Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Saagar Enjeti: Dem Ask To DEPLATFORM Fox News Is Gravest Threat To Press Freedom In Modern Memory" video.

The Supreme Court held in Norwood v. Harrison (1973), that the government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.” This applies to the First Amendment, too.
3
@slewone4905 They will be sued for those, wherever they constitute unprotected speech, such as defamation, as was explained in this segment. Good. That's what should happen. Alex Jones is open to major liability. You're advocating a blanket prior restraint.
2
@hrs2044 Why is anyone proposing it? It is unconstitutional. They swore to uphold that thing, 'member?
2
@hrs2044 I agree the First Amendment prevents this. Gaslighting by those who denounce it is a common move. Like hypocrisy from hypocrites. Racial and ethnic stereotyping by those who denounce racism, etc. Accuse others first of what you want to do. Accuse others of "misinformation" while doing what CUOMO did.
2
I wish everyone would listen to this segment again, especially Krystal's comments.
1
Nope. The problem is that it will take a while to get to the Supreme Court. It will be struck down there.
1
@MarkoArillius Oh please. What did Trump, Fauci, and Cuomo do? Don't you get it? The powerful will get away with their misdeeds yet again, and so far they are getting away with it, but our rights will be curtailed. Of course. This is a pattern now.
1
The First Amendment will not permit this. Watch. A politician cannot use their power beyond what a private citizen can: to request deplatforming of someone who engages in proven defamation, actual threats of violence, criminal conspiracies, etc.
1
@jpusar First Amendment rights are stronger than that. A FISA court still has to be given specifics, not engage in broad prior restraint.
1
@alexwalker5645 This also explains why the election was statistically anomalous relative to other elections, not "stolen." The pattern of votes is easily explained. The Republicans had a majority of governors, a majority in the Senate, control of the Administration for the past four years, and most federal judges are Republicans. If they had wanted to prevent the "irregularities" they complain about now, it would gave been a breeze to do it. Trump doesn't like to work. He likes to inflame people and get them to show adulation, then walk away. Carnival barker con man.
1
@hrs2044 You mean you think only neo-Nazis and white supremacists are losing jobs? You haven't been paying attention. There has been more and more infighting at many major news outlets, and dismissal, over minutiae. As noted, just recently a person who questioned firing someone over the mention, not use, of the n word in an educational context was himself suspended. It's unclear whether he himself used or mentioned that word; most reports I've heard say he did not. I'm not even talking about the initial case, which may have been more egregious than generally reported; I'm talking about being penalized for discussing the case. Blithely saying Slate can fire whomever they want is not responsive. Do you think being fired for racist speech is a small matter? It is generally career-ending. If you agree that racist speech in the workplace is a very serious matter, then it should not be charged when racist speech did not occur. Otherwise, you dilute the principle and undercut the serious nature of a real offense. By analogy, patting someone on the rear at work is disgusting and grounds for immediate termination. It could be grounds for a lawsuit. But it is not rape. Now consider a pat on the shoulder -- is it the same? Please. But there's a bigger principle involved. Journalists and educators work in fields that (we all used to agree) require free and robust discussion in order to do their work properly. You said a teacher could be fired for being a neo-Nazi. All right, that's fine. Is it acceptable to fire a teacher who presents the history of the ACLU in defending a neo-Nazi's free speech and assembly rights to his class, and encourages debate? Could a teacher present the incident that just happened at NYTimes and Slate to his seniors in Modern American History and Civics class and discuss it with them? How about in community college? Would that be all right? What do you think most teachers would do? They wouldn't bother. Use an old textbook, give them a multiple choice test, and take home your paycheck. Done. I think this fight in journalism and at the university is all about the money. These people are jockeying for the few plum positions left in a declining profession. They're not protecting vulnerable people, and I doubt that they care. They're fighting over what's left in an economy that creates a handful very big winners, many losers, and fewer and fewer people in between. They'll use whatever they can to do it, too. There's no focus on ethics here, or civility.
1
@hrs2044 I see you're still minimizing the letter. It was not just a matter of two members of Congress acting as private citizens and asking some questions, as anyone could do. First, it was sent on Congressional letterhead. Next, it contained a number of pointed accusations, including: ". . . AT&T [and others] plays a major role in the spread of dangerous misinformation that enabled the insurrection of January 6th and hinders our public health response to the current pandemic." Finally, the seven questions were highly intrusive, framed like interrogatories in a lawsuit, and demanded extensive documentation or other materials to substantiate each response; the last question asked whether AT&T and others (a separate letter was sent to each target company) plan to continue hosting Fox, and if so, why. It's now a problem to decide whether to answer such a letter, and how to do it. In the meantime, Trump was again impeached, the House leadership again failed to call witnesses to testify at his Senate trial, and he was again acquitted on a party-line vote. I don't see the necessary changes being accomplished.
