On 2/14/2024 4:20 PM, S K wrote:

There is increasing talk among "pro-lifers" that abortion is murder and the mother who gets one must be put to death. The former confederacy and states like Idaho are quite receptive to that idea.

if they go down the slippery slope and start passing laws like contraception or gay sex is a capital crime - doesn't that show that the "federalism" of the constitution is a flawed concept.

If the only way the federal government can get this power back is through a constitution amendment, Red America will make sure that it does not happen.

Better watch out. The "liberals" will make talking bad about Biden a
capital offense

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/15/2024 1:18 PM, S K wrote:

On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 12:44:54 AM UTC-5, Roy wrote:

On 2/14/2024 4:20 PM, S K wrote:

There is increasing talk among "pro-lifers" that abortion is murder and the mother who gets one must be put to death. The former confederacy and states like Idaho are quite receptive to that idea.

if they go down the slippery slope and start passing laws like contraception or gay sex is a capital crime - doesn't that show that the "federalism" of the constitution is a flawed concept.

If the only way the federal government can get this power back is through a constitution amendment, Red America will make sure that it does not happen.

Better watch out. The "liberals" will make talking bad about Biden a
capital offense

is this "both sides"ing supposed to be funny?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/10/republican-wave-state-bills-homicide-charges

a significant proportion of the Republican Party is serious about going medieval on reproductive rights.
trivializing this phenomenon isn't helpful.

I did a quick search and I didn't find one state that was talking about
death penalty for abortion.

The referenced article doesn't mention one either. It just portrays
that homicide means death penalty. Federal capital statutes fall into
three broad categories: (1) homicide offenses; (2) espionage and
treason; and (3) non-homicidal narcotics offenses.

Meanwhile local, state, and federal governments are trying to suppress
free speech. A current example is the White House criticizing the news
media for discussing Biden's mental health. Similarly we know they
suppressed discussion on the safety of the COVID vaccines.

.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Roy <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2/15/2024 1:18 PM, S K wrote:

On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 12:44:54 AM UTC-5, Roy wrote:

On 2/14/2024 4:20 PM, S K wrote:

There is increasing talk among "pro-lifers" that abortion is murder
and the mother who gets one must be put to death. The former
confederacy and states like Idaho are quite receptive to that idea.

if they go down the slippery slope and start passing laws like
contraception or gay sex is a capital crime - doesn't that show
that the "federalism" of the constitution is a flawed concept.

If the only way the federal government can get this power back is
through a constitution amendment, Red America will make sure that
it does not happen.

Better watch out. The "liberals" will make talking bad about Biden a
capital offense

is this "both sides"ing supposed to be funny?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/10/republican-wave-state-
bills-homicide-charges

a significant proportion of the Republican Party is serious about
going medieval on reproductive rights. trivializing this phenomenon
isn't helpful.

I did a quick search and I didn't find one state that was talking
about death penalty for abortion.

If a state proposes a law making abortion murder, and murder is
punishable by the death penalty, that's exactly what's happening. And
that's what South Carolina, specifically has done.

The referenced article doesn't mention one either. It just portrays
that homicide means death penalty. Federal capital statutes fall into
three broad categories: (1) homicide offenses; (2) espionage and
treason; and (3) non-homicidal narcotics offenses.

Meanwhile local, state, and federal governments are trying to suppress
free speech. A current example is the White House criticizing the
news media for discussing Biden's mental health. Similarly we know
they suppressed discussion on the safety of the COVID vaccines.

The White House criticizing those kinds of statements isn't supressing
speech. They're not proposing any legislation that would prevent news
media from saying anything. They're just responding to allegations.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/15/2024 2:30 PM, S K wrote:

On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 4:41:08 PM UTC-5, Roy wrote:

Meanwhile local, state, and federal governments are trying to suppress
free speech. A current example is the White House criticizing the news
media for discussing Biden's mental health. Similarly we know they
suppressed discussion on the safety of the COVID vaccines.

.

I didn't know MAGA has penetrated misc.legal.moderated.

Free speech is something we can all support

While the ACLU stands in stark opposition to the NRA on many issues, it
is representing the group to safeguard the First Amendment rights of all advocacy organizations.

https://www.aclu.org/cases/national-rifle-association-v-vullo

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 16:20:32 -0800 (PST), S K wrote:

There is increasing talk among "pro-lifers" that abortion is murder and the mother who gets one must be put to death. The former confederacy and states like Idaho are quite receptive to that idea.

if they go down the slippery slope and start passing laws like contraception or gay sex is a capital crime - doesn't that show that the "federalism" of the constitution is a flawed concept.

If the only way the federal government can get this power back is through a constitution amendment, Red America will make sure that it does not happen.

Don't forget the eighth amendment. And most states have similar
provisions in their constitutions. Anyone who was actually sentenced
to death would be able to appear to a higher state court (maybe) and
a federal court (certainly), claiming that death for such an act was
cruel and unusual. Whether they'd prevail in court is a question,
though.

Article VI clause 2 (the "supremacy clause") says
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound
thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the
Contrary notwithstanding."

