure of government abuses.
The current reporters and editors are destroying American journalism with their overt bias and hostility. However, it will be the public and the market (not lawsuits) that will ultimately hold the media accountable for the abandonment of neutrality principles.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Everyone seems to be focusing on Trump’s first sentence (that he is thinking of suing CBS). Don’t underestimate his tack here. Reread the SECOND part, IMHO, the real message here.
Trump might just be playing the same game that MEDIA plays—their constant, repetitive (and desperately accelerated) re-playing of soundbites and video scenes of charges against Trump even though they have been legally impotent and never went anywhere.
In that light, reread Trump’s two sentences here:
“[1] [s]o I think I’m going to sue them actually. I think so. No, you know what, they can’t defend it and [2] if they do and even if they win it’s going to be very embarrassing.”
–Not that I don’t wince at some things that Trump says. But that’s not the point. While I was raised with the “two wrongs don’t make a right” mantra, I think Trump is just throwing it back at the VERY VERY biased and propagandized MSM.
Lin,
Good observation.
Not a lawfare suit, but make sure that the agenda-driven media is made an example of at every opportunity until it becomes undeniable that the media mere propaganda for the left. That is a point that needs to be pounded into even the most ossified prog/left brain. The tools must be made to see that they are mere mindless sheeple to the left.
I want the Media held to account for fraud, conspiracy and defamation
* There is a point there. Media is a conspiracy to influence elections, public beliefs and actions and the conservative media is part of it.
Conservative media is smaller but provides the necessary choice component. It leads people thinking it’s not a monopoly. I have a choice don’t I? No you don’t. It’s one all inclusive program.
We all must be good little social workers sacrificing everything including our children to help the needy. It’s communism. The central committee chose your officials. Just cut the fake voting machines. No citizen voted for kamala as candidate. Just cut to reality.
Then quit watching outlets that engage in fraud conspiracy and defamation.
FCC should REMOVE CBS license to broadcast
Conspiracy is a CRIME
I am done with allowing Democrats get away with CRIMES
So should Steve Bannon be in JAIL? When NO Democrat ever goes to JAIL?
No conspiracy is not a crime. A conspiracy to commit a crime is a separate crime. But an illegal conspiracy must be to commit a crime.
The good professor is right, the media is doing a great job at destroying their own reputation. Trust in the MSM is at an all time low. Meanwhile alternative media is doing fantastic.
I’m not sure that I agree with this statement. Trump has sued the New York Times, CNN, the Washington Post, etc., and I personally think we should let the games continue. It’s not like he can’t cannot afford them. How do we define a win anyway?
A win would be the complete exposure, destruction and absolute revelation that at least half of America has been scammed since the media hid FDR’s polio and Edith Wilson’s deception of her husbands true condition. I am sure there are older examples of this collusion but not in such a monopolistic way as now.
“How do we define a win anyway?”
A complete win to me would require a Republican POTUS, Senate and House, followed by the methodical, thorough, destruction of the un-Constitutional administrative state. I think that is unlikely to happen, but I’m hopeful of attaining at least the first goal, and making some progress toward the second. If Trump can get in, drag Congressional majorities with him, and get this nation substantially back to where it was prior to the first Obama term, I would be relatively happy, if not content.
I’m all for showing the complete interview. Do the same with trump. The Media, including the NYT edit trumps talking points to make him look like he is actually saying something. If you listen to trump talk, he rambles, talkes about penis size, talks about crowd size, and is very incoherent. So yea, show the complete interview, and also show how trump actually talks as well.
Apparently somebody has been sharing a Biden crack pipe. They believe the media is protecting Trump by “editing Trumps talking points” to make him look better.
He’s SOOOOO incoherent. Not like Biden: still president and sharp as a tack! Border Czar Harris assured us that was so up to the day she took him out as a conspirator in an insurrection.
Your reading comprehension is horrendous
I said nothing about Biden’s competency. Harris was never the “Border Czar”. Just because you say it does not make it so. Please provide a link to something that shows Biden appointed Harris “Border Czar”.
And yes, the NYT did edit trumps talking points to make him look not so demented. If you were to hear his unedited or read his unedited speeches, you would quickly see the guy has serious focus problems.