1
@hrs2044 Are Katie Halper and Shahid Buttar also engaged in "fear porn?" How do you figure?
1
@hrs2044 I see you're using buzz words like "amplify" and "outrage," and evasive talking points made famous by Nancy Pelosi, like "calm down." The next time you get a letter containing such questions and requests for documentation concerning your exercise of constitutional rights, be sure to let us know. When a company gets a letter like this, it's damned if it doesn't respond, and very likely damned if it does. It better not be caught in a "lie."
1
@hrs2044 You didn't watch Katie's show. I think they did minimize the letter's import. In any case, Buttar is a constitutional lawyer, so HE was equipped to comment intelligently.
1
@hrs2044 In the meantime, no witnesses were called at either of Trump's impeachment trials. That's called "doing their job" in DC, perhaps? You didn't comment on that part of my post, you just said Katie Halper and Buttar (an accomplished attorney) "work for clicks." I think we all got the lay of the land, as it looks to you at any rate.
1
@hrs2044 Who's Tucker?
1
@hrs2044 Shahid Buttar is a Stanford-trained civil rights lawyer who ran against Pelosi in the primary. And for the record, the Supreme Court held in Norwood v. Harrison (1973), that the government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish" on its own. So I guess government cannot suggest to AT&T that it censor Fox News. But sure, anyone can write a letter and request information. That's also protected speech.
1
@hrs2044 I see. More ad hominem. Judging from your posts, you must be someone's sock puppet. I originally wrote sick puppet by accident. Perhaps I should have left it there. So, no analysis from you. Just "you sound like," and then you name some nefarious character.
1
@hrs2044 Tell me something. Are all Americans alike? Because you make these distinctions (such as between yourself and some Fox panderer) that people on the outside really don't see as being all that great. The combination of hatred and homogeneity could be amusing, if you didn't have so many guns floating around.
1
@hrs2044 How many opportunities, complete with verbatim quotations from actual documents, did I give you to interact in an intellectually honest manner? Trick question, too many. You launched into ad hominem right out of the gate.
1
@hrs2044 "censorship hysteria" "fear porn" "nothing to debate" -- posted four days ago!!
1
@hrs2044 You are all alike. If you spoke other languages and listened to news from outside this country, you'd realize that.
1
@hrs2044 Correct. The questions are not simple questions, but require very careful work, and attention, to answer with the requested proof. Moreover, they are argumentative questions -- the argument being, if you do not carry all channels, if you do "censor" some, then you have to explain why you don't censor more. They attempt to shift the burden of proof. Censorship does not require an explanation. ABSENCE of censorship requires an explanation now. Hence Question 7. Sorry you missed that. I documented it. You didn't.
1
@hrs2044 If ad hominem is all you know, I can do that, too. No problem.
1
@hrs2044 I see. Now you understand why it is so disconcerting for AT&T et al. to be accused of being RESPONSIBLE for the January 6th disgrace -- especially when Trump has yet to be held responsible, for anything. Good! Progress.
1
@hrs2044 I'm not disputing the facts you keep repeating (well, number 3 is a hypothetical but I think it is a correct statement of the law, as far as that goes). They don't meet my arguments. They are basically beside the point. Let's try this: if you were an AT&T consultant, what would you advise AT&T to do? How should they respond?
1
@hrs2044 Disingenuous. We had the same discussion in another thread. Mislead much?
1
@hrs2044 More to the real point, when AT&T or YouTube get letters asking them about hosting Black Lives Matter-produced videos and such, we'll see what you'll say. Fox News has money, BLM doesn't.
1
@hrs2044 No argument is "based on hyperbole." That's a contradiction. It's also false. Anyway, this is boring now. You haven't had a new thought in days.
1
@Innocent_Villain Well said.
1
@hrs2044 I don't disagree. That doesn't mean you can propose flagrant lawbreaking in response to lawbreaking. WHERE WERE THE WITNESSES DURING IMPEACHMENT? I wanted to hear them. I want to see Trump prosecuted for every law he broke. Let the wrongdoer off the hook and curtail the rights of everyone else? That has grown to be a pattern. You seem not to notice.
