|
Post by Tarponator on Oct 18, 2024 13:26:00 GMT -5
Fox literally edited out segments of the Trump all women town hall. Anything that had to do with the women being Republican staff, campaign workers, voted for Trump, chanting Trump's name. All to pretend it was a random audience. And no I ain't complaining because it isn't any more illegal than what 60 Minutes did. The complaint is a conservative group trying to make it a hig deal just before the election. Just like MSNBC breaking the story about Trump trying to pay Stormy Daniels AGAIN to get her to shut up Both are just political BS You're still comparing apples to acorns. Editing segments of an entire recorded event to create a finished product that fits within a specific allotted chunk of programming is not the same as cutting up the answer to a single question and reconstructing it to say something different. Pretty straight forward here but you all keep side stepping and trying to compare two different situations Furthermore, I've already stated that any outlet committing the same acts should be held accountable. So tell me what you are arguing in support of Tarpon, Bim, and Cad? They are not different situations.
I'm arguing against your partisan naivete and for the 1st Amendment, of course. To illustrate that point, one only needs to ask: Let's presume everything you and CAR says is accurate, "accountable" for what?
Would you like more apples?
|
|
|
Post by JS84 on Oct 18, 2024 13:44:23 GMT -5
Absolutely different. Cutting out shots that show the audience is no where near the same as cutting out parts of a sentence, then stitching it back together to create a different sentence.
Are you arguing that the 1st amendment covers deception? Could be right, I'm not a legal scholar but a hell of a thing to argue for; deception, not the 1st Amendment that is.
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on Oct 18, 2024 13:54:26 GMT -5
While you continuously sidestep my questions (sound familiar?), I'm not arguing for anything, except for you to stop being so ignorantly and naively partisan. Let me help: Recorded news programs edit interviews as a matter of course. You literally have never seen one that hasn't been edited. In the case of Kamala's interview, you haven't seen the unedited version, and you have no idea if what CAR alleges is true, and even it if is, that it somehow is against the law or regulation. Cad nailed it in his first (and second) post on the topic -- happens all the time and this is just a bunch of blowhard lawyers making a political stink about it.
Now share what video you've seen, and perhaps I can figure out how easily you were led astray -- there are a few versions floating around, and I wouldn't want to presume.
Would you like more apples?
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Oct 18, 2024 13:56:37 GMT -5
I did not have MAGA advocating the government regulating free speech on my BINGO card. Elon must not of read the memo.
I guess they need of refresher on the definition of absolutist.
|
|
|
Post by OhMy on Oct 18, 2024 14:00:38 GMT -5
While you continuously sidestep my questions (sound familiar?), I'm not arguing for anything, except for you to stop being so ignorantly and naively partisan. Let me help: Recorded news programs edit interviews as a matter of course. You literally have never seen one that hasn't been edited. In the case of Kamala's interview, you haven't seen the unedited version, and you have no idea if what CAR alleges is true, and even it if is, that it somehow is against the law or regulation. Cad nailed it in his first (and second) post on the topic -- happens all the time and this is just a bunch of blowhard lawyers making a political stink about it.
Now share what video you've seen, and perhaps I can figure out how easily you were led astray -- there are a few versions floating around, and I wouldn't want to presume.
Your grammar is incorrect again. The highlighted section above should read " and even if it is,".
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on Oct 18, 2024 14:03:18 GMT -5
Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Oct 18, 2024 14:46:40 GMT -5
Leave it to Cad to come to the defense of the liberal loser. Shocking. Just shocking, I tell ya!!! What fucking defense. For a contract to be valid both sides have to agree. Using your logic, I bet you $1 million that you wont fly to Mars in a rocket ship by Sunday. We now have a bet. You will owe me $1 million on Monday if you ain't on a rocket to Mars. That was how you made the bet with mister. You just proclaimed it was a bet.
|
|
|
Post by JS84 on Oct 18, 2024 14:48:14 GMT -5
Selfie with Earth from the surface of Mars or it didn't happen
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Oct 18, 2024 14:49:12 GMT -5
Absolutely different. Cutting out shots that show the audience is no where near the same as cutting out parts of a sentence, then stitching it back together to create a different sentence. Are you arguing that the 1st amendment covers deception? Could be right, I'm not a legal scholar but a hell of a thing to argue for; deception, not the 1st Amendment that is. Certainly it covers deception. Courts have ruled police officers can use deception and lies to get you to confess under the first amendment. If cops can do it, I am sure CBS can do it.