Harris was not the border czar – correct, the US has no official “czar” positions, The media, often those in government, and the people use the term “czar” to apply to someone in government made responsible for some aspect of Government.
Harris was repeatedly refered to by democrats, the MSM and the administration as “the border czar” as a colloquial term to recognize that Biden had given her significant responsibility regarding the domain of illegal immigration.
If you are arguing that Harris was not “technically” the border czar – you are correct, the US has no Czars.
If you are arguing that Harris was not delegated significant power regarding ghe border by the president and was not responsible for the excercise of that power – then you are lying.
Why is it that left wing nuts think that word games are the same as logical arguments.
I bet you just loved that 40 minute dance of trump. Boy that guy can move. And then he got confused when his mic stoped working, what was it, 20 minutes, 30 minutes of him wondering around wondering what he should do?
And now we know what trump thinks of another mans penis. That was critical information that I am so glad he shared.
All you are doing is proving how stupid you are.
This was heavily reported on despite it being nothing.
There were two serious medical emergencies, and as he always does Trump stopped speaking while they were being dealt with.
Ge then asked the audience if they would like him to DJ some of his faovrite music while they waited – which he then did.
He is not Pavarotti or Micheal Jackson, but he never said he was.
Only idiots on the left thought this was anything bad, it was actually good.
It showed Trump did not know what to do. His rallies are highly scripted events. When medical emergencies occurred during Obama’s rallies he engaged with the crowd and often continued his speeches while staff handled the emergency. Trump’s silence and awkward dancing around is odd because Trump loves to talk. You also left out that Trump stopped the Q&A portion of his rally because he didn’t like the questions he was expected to answer.
It’s one reason why people keep leaving his rallies early. He tends to ramble and make incoherent banter that has nothing to do with policy or how he will implement things.
funny when georgie imposes his opinion as fact.
georgie the authority on everything wants to educate us on what Trumps does not know what to do, and why he danced or stopped the Q&A. georgie “tends to ramble and make incoherent banter that has nothing to do with the topic, WHICH IS ABOUT SUIT AGAINST CBS.
When the “news” edits their interview in a way to deceive the public regarding a particular candidate during an election it is no longer news, it is straight up propaganda. I say let them burn, they are an arm of Hollywood and controlled by the globalist cabal. Alleged edits and bias my arse.
“Based on the provided search results, the following legal issues may be involved: Accusations of “significant and intentional news distortion”: A formal complaint was filed regarding the “60 Minutes” interview with Vice President Kamala Harris, alleging that CBS intentionally edited the footage to distort the public’s understanding of the conversation. This raises concerns about potential violations of journalistic ethics and potentially misleading the public.
Potential FCC investigation: FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington expressed a willingness to investigate the matter to ensure the public was not misled. This could lead to a formal inquiry into CBS’s editorial practices and potential violations of FCC guidelines or regulations.
Defamation or libel concerns: If the editing of the interview was intentional and resulted in a false or misleading representation of Vice President Harris’s views, CBS could be liable for defamation or libel. Vice President Harris or her representatives may seek legal action to correct the perceived harm.
First Amendment protections: As a news organization, CBS is protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of the press. However, this protection does not absolve CBS of responsibility for ensuring the accuracy and fairness of its reporting. A legal challenge would need to balance the First Amendment interests with the potential harm caused by intentional distortion.
Potential legal action by Vice President Harris or her representatives: If Vice President Harris or her representatives believe they were unfairly or inaccurately portrayed in the edited interview, they may seek legal action against CBS to correct the perceived harm or to prevent future similar incidents.
These legal issues highlight the complexities surrounding the CBS broadcast of the edited interview with Vice President Kamala Harris, involving potential violations of journalistic ethics, FCC regulations, and defamation or libel laws.” (raw search results)
The problem there is that the Federal government has no Constitutional authority to prevent any entity from misleading the public. That is just taking the BS “disinformation/misinformation” authority that the Left seeks to use against Trump and turning it 180-degrees.
I don’t think Turley is correct that CBS has released a full transcript of the interview. The link he provides appears to be to a transcript of the EDITED interview, as it was aired. The demand is for a transcript of the unedited interview, to show the edits they made. There is CBS precedent for this, and their refusal to do so strongly suggests that they edited the interview to help Kamala look better.
