Censorship Or A War On F**e News...Are Lies Protected By Freedom Of Speech Or Are They Fraud? Lying about something that's important and that affects people adversely is fraud, it...

woodguru

Lying about something that's important and that affects people adversely is fraud, it hurts people, lies that are intentionally told to deceive people into believing an alternate reality. We are dealing with a party that has openly said that when people hear the same lies often enough to where enough people believe them they become their t***h, they become alternate facts. What good is an alternate fact that is simply not the t***h if people are coerced in adopting misguided actions based on lies?

This country needs to be dealing with one set of facts, the only facts that are the reality.

The government prosecutes manufacturers that lie to people, that make false claims that are not possible, or that cause harm because people are relying on a useless product to help them when there are others that could. People as consumers are protected by the government against fraud by t***h in advertising laws. Nobody defends manufacturers by saying that their freedom of speech is being violated by not being allowed to lie to people and make more money.

The same standard applies to t***h in advertising laws that should be applying to lies in the media to protect people that are too ignorant to figure out the t***h themselves. We don't tell a manufacturer that the fact a product doesn't do what they say it does has to be proved against them to make them stop making their false claims...no, we set as a standard that advertising involves being able to provide proof that your product does what you say it will. They don't necessarily have to stop selling something, they simply can't make claims that can't be proved.

What this would mean to the media is that media sources that operate on what they call editorial versus real facts would be regulated as far as being able to prove what they say. Editorial would be fair game as long as there were not well documented sources that are representing real facts that can be used to prove that a media outlet is not repeating things that are wrong. It used to be that top news sources would not even air a story until they had the hard evidence to back it.

If a news network is going to call itself that the things it covers should be done in such a way that they are representing facts they can prove rather than talking heads opinions and horse crap. FOX either does news that they stand behind with facts and sources or they call themselves what they are, an opinion network. Representing real news, news that is based on facts is not such an onerous standard for any entity that wants to be considered news. An opinion network needs consumer warnings that the "stories" they are hearing are not based on facts, they are the opinion of the person who is not necessarily held to a standard of reality and facts. The FCC has a right to prohibit lies from being aired, two possible ways could be used for calling lies, and the person should be required to apologize and correct the lie and offer the t***h and the source that corrects them, or the network faces losing it's license to publicly air.

We are in a war against f**e media and lies, and the party that is doing it wants to maintain the right to mislead and deceive people. Our country that used to be an example of exceptionalism is being d**gged down to a level of moronic ignorance. Other countries have taken FOX off of their air because they refuse to expose their people to such rubbish. We need to clean it up.

American Vet

woodguru wrote:

Lying about something that's important and that affects people adversely is fraud, it hurts people, lies that are intentionally told to deceive people into believing an alternate reality. We are dealing with a party that has openly said that when people hear the same lies often enough to where enough people believe them they become their t***h, they become alternate facts. What good is an alternate fact that is simply not the t***h if people are coerced in adopting misguided actions based on lies?

This country needs to be dealing with one set of facts, the only facts that are the reality.

The government prosecutes manufacturers that lie to people, that make false claims that are not possible, or that cause harm because people are relying on a useless product to help them when there are others that could. People as consumers are protected by the government against fraud by t***h in advertising laws. Nobody defends manufacturers by saying that their freedom of speech is being violated by not being allowed to lie to people and make more money.

The same standard applies to t***h in advertising laws that should be applying to lies in the media to protect people that are too ignorant to figure out the t***h themselves. We don't tell a manufacturer that the fact a product doesn't do what they say it does has to be proved against them to make them stop making their false claims...no, we set as a standard that advertising involves being able to provide proof that your product does what you say it will. They don't necessarily have to stop selling something, they simply can't make claims that can't be proved.

What this would mean to the media is that media sources that operate on what they call editorial versus real facts would be regulated as far as being able to prove what they say. Editorial would be fair game as long as there were not well documented sources that are representing real facts that can be used to prove that a media outlet is not repeating things that are wrong. It used to be that top news sources would not even air a story until they had the hard evidence to back it.

If a news network is going to call itself that the things it covers should be done in such a way that they are representing facts they can prove rather than talking heads opinions and horse crap. FOX either does news that they stand behind with facts and sources or they call themselves what they are, an opinion network. Representing real news, news that is based on facts is not such an onerous standard for any entity that wants to be considered news. An opinion network needs consumer warnings that the "stories" they are hearing are not based on facts, they are the opinion of the person who is not necessarily held to a standard of reality and facts. The FCC has a right to prohibit lies from being aired, two possible ways could be used for calling lies, and the person should be required to apologize and correct the lie and offer the t***h and the source that corrects them, or the network faces losing it's license to publicly air.

We are in a war against f**e media and lies, and the party that is doing it wants to maintain the right to mislead and deceive people. Our country that used to be an example of exceptionalism is being d**gged down to a level of moronic ignorance. Other countries have taken FOX off of their air because they refuse to expose their people to such rubbish. We need to clean it up.

Lying about something that's important and that af... (show quote)

Fortunately SCOTUS protects Americans from people such as you who apparently don’t believe in freedom. They have ruled that Lies and h**e speech are protected by the 1A.

ChJoe

woodguru wrote:

Lying about something that's important and that affects people adversely is fraud, it hurts people, lies that are intentionally told to deceive people into believing an alternate reality. We are dealing with a party that has openly said that when people hear the same lies often enough to where enough people believe them they become their t***h, they become alternate facts. What good is an alternate fact that is simply not the t***h if people are coerced in adopting misguided actions based on lies?

This country needs to be dealing with one set of facts, the only facts that are the reality.

The government prosecutes manufacturers that lie to people, that make false claims that are not possible, or that cause harm because people are relying on a useless product to help them when there are others that could. People as consumers are protected by the government against fraud by t***h in advertising laws. Nobody defends manufacturers by saying that their freedom of speech is being violated by not being allowed to lie to people and make more money.

The same standard applies to t***h in advertising laws that should be applying to lies in the media to protect people that are too ignorant to figure out the t***h themselves. We don't tell a manufacturer that the fact a product doesn't do what they say it does has to be proved against them to make them stop making their false claims...no, we set as a standard that advertising involves being able to provide proof that your product does what you say it will. They don't necessarily have to stop selling something, they simply can't make claims that can't be proved.

What this would mean to the media is that media sources that operate on what they call editorial versus real facts would be regulated as far as being able to prove what they say. Editorial would be fair game as long as there were not well documented sources that are representing real facts that can be used to prove that a media outlet is not repeating things that are wrong. It used to be that top news sources would not even air a story until they had the hard evidence to back it.

If a news network is going to call itself that the things it covers should be done in such a way that they are representing facts they can prove rather than talking heads opinions and horse crap. FOX either does news that they stand behind with facts and sources or they call themselves what they are, an opinion network. Representing real news, news that is based on facts is not such an onerous standard for any entity that wants to be considered news. An opinion network needs consumer warnings that the "stories" they are hearing are not based on facts, they are the opinion of the person who is not necessarily held to a standard of reality and facts. The FCC has a right to prohibit lies from being aired, two possible ways could be used for calling lies, and the person should be required to apologize and correct the lie and offer the t***h and the source that corrects them, or the network faces losing it's license to publicly air.

We are in a war against f**e media and lies, and the party that is doing it wants to maintain the right to mislead and deceive people. Our country that used to be an example of exceptionalism is being d**gged down to a level of moronic ignorance. Other countries have taken FOX off of their air because they refuse to expose their people to such rubbish. We need to clean it up.