|
|
|
Post by whitebacon on Oct 18, 2024 14:53:51 GMT -5
Leave it to Cad to come to the defense of the liberal loser. Shocking. Just shocking, I tell ya!!! What fucking defense. For a contract to be valid both sides have to agree. Using your logic, I bet you $1 million that you wont fly to Mars in a rocket ship by Sunday. We now have a bet. You will owe me $1 million on Monday if you ain't on a rocket to Mars. That was how you made the bet with mister. You just proclaimed it eas a bet. Are you prepared to defend your position in a court of law? Mister can hire you. I will bring a real lawyer so can argue salient points, like constructive receipt, and many, many more. I will ask for fees, and treble benefits, in addition to injurious conduct compensation as clearly conducted by your best buddy, on a public forum. That being said, I was RIGHT. And he was so WRONG, he wasn't even in the galaxy!!! So I'm asking you, who was right, and who was WRONG? And spare me your spin, please.
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on Oct 18, 2024 14:58:55 GMT -5
I will represent Cad, pro bono.
|
|
|
Post by JS84 on Oct 18, 2024 14:58:55 GMT -5
My point wasn't whether or not deception is protected speech, which I would believe it is. My point was that arguing for deception is a hell of a stance. It really shows the type of person the poster is. Furthermore, his post has nothing to do with held beliefs and was posted solely to be abrasive and argumentative. Also known as trolling
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Oct 18, 2024 14:59:05 GMT -5
What fucking defense. For a contract to be valid both sides have to agree. Using your logic, I bet you $1 million that you wont fly to Mars in a rocket ship by Sunday. We now have a bet. You will owe me $1 million on Monday if you ain't on a rocket to Mars. That was how you made the bet with mister. You just proclaimed it eas a bet. Are you prepared to defend your position in a court of law? Mister can hire you. I will bring a real lawyer so can argue salient points, like constructive receipt, and many, many more. I will ask for fees, and treble benefits, in addition to injurious conduct compensation as clearly conducted by your best buddy, on a public forum. That being said, I was RIGHT. And he was so WRONG, he wasn't even in the galaxy!!! So I'm asking you, who was right, and who was WRONG? And spare me your spin, please. Who cares who was right. IT WAS NEVER A BET
|
|
|
Post by whitebacon on Oct 18, 2024 15:06:23 GMT -5
I will represent Cad, pro bono. Except......mister is, or would be, the one being sued in regards to the original question/discussion
|
|
|
Post by whitebacon on Oct 18, 2024 15:10:12 GMT -5
Are you prepared to defend your position in a court of law? Mister can hire you. I will bring a real lawyer so can argue salient points, like constructive receipt, and many, many more. I will ask for fees, and treble benefits, in addition to injurious conduct compensation as clearly conducted by your best buddy, on a public forum. That being said, I was RIGHT. And he was so WRONG, he wasn't even in the galaxy!!! So I'm asking you, who was right, and who was WRONG? And spare me your spin, please. Who cares who was right. IT WAS NEVER A BET I was right in the thread with mister, 100% And I'm right, here, discussing it with you! 100% But I am enternally convinced you will never admit to being wrong. Ever. Never. Ever. Never ever ever ever!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on Oct 18, 2024 15:11:27 GMT -5
My point wasn't whether or not deception is protected speech, which I would believe it is. My point was that arguing for deception is a hell of a stance. It really shows the type of person the poster is. Furthermore, his post has nothing to do with held beliefs and was posted solely to be abrasive and argumentative. Also known as trolling For the third time, nobody (except you) is arguing for deception: Stating something happens is not arguing for it.
Furthermore, it really shows the type of person the poster is when they continue to argue straw men.
Would you like the abrasive version?
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on Oct 18, 2024 15:15:44 GMT -5
I will represent Cad, pro bono. Except......mister is, or would be, the one being sued in regards to the original question/discussion I'll represent him too!
Let's rock!
|
|
|
Post by whitebacon on Oct 18, 2024 15:20:27 GMT -5
Except......mister is, or would be, the one being sued in regards to the original question/discussion I'll represent him too!