Anonymous 6:38 AM
A worthy thought but the ability to inculcate such a regime into the culture we now have would be daunting. And once again you would have the argument over how far back and wide can you go in making a case against false and inaccurate speech and what is proper context and what is not.
Better yet might be limiting the size of news organizations, other purveyors of “news” , loosening the libel laws so large news corporations are not protected by the need to prove “malice” when everyone else has no such protection. It would need to encompass anti-competitive behavior, law, journalism standards, education and the matter of “truth and accuracy” being the sign post towards which all things point.
To loosely quote an old saying, “when a man is digging himself into a hole, other than handing him a shovel, just get out of the way and let him finish the job.”
Just think about a suit but don’t act.
Trump talks big. By making such a statement he forces the issue into the public forum for the country to see, thereby damaging CBS’s reputation. What little there is of it. Alerting those voters who have little or no idea of such manipulations, maybe even garnering votes. Good move by Trump.
“it might be wise to advocate for accurate, and complete speech”
It is impossible to do that unless an absolute guarantee of unrestrained free speech is already in place.
“I hope that he will think again about this latest threat of litigation.” (JT)
Actually, it’s a smart *political* move.
The media’s silence abets CBS’ manipulations and propagandizing for Harris. Trump’s mere threat of a suit resurrects that corruption. And if he proceeds, the suit could compel CBS to release damaging evidence.
“Actually, it’s a smart *political* move.”
Trump appears to be getting decent political mileage just from the threat of litigation, even without going further. The question to me is how far he should go in vigorously pursuing the matter. Would the benefits of doing so justify the additional cost in resources of using all available legal firepower to prosecute a lawsuit? I’m doubtful. He could also file with no real intent of following through, since the election will be long over before even any preliminary outcome materializes. It does make a good talking point, though.
You can always tell the Leftard comments, as they are over blown, lengthy wind bags! BTW, leftards, smart people just skip right over your comments that look like essays! 😏
Trump proves, once again, that he actually *admires* his own worst instincts instead of being horrified by them. This is the true mark of the narcissist. Maybe this time around he won’t fire the people tough enough to tell him that he’s full of cr*p when he gets too full of himself.
Totally unlike you, of course.
Not a criticism of real Republicans, but the current U.S. Supreme Court refuses to invoke Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Overwhelming evidence makes Trump “disqualified” from ever serving in government ever again. Most of this evidence originated from testimony from former Trump cabinet officials (not Democrats).
This is the first time since the American Civil War ended in 1865, that any president (Republican or Democrat) has committed this form of disloyalty to their Oath of Office loyalty oath.
Right now in October 2024, with no election results available, this same former president is essentially saying if he loses next month, that the election is rigged and he is also inciting violence – before any vote has been counted! Exactly what he did in 2020 before Election Day.
Under the U.S. Constitution Trump is not even qualified to even run for elected office! There are simply no cops-on-the-beat to enforce the supreme law of the United States!
How does this relate to the article that Professor Turley just wrote??
It doesn’t, but sufferers of TDS take every opportunity to spew their ignorance as we have seen all too often here.
Total nonsense, Trump is no insurrectionist. Jack Smith from the Biden/Harris DoJ has been on a non-step, no-holds-barred smear campaign against Trump , throwing everything possible at Trump to jail him, bankrupt him and assure that Trump could not become President regardless of what voters want. Smith’s anti-Trump jihadi has been supported in every particular by Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan who blatantly shows she wants to “get Trump” as much as Smith does. Yet Smith has never charged Trump with insurrection and Judge Chutkan is fine with that- – because there was no insurrection by Trump. Trump and his supporters on Jan 6 were protesting, in tactics far less violent than BLM , rampant voting fraud practices adoped by Democrats to deny Trump re-election, and it continues to this day
Watch this video of the many changes in Michigan law that eliminate all guardrails to election fraud and explain how anyone can still have confidence in Michigan election results.
https://x.com/defiyantlyfree/status/1847890236858363965?s=46&t=zg-9mDO3MY8KajzUzhG_UQ
Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time. Trump is a criminal. The facts don’t lie.
“The facts don’t lie.”
You wouldn’t recognize a fact if one bit a chunk out of your left ass cheek and swallowed it in front of you.
No, but Wally does. He’s a leftist. Leftists lie.
