More Trump: By the way, here's my free-speech
and anti-censorship policy
Hot Air,
by
Ed Morrissey
Original Article
Posted By: Garnet,
12/15/2022 2:33:03 PM
Imagine if Donald Trump had released this as his “major announcement” rather than his NFT trading cards. Or at least before his attempt to fundraise off of MAGA on social media. This might not qualify as a “major announcement,” but at least it would have been taken much more seriously.
Instead, the Trump campaign didn’t even “announce” this. They gave it as an exclusive to Jack Posobiec a couple of hours after Trump’s NFT launch on Truth Social. The strategic fumble is unfortunate, as this actually addresses real issues in play rather than just Trump’s compulsion for self-promotion:
Reply 1 - Posted by:
fhancock 12/15/2022 3:08:53 PM (No. 1357528)
In Dec of 2022 Donald Trump could announce that he cured cancer, found life on the moon, and had personally cleaned up LA, NYC, and San Francisco using his own mop and broom. The MSM would YAWN and say he was a clown who should have cured Monkeypox first. NOTHING that Trump says NOW will be objectively reported.
18 people like this.
#1 - Agreed. With the exception of 2016, the media largely determines who wins Presidential elections. We can opine here into the wee hours about Trump's many great accomplishments during his 4 years in office but the magic is gone. The opposition put a bullseye on his back and have successfully taken the wind out of his sails. I still like him but can't see him winning in 2024. And whether today's big announcement was this policy declaration or the $99 tokens, the latter is already out there. We can't afford to keep getting set back like this.
6 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Trump'sCousin 12/15/2022 4:55:05 PM (No. 1357564)
We are not children. To have to look deeper to try to "decode" information from a prominent leader insults our intelligence and the grave situation we find ourselves and our nation in. He presumes we are children to be distracted by shiny... cards?! Former presidents would not look kindly on President Trump for this stunt. It is infantile and unworthy of him. It shows a distinct lack if respect for American Patriots. President Trump is always commenting about what a mess the country is right now...
7 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Lanetam 12/15/2022 4:56:38 PM (No. 1357566)
He has to pay a lot of lawyer bills and making a little money on the side is better than asking for donations. I will add that those lawyer bills should not have happened because the opposition should not be allowed to prosecute the president in power constantly without just cause.
2 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
2assume 12/15/2022 5:04:21 PM (No. 1357567)
This is so unlike him. What was threatened that is so horrifying that he would deliberately make a giant ass of himself? He is finished. Thank you Mr President for showing us the 4 years you were in office how a President should rule. I was so proud of you and your family as you represented the U.S. There is no way you will be President again. The 7 years your enemies spent telling lies about you did you in. People believe that sheet. My heart breaks.
6 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Blackfeet 12/15/2022 5:13:23 PM (No. 1357572)
Trump is right on the mark. Loved his proposal.
(Sorry for the overly long post.)
FREEDOM IS EASY - UNTIL IT ISN'T
By: Dave Morgan
Co-author: Online Freedom Act
On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights was ratified. Among its ten amendments was the first amendment consisting of just 45 words.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Two hundred and five years later, on February 8,1996, a new law was passed. Section 230 - "Protection For 'Good Samaritan' Blocking and Screening of Offensive Material" was signed by President Clinton.
Section 230 said in its "Findings" said "The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity." Has this finding been realized? I don't think so.
According to the drafters of Section 230 (Congressman Chris Cox and Ron Wyden) their purpose was "to give up-and-coming tech companies a sword and a shield, and to foster free speech and innovation online". The purpose of the shield was to protect service providers who merely hosted content. The sword, on the other hand, was to allow providers to "take down offensive content, lies and slime—the stuff that may be protected by the First Amendment but that most people do not want to experience online.”
With a Congressional wink and a nod, all internet companies had to do to keep their liability "shield" and “sword" was to act "in good faith" and as "Good Samaritans." In return they got liability protection - free of charge with virtually no enforceable obligations. Internet providers got the gold mine and freedom loving citizens got the shaft.
Since Internet service providers can establish any legal term of service they wish, they are not subject to First Amendment limitations anyway. They have first amendment right that are superior to our own. Section 230 gave them permission to decide what is objectionable or what is not. No appeal is allowed. They tell customers if you don't like it, go away, and go to another provider. Can they do this? Yes they can and you complainers must be silent.
So, what's the big debate all about?
1. Did Congress improperly delegate authority to private companies?
2. Why give civil liability protection to service providers without some form of community obligation in return?
I my opinion, Congress did not have the authority delegate speech restriction when they themselves are prohibited from doing so by our Constriction’s First Amendment. They delegated administrative authority to private enterprise who exercised this authority well beyond the good intentions of the Congress.
To some, revoking Section 230 would bring about thousands of meritless lawsuits - clogging our already beleaguered court system. Some claim the "good internet" will collapse, fortunes will be lost, and our government would be back to square one when it comes to cleaning up the mess caused by an "anything goes" internet.
Intended or not, Big Tech decides what speech is objectionable and what is not. Private enterprise and free market capitalism may resolve part of this problem. For example, Elon Musk taking over Twitter and vowing to make it an open forum of reasonably moderated free speech. Yet, no matter who owns or controls a platform, be it Elon Musk or China's President Xi, it is dangerous to have our free speech rights determined by a few men - no matter how well intentioned they claim to be.
Imagine if all Big Tech was opened to see the total scope of their abuse, like Elon Musk is doing with Twitter, what would we see inside Google, Facebook, and U-Tube?
I believe revising rather than revoking Section 230 is a much better solution. (See https://onlinefreedomact.org ).
It is time for Congress to wake up to the dangers of Section 230 and fix this problem now. If you have a better solution, tell us or go to work on the Online Freedom Act.
Always remember, "Freedom is easy - until it isn't".
Dave Morgan
Litchfield Park AZ
December 12, 2022
dave@two-feathers.net
5 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
judy 12/15/2022 5:23:04 PM (No. 1357577)
Almost as bad as Biden falling up the stairs…leave Trump the H alone … let’s go back to normalcy 2020…….
1 person likes this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
kono 12/15/2022 7:35:04 PM (No. 1357667)
NCAA oppression pre-2021 notwithstanding, the right of the people to receive fair compensation for use of their name, image, or likeness shall not be infringed. Levity aside, I suppose a set of self-promoting digital trading 'cards' beats another weepy go-fund-me pages.
To be fair, #1 probably isn't exaggerating. But PDJT used Twitter (and then created Truth Social) to give us his own words, unfiltered by unfriendly media. This seems to be a situation where it might have been helpful to be able to claim the media misrepresented his message.
1 person likes this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Harlowe 12/15/2022 11:21:28 PM (No. 1357801)
The author of this article is expressing his OPINION and that opinion is negative from beginning to end, to the point of nitpicking and petty. How easy it is for people who have not walked in the shoes of individuals they criticize unmercifully is unconscionable and brings to mind two apt quotations about journalism:
“Objective journalism and an opinion column are about as similar as the Bible and Playboy magazine.” (Walter Cronkite)
“The power of the journalist is great, but he is entitled neither to respect nor admiration because of that power unless it is used aright.” (President Theodore Roosevelt)
President Trump is not responsible for the negative sensationalism liberals are making of this digital trading card announcement as they continue to try to destroy this man and his chances for winning the 2024 presidential election.
President Trump’s actual announcement is profound and should make patriotic Americans anxious and proud to vote for him in the 2024 presidential election.
5 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Garnet"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
Oh Lord, this is sad. DJT is becoming a parody of himself. I voted for him twice and thought he did a good job, but he's really making a pathetic character of himself.