Lying about something that's important and that af... (show quote)

What a joke! The hypocrisy of you l*****ts is so thick it can't be cut. One could not make up crap of this order of loony!! What you want is l*****t propaganda, nothing more. There is literally no way to describe this post other than to say it is pure brainwashed lunacy, pure and simple. But, you ARE free to say it and believe it.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

ChJoe wrote:

What a joke! The hypocrisy of you l*****ts is so thick it can't be cut. One could not make up crap of this order of loony!! What you want is l*****t propaganda, nothing more. There is literally no way to describe this post other than to say it is pure brainwashed lunacy, pure and simple. But, you ARE free to say it and believe it.

He wants any, and ALL media that doesn't preach his narrative, questions it, or disproves it shut down.
Woodrow is feeling the power of c*******m coming at us, and thinks he'll be free from it.

He claims great wealth, and influence.

Yet, he outs himself on this silly internet forum all day, every day.

He can't keep up with his own lies, yet wants what he determines to be lies by others silenced.

Typical l*****t internet warrior.

Jlw Loc: Wisconsin

woodguru wrote:

Lying about something that's important and that affects people adversely is fraud, it hurts people, lies that are intentionally told to deceive people into believing an alternate reality. We are dealing with a party that has openly said that when people hear the same lies often enough to where enough people believe them they become their t***h, they become alternate facts. What good is an alternate fact that is simply not the t***h if people are coerced in adopting misguided actions based on lies?

This country needs to be dealing with one set of facts, the only facts that are the reality.

The government prosecutes manufacturers that lie to people, that make false claims that are not possible, or that cause harm because people are relying on a useless product to help them when there are others that could. People as consumers are protected by the government against fraud by t***h in advertising laws. Nobody defends manufacturers by saying that their freedom of speech is being violated by not being allowed to lie to people and make more money.

The same standard applies to t***h in advertising laws that should be applying to lies in the media to protect people that are too ignorant to figure out the t***h themselves. We don't tell a manufacturer that the fact a product doesn't do what they say it does has to be proved against them to make them stop making their false claims...no, we set as a standard that advertising involves being able to provide proof that your product does what you say it will. They don't necessarily have to stop selling something, they simply can't make claims that can't be proved.

What this would mean to the media is that media sources that operate on what they call editorial versus real facts would be regulated as far as being able to prove what they say. Editorial would be fair game as long as there were not well documented sources that are representing real facts that can be used to prove that a media outlet is not repeating things that are wrong. It used to be that top news sources would not even air a story until they had the hard evidence to back it.

If a news network is going to call itself that the things it covers should be done in such a way that they are representing facts they can prove rather than talking heads opinions and horse crap. FOX either does news that they stand behind with facts and sources or they call themselves what they are, an opinion network. Representing real news, news that is based on facts is not such an onerous standard for any entity that wants to be considered news. An opinion network needs consumer warnings that the "stories" they are hearing are not based on facts, they are the opinion of the person who is not necessarily held to a standard of reality and facts. The FCC has a right to prohibit lies from being aired, two possible ways could be used for calling lies, and the person should be required to apologize and correct the lie and offer the t***h and the source that corrects them, or the network faces losing it's license to publicly air.

We are in a war against f**e media and lies, and the party that is doing it wants to maintain the right to mislead and deceive people. Our country that used to be an example of exceptionalism is being d**gged down to a level of moronic ignorance. Other countries have taken FOX off of their air because they refuse to expose their people to such rubbish. We need to clean it up.

Lying about something that's important and that af... (show quote)

Then why do you lie so much

ChJoe

archie bunker wrote:

He wants any, and ALL media that doesn't preach his narrative, questions it, or disproves it shut down.
Woodrow is feeling the power of c*******m coming at us, and thinks he'll be free from it.

He claims great wealth, and influence.

Yet, he outs himself on this silly internet forum all day, every day.

He can't keep up with his own lies, yet wants what he determines to be lies by others silenced.

Typical l*****t internet warrior.

He will be the first to contribute his wealth to the collective!