Then you can cite FACTS that constitute the elements of an actual crime.
Insurrection is an ARMED uprising against legitimate authority – that is not a few people with guns in their hotel rooms.
Had 1000 trump protestors showed up at the capitol with AR-15’s you MIGHT have been able to argue that was an insurection – though you STILL would have had to prove Trump was part of it.
But no such thing occured.
Regardless, the rule of law requires that you only prosecute legitimate crimes and that when you do you prove EVERY element of those crimes.
You do not get to say someone is a criminal because you do not like their conduct.
We have exactly the same with the NYS nonsense – both the merchan and enmoron cases involve allegations of criminal and civil fraud.
Blacks makes clear – as well as SCOTUS decisions by none other than Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that Fraud is a property crime.
It requires actual theft by deception of real property that another is entitled to.
That is not even possible in either of the NYS cases.
While each case will ultimately be dissmissed – likely on other grounds – because a MOUNTAIN of legal errors where made by the prosecutors and judges in those cases, The FACT remains that no crime was committed.
I would note that the rule of law REQUIRES only the prosecution of legitimate crimes
The reason that Fraud requires theft by decption of tangible property is because all deceptions are not crimes.
is CBS criminally prosecutable for editing the Harris interview to decieve people ?
Absolutely not – their conduct is unethical, but it is not criminal.
it is not even a tort – because even Torts require TANGIBLE harm. Hurt feelings are NOT enough.
A crime is the use of force, threat of force or deception to take from someone something that is their by RIGHT.
If all those requirements are not met – there is no crime.
A leglslature passing a law that can be stretched to say lying to yourself about your expenses is a crime -does not make it a crime.
“ Regardless, the rule of law requires that you only prosecute legitimate crimes and that when you do you prove EVERY element of those crimes.
You do not get to say someone is a criminal because you do not like their conduct.”
That’s odd, you didn’t apply that principle when Biden was accused of bribery and influence peddling and money laundering. You called him a criminal because you didn’t like the alleged conduct.
“ Blacks makes clear – as well as SCOTUS decisions by none other than Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that Fraud is a property crime.”
She was talking about federal statutes. Not state statutes. Trump was charged under state law. Your reasoning does not apply. Just to be clear. Just because there is a federal statute defining fraud as a property issue does not mean it automatically supersedes state law.
You all need to find something new instead of trotting out that old canard
Hysterical… why don’t you sue the Supreme Court ehh? And bring all that evidence to light?
And a REAL Democrat is here to assure you they love “real Republicans” (Liz Cheney?) – giving us the Cackles Harris lies about insurrection and assuring us he/it has evidence that Trump flat out promised to incite violence after the election.
Credibility score: ZERO.
Mental masturbation score: 100%.
* You haven’t heard? The Confederates States of America lost the civil war. The United States of America won.
ATS th supreme court has ruled CONSISTENTLY for two centuries that the ONLY requirements for holding federal elected office are those specifically in the constitution.
With respect to the 14th amendment – SCOTUS correctly – 9-0 noted that the entirety of th reconstruction amendments were to RESTRAIN state power. To the extent A14S3 changes the qualifications for federal public office, it requires Congress to find that the potential federal office holder engaged in insurrection – Rep. Raskin is seeking to do that.
That is a hail mary that will fail and even if it does not – would result in JD Vance as president.
I am not aware of a single candidate for president ever that did not have lots of people saying they were not qualified.
That is not a constituional or legal standard.
Clinton was unqualified to be president, Biden was unqualified to be president, Harris is unqualified to be president.
It is VOTERS that determine whether that argument is persuasuive – not courts or SoS’s.
The constitution leaves Trump fully qualified to run for President, he is old enough and he was born a US citizen,
he has not been convicted of insurection, sedition or providing material aid to an enemy in time of war.
he did not take up arms agains this country.
No one did. There was no isurrection – just a democrat fevered dream that protestors at the Capitol on J6 might have actually persuaded enough senators and representatives that the election was fraudulent that the might not certify.
Like it or not that is the “Rule of law”. What is actually lawless is claiming that protesters could NOT protest certification. or that Certification is ceremonial – our laws and constitution are NEVER ceremonial.
Are those few protestors at J6 that actually engaged in violence subject to criminal prosecution for that violence ?