Let's rock!
We should just go mano y mano, like the old days. Twelve crabs apiece. Third day of the moon, 5-7 p.m. No geographic boundaries. No tackle restrictions . Honor system only. đŸ˜€
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on Oct 18, 2024 15:24:17 GMT -5
That would be much more fun, indeed!
We're headed to Nashville & Mammoth Caves this weekend for a week. May head right back down to the keys after, not sure yet. I have unfinished business -- there's a bonefish down there with my name on it. Hopefully, this time, my fishing partner won't take the opportunity to snorkel along the edge of the flat and blow them out, FFS.
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Oct 18, 2024 15:29:42 GMT -5
Spelunking in Mammoth Caves was on of my first dates with my wife over 30 years ago.
I'll go in the big rooms, but I'll never go in the narrow tubes again.
|
|
|
Post by whitebacon on Oct 18, 2024 15:33:29 GMT -5
That would be much more fun, indeed! We're headed to Nashville & Mammoth Caves this weekend for a week. May head right back down to the keys after, not sure yet. I have unfinished business -- there's a bonefish down there with my name on it. Hopefully, this time, my fishing partner won't take the opportunity to snorkel along the edge of the flat and blow them out, FFS. Have safe travels brother. Sounds awesome. Don't get me started ........on bonefish.....lol Having devoted a substantial amount of time, like you, I could have shot myself over Keys bonefish. I sincerely feel guilty down here, they are like pets, they feed about 10' from the beach. Not very sporting to target them, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by JS84 on Oct 18, 2024 15:37:30 GMT -5
I'm arguing against your partisan naivete and for the 1st Amendment, of course.
Explain yourself then. You were arguing for the 1st Amendment; in what way? I stated any outlet committing the act should be held accountable and your response was that you were, "arguing against your partisan naivete and for the 1st Amendment." Good thing the site keeps receipts since you can't keep track of what you say.
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on Oct 18, 2024 15:40:01 GMT -5
News programs are able to edit their content because of the 1st Amendment. In other words, I was arguing against your ignorance, accountable or otherwise.
Would you like me to use crayon to answer any follow-ups? After all, we wouldn't want you any more confused than you already are.
And you can quote me on that, too.
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Oct 18, 2024 15:40:59 GMT -5
I'm arguing against your partisan naivete and for the 1st Amendment, of course.
Explain yourself then. You were arguing for the 1st Amendment; in what way? I stated any outlet committing the act should be held accountable and your response was that you were, "arguing against your partisan naivete and for the 1st Amendment." Good thing the site keeps receipts since you can't keep track of what you say.Who can even remember what you claimed about pets being eaten in Ohio, and the truthfulness of all those post, stories, and claims?
|
|
|
Post by JS84 on Oct 18, 2024 15:48:37 GMT -5
News programs are able to edit their content because of the 1st Amendment.
That's not exactly accurate, which I bet you know. If the outlet at issue allows editors to express their own views, First Amendment protection is limited or non-existent. For example, Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornilloco compared to FCC v. Midwest Video Corp
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on Oct 18, 2024 15:52:59 GMT -5
Ok, counselor. Please explain how those cases apply to the issue at hand. I would suggest you work with Bullfrog on your response -- or ignore that request, too -- as you're way out of your Wikipedia league.
Meow.
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Oct 18, 2024 16:00:57 GMT -5
How many lines did you stand in? Line of cars to park and line of people to check in and line to get to a voting booth. You may be onto something.
|
|
|
Post by JS84 on Oct 18, 2024 16:01:54 GMT -5
No Wikipedia in my browser history
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on Oct 18, 2024 16:03:02 GMT -5
Ignore it is!
Scared?
You should be.
|
|
|
Post by JS84 on Oct 18, 2024 16:08:42 GMT -5
I answered in my initial reply but I can expand at your request.
In Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo case, when editorial decisions express and convey editors’ ideas, they receive First Amendment protection. However, in FCC v. Midwest Video Corp, when they do not, or the regime at issue allows editors to express their own views, First Amendment protection is limited or non-existent. The Supreme Court has never endorsed the position that every aspect of operating a communications network is protected speech, and the consequences of such a view would be untenable. The Court has only given editorial decision-making limited First Amendment protection.
|
|