1
@Innocent_Villain Censorship by private actors at the behest of government is a violation of the First Amendment, just as a violation of other rights by private actors at the behest of government can be challenged. The DA or sheriff can't hire private security to ransack your house to bypass the Fourth Amendment.
1
@hrs2044 I didn't say any such thing. I lived in France when PCF was in Mitterrand's government. It was fine.
1
@hrs2044 Show me the text. A politician attempting to force private entities to do what that politician himself cannot do without violating the Bill of Rights is engineering a civil rights violation. If they didn't try an end-run around the First Amendment, then my characterization does not apply. But any politicians who try to get private actors to censor on their behalf are on thin ice. Politicians have a lot to say about the regulatory framework controlling the Internet. A simple question that could reasonably be construed as government pressure to censor is very likely illegal. It depends on the question and on how it was advanced.
1
@Innocent_Villain Agree, but that's a separate question.
1
@hrs2044 I just read the entire letter, rather than news excerpts. It is worse than I thought. I'm simply going to urge everyone to read the letter and leave it right there. I respect Nadine Strossen more every day.
1
@hrs2044 In short, the "questions" were framed in the style of discovery, as it exists in court. They asked for documentation or other material to support every answer. You think these are ordinary questions, for purposes of discussion? "1. What moral or ethical principles (including those related to journalistic integrity, violence, medical information, and public health) do you apply in deciding which channels to carry or when to take adverse actions against a channel? 2. Do you require, through contracts or otherwise, that the channels you carry abide by any content guidelines? If so, please provide a copy of the guidelines. 3. How many of your subscribers tuned in to Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN on U-verse, DirecTV, and AT&T TV for each of the four weeks preceding the November 3, 2020 elections and the January 6, 2021 attacks on the Capitol? Please specify the number of subscribers that tuned in to each channel. 4. What steps did you take prior to, on, and following the November 3, 2020 elections and the January 6, 2021 attacks to monitor, respond to, and reduce the spread of disinformation, including encouragement or incitement of violence by channels your company disseminates to millions of Americans? Please describe each step that you took and when it was taken. 5. Have you taken any adverse actions against a channel, including Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN, for using your platform to disseminate disinformation related directly or indirectly to the November 3, 2020 elections, the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection, or COVID-19 misinformation? *If yes, please describe each action, when it was taken, and the parties involved.* 6. Have you ever taken any actions against a channel for using your platform to disseminate any disinformation? If yes, please describe each action and when it was taken. 7. Are you planning to continue carrying Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN on U-verse, DirecTV, and AT&T TV both now and beyond any contract renewal date? If so, why?"
1
@hrs2044 You have no problem with government actors sending a letter like this? Then you don't understand what you just read. Tootles.
1
@hrs2044 Maybe you don't know what discovery is. Or what it is designed to do. And since when does any Internet platform have to justify carrying the channels it does? "Hate speech," simpliciter, is not illegal in the US. If it were, the mastermind of the Beslan school massacre could not have appeared on ABC News. Read Strossen. You need to.
1
@hrs2044 I'm telling you how it's framed -- like interrogatories in a legal case -- and it was sent by someone with authority to pass laws regarding their business, i.e., government actors. If it is within the RIGHT of a platform to choose not to offer certain content, then they can simply say that and ignore these questions. Do you have to answer detailed questions, and provide documentation, to members of Congress before you exercise your rights? Why would they have to give such a detailed accounting, and then possibly expose themselves to the risk of liability if they make an error or omission in their answers? You REALLY think everyone is stupid, don't you? You started out by saying that these were just questions. "All they did was send a letter asking questions." Pfft.
1
@hrs2044 Not narrowly tailored toward that end. Not even in the ballpark. You should be ashamed of supporting such overreach, on a matter of perennial importance, freedom of speech and of the press . And I only quoted the questions. The rest of the letter reeks of ignorance of First Amendment law, or contempt for it.
1
@hrs2044 You actually expected me not to find and read the letter, or understand it! By the way.
1
@hrs2044 No, you knew I could; you didn't think I would. Evident. Preparing for the next insurrection? Non sequitur. Or what are you driving at? A soft, backhand smear, with built-in deniability? That's how guys in Paris try to pick you up, with a double entendre they can accuse you of interpreting sexually. :D
1