Absolutely – exactly as Kavanaugh protestors, or BLM protestors, or Portland ICE protestors,
And EXACTLY like in those contexts – people who engage in violence while protesting policitally are subject to LESS severe prosecution – often NONE.
The civil was was an insurrection – 450,000 people died – guns were fired, cannons fired.
1776 was an insurrection – one that colonists won and resulted in the creation of the United States.
J6 was not an insurrection.
good point. the media has hurt itself.
WWII sshowed us that false and hateful speech can win so many battles, before truth actually goes to war. Somehow, Harris/Biden won 2020 on the basis of speech that still was able to win the battles; eventually losing out to an awakening public. No-free speech is not a weapon against bad ideas, and evil. In fact, we have seen the use of false speech completely overwhelm any ability for good to win the day in recent years. In fact, it’s so bad, that most of us have no idea if anything we hear is true.
I would urge that instead of advocating for free speech, it might be wise to advocate for accurate, and complete speech. It would be a move towards journalistic integrity. Such a framework would need painful enforcement capability, and integrity. Also, civil law would need to be ammended; even “opinions” could be subjected to a need for accurate facts, and a need for presenting the opposite case, and for presenting a conclusion that is well reasoned.
Instead of a bunch of lies and counter lies we would develop a press that educates with facts, and reason instead of simply a completely broken down system of fake news and people who are too lazy to find the real facts. Even those who want the truth today, cannot find it.
Years ago, several young boys raped a five year old girl. Washington Post fact checkers called it “fake news”. In fact, only a thorough review of local news showed it to be entirely true. Wapo was using a technicality that the boys were called Syrians in one of the many articles. That article allowed Wapo to call the entire narative fake to serve the Obama narrative of trying to bring Syrians to the U.S. In fact, the narative still applied, but the press manipulated the truth and it was extremely difficult to get the truth. Ultimately, I was able to find out the truth by scouring local newspapers.
So “freedom of speech” has no virtue in an age of manipulation of media, media controlled by government operatives or working for political parties or big corporate interests. Adolf was elected to Reichschancelor, on the informational falsity and vehemence of his p.r. It took 20 years and the death of millions to bring out the truth. Truth in todays climate many never come out.
The common sense here is refreshing. It points to a glaring omission in JT’s “The Indispensable Right” — namely the problem of the politically most powerful using deceitful infowarfare to dupe the public. In the book, Turley argues for a definition of free speech so expansive as to allow intentional, premeditated deceit in the public square.
But, in the examples he uses, the liar is a small, powerless citizen acting out in frustration against a powerful state.
He never flips the script to one where the state, with its lawyers trained in the tradecraft of psychological operations (PsyOps) is bearing down with falsehoods on the relatively powerless citizen.
Under this scenario, the public gets “nudged” into giving its consent under false pretenses. This leads to regrettable decisions and outright blunders. There are too many to enumerate here, but the “remember the Maine”, Gulf of Tonkin hoax, fighting to overthrow Saddam and establish a pro-Iranian “democracy” in Iraq, the Trump-Russia hoax, Hunter’s laptop cover-up, and Trump’s big lie — what about the ones that are never got exposed?
Anonymous is on the right track. We need to be circumspect about “free speech” — particularly wary about any definition so broad as to include inauthenticity, manipulation and intimidation — and leave the populace powerless except to complain after the fact about being railroaded into a bad decision.
The fight with the left should not be over whether to legally tolerate or deter disinformation, but that civil lawsuits NOT govt. prosecution is the correct way to deal with it. The fight should be over the toolset of choice to uphold standards of trust and authenticity in public political speech. We should be able to agree with Dems that a free society runs on the fuel of truth and trust. Getting them to agree, and work together to establish public frauds lawsuits (not bogged down by tactical delays) would be a historical step in the right direction. Being able to sue media giants when they get behind deceptive infowarfare campaigns will go a long way toward countering the dangers of activist journalism. It was successfully done in the case of Nicholas Sandmann, but what if nobody is defamed by the whopper? What if the intent is simply conning the public for political effect?…..to gain power….or retain it?
If defamation lawsuits are kosher with the 1st Amendment (JT agrees), then public frauds lawsuits — which mimic that toolset for sorting out truth from fiction with a jury as decider-of-fact — and give plaintiffs (the public) investigatory tools of subpoena and compelled deposition — ought to be the toolset we’re considering.
