It appears that of late Hannity’s neck is attempting to swallow his head. Almost as if it knows better and is doing what it can to resorb the offending tumor in a last ditch attempt to save itself from having to listen to his continual whining.
The biggest problem for the left is that they haven't been able to find a solid sexual harassment allegation in their effort to get Hannity off the air. I'm sure Hannity gets plenty of death threats from the left. He poses a serious threat to their aspirations of controlling the information available to the public.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
ajax18 wrote:The biggest problem for the left is that they haven't been able to find a solid sexual harassment allegation in their effort to get Hannity off the air.
Yes, he doesn’t appear to be agile enough to be a physical threat to anyone.
I'm curious if anyone could explain why banning Louis Farrakhan constitutes an attack on conservatives.
This is not an issue of freedom of speech. People are still free to set up a storefront on the internet. Facebook is saying that their company does not have to be the home for everybody. That does not mean that the people who can't live there are homeless. Having to type www.NOTfacebook.com, or whatever, does not deny that person freedom of expression.
Last edited by Guest on Sat May 04, 2019 6:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization." - Will Durant "We've kept more promises than we've even made" - Donald Trump "Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist." - Edwin Land
I don't think suppressing speech is the answer. The first amendment free speech clause was about allowing many views to be expressed in the political arena. Publicly traded companies should be required to adhere to this if they seek to take over the public square. Also, more speech that exposes stupid ideas should be the answer, not having a committee decide what we can say. Obviously screeming fire in a crowded theater when there isn't one should be criminalized. However, we should tolerate Louis Farrakan and Alex Jones, no matter how crazy they sound. I think the world can handle their ideas and act in a responsible manner.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen
Exiled wrote:I don't think suppressing speech is the answer. The first amendment free speech clause was about allowing many views to be expressed in the political arena. Publicly traded companies should be required to adhere to this if they seek to take over the public square.
Wikipedia wrote:The Fairness Doctrine has been strongly opposed by prominent conservatives and libertarians who view it as an attack on First Amendment rights and property rights. Editorials in The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times in 2005 and 2008 said that Democratic attempts to bring back the Fairness Doctrine have been made largely in response to conservative talk radio.[48][49]
In 1987, Edward O. Fritts, president of the National Association of Broadcasters, in applauding President Reagan's veto of a bill intended to turn the doctrine into law, said that the doctrine is an infringement on free speech and intrudes on broadcasters' journalistic judgment.[50]
In 2007, Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) proposed an amendment to a defense appropriations bill that forbade the FCC from "using any funds to adopt a fairness rule."[51] It was blocked, in part on grounds that "the amendment belonged in the Commerce Committee's jurisdiction".
In the same year, the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007 was proposed in the Senate by Senators Coleman with 35 co-sponsors (S.1748) and John Thune (R-SD) with 8 co-sponsors (S.1742)[52] and in the House by Republican Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) with 208 co-sponsors (H.R. 2905).[53] It provided that:
“ The Commission shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating (in whole or in part) the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the `Fairness Doctrine', as repealed in General Fairness Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast Licensees, 50 Fed. Reg. 35418 (1985).[54]
Requiring all sides to be presented was considered a violation of freedom of speech by conservatives.
"The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization." - Will Durant "We've kept more promises than we've even made" - Donald Trump "Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist." - Edwin Land
Exiled wrote:I don't think suppressing speech is the answer. The first amendment free speech clause was about allowing many views to be expressed in the political arena. Publicly traded companies should be required to adhere to this if they seek to take over the public square.
Wikipedia wrote:The Fairness Doctrine has been strongly opposed by prominent conservatives and libertarians who view it as an attack on First Amendment rights and property rights. Editorials in The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times in 2005 and 2008 said that Democratic attempts to bring back the Fairness Doctrine have been made largely in response to conservative talk radio.[48][49]
In 1987, Edward O. Fritts, president of the National Association of Broadcasters, in applauding President Reagan's veto of a bill intended to turn the doctrine into law, said that the doctrine is an infringement on free speech and intrudes on broadcasters' journalistic judgment.[50]
In 2007, Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) proposed an amendment to a defense appropriations bill that forbade the FCC from "using any funds to adopt a fairness rule."[51] It was blocked, in part on grounds that "the amendment belonged in the Commerce Committee's jurisdiction".
In the same year, the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007 was proposed in the Senate by Senators Coleman with 35 co-sponsors (S.1748) and John Thune (R-SD) with 8 co-sponsors (S.1742)[52] and in the House by Republican Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) with 208 co-sponsors (H.R. 2905).[53] It provided that:
“ The Commission shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating (in whole or in part) the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the `Fairness Doctrine', as repealed in General Fairness Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast Licensees, 50 Fed. Reg. 35418 (1985).[54]
Requiring all sides to be presented was considered a violation of freedom of speech by conservatives.
They were wrong
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen