Can We Lock Up Rachel Maddow Now?
- This topic has 12 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Yves Klein Leap into the Void 1960 Message to Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Kemala Harris, Tulsi Gabbard and the rest of the crew: you can stop as
[See the full post at: Can We Lock Up Rachel Maddow Now?]Why did the Romans need “Bread and Circus”?
Let the games continue.
( the bold key, italic key etc. have disappeared)
It is about the Benjamins, baby. Donald Trump sells. But more importantly he, Teresa May and Emmanuel Macron are corporate toadies. They do what the plutocrats want: cut taxes, deregulate, and privatize. Their governments are incompetent. They don’t give a damn for the Little People. Forever wars are started that can’t be won. Ethnic conflicts are promoted to dismember nation states. The Deep State’s sole purpose is to make war profits. Donald Trump indicated that he would break their rice bowls. Also, he is a populist not a globalist. So, they went after him with the British dodgy dossier and failed spectacularly. The western Ship of State is control by the same people who market the 737 Max. Unless control is returned to the people, the system will keep repeatedly pointing the nose at the ground till we crash.
Well all thats really required is to simply “ban Hate-speech*. That would take care of this particular issue, along with many of the other problems that afflict the USA.
OOOps – I forgot.. Freedom of speech is one of America’s most cherished possessions; right up there with the right to bear arms. And Wall Street.
So YES, lock her up. Along with the rest of ’em.*
Thank you, Sir, for an interesting and thought-provoking post.
Cheers,
– M*p.s. It might be easier, and possibly less costly, to have a go at banning hate speech.
Legally, the path is pretty clear and incredibly old. It’s always been illegal to slander (in voice) or libel (in print) someone. The Covington kids are following this right now. It’s illegal everywhere, including Britain and New Zealand, and the legal threshold has a couple of bullet points. There has to be provable damage, the facts provided have to wrong, they have to be specific, and so on. Then you sue civilly for compensation in measure with the damage caused. Pretty simple. But if it’s actual libel of the sort anyone actually means, not just “I disagree with you”, then all these elements are absolutely in play. No false accusations, no just getting the facts wrong on accident.
What’s more, the government is never the plaintiff. Although in theory I suppose they could get standing, in practice slander and libel are prosecuted BY private people AGAINST private people, which eliminates a major element of government censorship and repression. …The problem is, now that the entire force of media is resident in 5 corporations the size of most countries, no one has been suing anyone, much less challenging them to pistols at dawn.
That and the marketplace is adjusting to the new reality: It USED to be that when a newspaper catastrophically screwed the pooch as we Yanks say, people would cancel their subscription to such a piece of pure, useless, misleading garbage. …But no one ever pays for news anymore; there’s nothing to cancel. Clicks are free. So even when it’s completely wrong, knowingly, provably wrong in 10 minutes of google, if it gets clicks you get paid, so there is a new OPPOSITE incentive to lie, so long as the lies are salacious. It’s literally impossible to be discredited under this model. Look at Brian Williams on NBC and Donna Brazile on Fox.However, you can still be sued to penury and be unable to pay your click-bills, and I expect this is a new growth industry, perhaps led by Nunes. Certainly Buzzfeed and Vox haven’t waited, they’re collapsing under their blizzard of nonsense and poor reputation, while so many bloggers who got it right continue to rise despite every repression the algos can throw at them. And that’s the market adjusting, note: without the government.
So that’s how Americans and legal nations with free speech do it and always have. Because legally, there is no such thing as ‘hate speech’. If there were, it would be thought crime, a tyranny so diabolical that even the existence of opinions is illegal. You are allowed to hate. Why? Because you are human, we don’t lock people up for thinking and feeling things, and thank our ever-loving God for that. You are also allowed to SAY you hate someone. Why? Because it’s both a fact and your opinion. What would be the alternative, universal love enacted by perpetual violent force? If people don’t know you don’t like them, you can’t be forewarned, you can’t work things out, we don’t have an open debate in the marketplace of ideas.
What you CAN’T do – and again, this is the law everywhere and always – is ACTUALLY HARM someone. ‘Cause words are just cheap air, sound and fury, signifying nothing. A world where people are terrified of words alone is a world the weakest man who ever lived could conquer. But that’s the western world now, apparently having never seen or felt violence, actually believes that ‘words are violence.’ …That is until being so weak, such violets, such snowflakes, their total weakness attracts REAL violence which devours their nation in hours, as they see with decadent, falling empires throughout history.
There are a few other things: you are generally liable if your words cause physical or monetary harm. Further, you can’t therefore call for specific harm to a specific person, as is called on my people every day, because being more dangerous, the law wishes to prevent murder rather than punish it. But any rational person can follow these without even knowing the law exists, although, like all laws in the U.S. presently, it isn’t enforced, or only enforced on people they don’t like.
But that’s all terribly simple. The media legally CAN’T tell lies like this without consequences. Thankfully, however, the government isn’t the plaintiff and repressor. We legally can have open discussions where bad ideas, bad beliefs are able to be read openly and refuted, like Jim Jones, like Mein Kampf; as they must be, for the only alternative is to control and erase history, and then we could never learn, never recognize it. To punish people for ideas in their heads and feelings in their hearts, making their very existence a prison.
The media will soon wish they could erase history, and perhaps they will already. I mean, they just erased Patrick Moore from founding Greepeace yesterday. But without the authorization of legal propaganda against the people and the government cash payments that’s soon going to be revealed — as long-used but signed into law by Obama — CNN, MSNBC and the boys are going to go broke on a business plan that has been totally discredited.
So under market capitalism – and now lacking monetary and legal protection of their lies by government, and under attack for monopoly bias and with executive orders reminding everyone that speech is always free – the liars are about to be sued, go broke, and disappear. Which is a pity, since I doubt they have the competence to clean toilets instead. So that’s what free nations do, and are doing right now, instead of making all news, all facts, and all history verboten.
“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” ― George Orwell, 1984
Interesting posting, Dr D., thank you for writing it.
One thing I wondered, from the start, is whether or not it was a deliberate strategy on the part of Trump to simply allow the Mueller inv. to run on, under the assumption that if he gave them enough rope they would eventually hang themselves. (Quite apart from the obvious bad optics that would have arisen if he had simply moved at some point to close the thing down).
Also I sometimes wonder whether the investigation would have run for as long as it did, without the complicity or “cheer-leading” provided by the mainstream media to “egg it on”.
In the “good old days”, a newspaper or some other media outfit armed with old-fashioned integrity might have done a bit of invesigative journalism on the reputation of Steele himself and thereby cast a bit of doubt on the usefulness or otherwise of the entire Mueller exercise. As it happens, the whole thing seems to have depended upon the US Justice system turning a blind eye at the right moment, thereby failing to nip the thing in the bud (excuse the mixed metaphor).
But as you say, the MSM has been bought out by 5 or so corporates. (The way I heard it was that all of the “significant” media in the Western world are owned by six families).
I did see one posting somewhere that praised Steele and his experience/career backround to high heaven, but I took that to be a sponsored propaganda exercise.
We live in interesting times.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.