What makes no sense is to get into a 1-sided ideological battle about “free speech” where we blindly greenlight PsyOps waged by professional infowarriors on the rest of society.
How feckless and defeatist to say our all we can do is complain about being misled after the fact.
Pbinca, you may have a good point. Turley claims he is not a free-speech absolutist, but this column points out a stance that is very much in line with what a free-speech absolutist advocates for. He gripes about “advocacy journalism” but that is exactly what he supports ironically. He says these kinds of editing and biases in MSM are perfectly fine as a principle of free speech. Turley is very much a part of that “advocacy journalism” he is against. Fox News is a huge source of advocacy journalism. They have been caught editing video, and outright lying to the point they had to dole out 787 million dollars in a defamation case. Turley never mentioned these obvious issues. He works for Fox News and he’s never going to openly criticize Fox as long as he provides them with legal analysis. He is not being paid to be objective. He’s being paid to be a mouthpiece for the conservative point of view and that is just fine. But we shouldn’t pretend that he is exempt from the problem of advocacy journalism when he enables it by ignoring and avoiding direct criticism of Fox News’s participation in the things he calls advocacy journalism.
The fact that you are allowed to post your nonsense here, every day without fail, says otherwise.
That’s irrelevant. It doesn’t change the fact that Turley is just as culpable of the things he is critical of. He likes to pretend he’s above the fray when he’s not.
What is Turley culpable of ?
He has said that 60 minutes CAN decipitvely edit their interviews.
He has also said that the rest of us are free to expose that,
and that each of us is then free to decide whether we trust 60 minutes or not.
You constantly misunderstand absolute free speech as speech immune to criticism which is ludicrously stupid and false.
Your repeated claims that Turley is hypocritical because he often criticises the free speech of others, not only misunderstands free speech but offers a claim as to what free speech is that is an absurd self contradiction.
As has been said many times – you are inccapable of critical thinking, of logic of reason, of grasping the obvious consequences of your own arguments.
“ You constantly misunderstand absolute free speech as speech immune to criticism which is ludicrously stupid and false.”
That’s not true. I always argue that exercising free speech does not make anyone immune from the consequences including criticism. Turley labels criticism as “attacks” on free speech when criticism involves calls to moderate or regulate certain speech.
“ What is Turley culpable of ?”
He’s culpable of doing the same things he criticizes the media for doing. Advocacy journalism, omitting certain facts, and yes even moderating speech because he seems certain speech offensive.
“ Your repeated claims that Turley is hypocritical because he often criticizes the free speech of others, not only misunderstand free speech but offers a claim as to what free speech is that is an absurd self-contradiction.”
I stand by my assertion. Turley is indeed hypocritical. Your willful denial doesn’t change that.
He’s critical of companies that rank social media platforms and blogs and calls their ranking and claims of conservative sites not as credible or reliable sources of information is censorship and there should be legislation to regulate their claims. That’s seeking to silence those companies through the threat of legislation.
On the blog, Turley will delete protected speech such as openly racist comments because he deems it offensive. But he’s critical of social media censoring or moderating content they deem offensive or against their rules. Indeed, Turley is a hypocrite.
His own peers have noted Turley’s spiral into hypocrisy in his quest to gain credibility with the right-wing Republican party.
“ As has been said many times – you are incapable of critical thinking, of logic of reason, of grasping the obvious consequences of your own arguments.”
Ad hominem attacks? Really?
Projecting your own faults in others is not an argument. It’s an admission.
Pbinca,
as is typical of leftists, you conflate personal offense with criminality.
One of many reasons that speech is protected from government criminalization is that each of us of us has free will.
Only violations of that free will are crimes.
Did someone put a gun to your head ? That is a violation of free will.
So long as you have the freedom to decide what YOU choose to beleive or not – your free will has not been violated and there is no crime.
It does not matter if the alleged liar is rich and powerful or relatively powerless.
Absent there having ACTUAL real POWER over you – absent their ability to FORCE you to decide as they wish – absent some form of gun to your head – the fact is the powerful – are NOT anymore powerful than those with little power.
Sounds like you made a case for abortion rights.