At least currently, contraception comes under the right to privacy,
which the Supreme Court has affirmed. I am pretty sure sex between
consenting adults does too, and if it does for straight couples then
it must also for gay or lesbian couples, under the Fourteenth
Amendment. Even if a state legislature were to pass such a law, I
think any state judge who took their oath(*) seriously would have to
throw out any criminal case.

(*)Every state judge has taken an oath to support the US
Constitution, under Article VI clause 3:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members
of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial
Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall
be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution. ..."

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

According to Roy <[email protected]>:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/10/republican-wave-state-bills-homicide-charges

a significant proportion of the Republican Party is serious about going medieval on reproductive rights.
trivializing this phenomenon isn't helpful.

I did a quick search and I didn't find one state that was talking about
death penalty for abortion.

The referenced article doesn't mention one either.

You should look harder. The second paragraph of that article has links
to five state bills that would treat abortion as homicide.



--
Regards,
John Levine, [email protected], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 16:56:12 -0800 (PST), Roy wrote:

Free speech is something we can all support

It's easier to support if you know what it is.

First, it guarantees you the right to say what you like, but it
doesn't guarantee you any particular forum in which to say it, not
does it guarantee you that anyone will listen.

Second, the Founders expected that through free speech, in the
contention of opposing ideas, the truth would emerge. That means that disagreements get aired and people listen to both and decide which is
right.

Third, free speech is not without consequences. If you libel someone,
you can be hauled into court and may have to pay damages. If you
shout "fire" in a crowded theater, and people are injured in the
resulting panic, you may be both civilly and criminality liable. Or,
more mundanely, if you say something wrong or stupid (or both), you
may be called out for it.

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 13:41:05 -0800 (PST), Roy wrote:

Meanwhile local, state, and federal governments are trying to suppress
free speech. A current example is the White House criticizing the news
media for discussing Biden's mental health.

No, "criticizing the news media" is not an attempt to "suppress free
speech". It is, in fact, an example of free speech. The news media
have the right to cover the news and comment on it. People who don't
like their coverage or their analysis have the right to say so.
Suppressing free speech -- well, free press, in this case -- would be preventing them from printing what they wanted to. That has not
happened, and I think the chances of its happening under this
President are roughly nil. (No doubt Der Furor _would_ try to
suppress free speech if he gets in, as we all know he goes ballistic
whenever he is criticized, plus he doesn't believe the Constitution
applies to him.)

(By your logic, you are trying to suppress the White House staff's
free speech! Surely you know better than that. Criticism is not an
attack on free speech but an exercise of it.)

Similarly we know they
suppressed discussion on the safety of the COVID vaccines.

No, we don't know any such thing.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/15/2024 9:33 PM, Stan Brown wrote:

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 16:56:12 -0800 (PST), Roy wrote:

Free speech is something we can all support

It's easier to support if you know what it is.

...

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 13:41:05 -0800 (PST), Roy wrote:

Meanwhile local, state, and federal governments are trying to suppress
free speech. A current example is the White House criticizing the news
media for discussing Biden's mental health.

No, "criticizing the news media" is not an attempt to "suppress free
speech". It is, in fact, an example of free speech. The news media
have the right to cover the news and comment on it. People who don't
like their coverage or their analysis have the right to say so.
Suppressing free speech -- well, free press, in this case -- would be preventing them from printing what they wanted to. That has not
happened, and I think the chances of its happening under this
President are roughly nil. (No doubt Der Furor _would_ try to
suppress free speech if he gets in, as we all know he goes ballistic
whenever he is criticized, plus he doesn't believe the Constitution
applies to him.)

(By your logic, you are trying to suppress the White House staff's
free speech! Surely you know better than that. Criticism is not an
attack on free speech but an exercise of it.)

What you say is true but we don't know what happens behind closed doors.
Reporters who are critical of Biden may not get interviews or other
such access to the White House. Question: When was the last time Biden
gave an interview to Fox News?

Similarly we know they
suppressed discussion on the safety of the COVID vaccines.

No, we don't know any such thing.

I have a doctor friend whose was telling his patients not to get
vaccinated and had to leave his job at a hospital. It was intimated that
he could lose his license.

The government also told us not to use hydroxychloroquine for COVID
because of a possible very serious and include irregular heart rhythms
that can result in death. Some states restricted distribution of the
drug. My wife had been on it for years for arthritis and her and her
doctor had go through bureaucratic steps to get her refills.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7439006/

We were also told the Wuhan lab wasn't responsible for COVID and it was
crazy conspiracy theory. Testimony at Congressional hearings was that
there was no evidence that the lab was NOT responsible when they were
saying that.

https://oversight.house.gov/landing/covid-origins/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/15/2024 9:37 PM, John Levine wrote:

According to Roy <[email protected]>:

...

I did a quick search and I didn't find one state that was talking about
death penalty for abortion.

The referenced article doesn't mention one either.

You should look harder. The second paragraph of that article has links
to five state bills that would treat abortion as homicide.

None of the bills suggested it would have the death penalty attached.
There are lots of "homicide" crimes like killing someone as a result of
driving drunk.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 17:13:26 -0800, Stan Brown wrote:

On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 16:20:32 -0800 (PST), S K wrote:

[quoted text muted]

Don't forget the eighth amendment. And most states have similar
provisions in their constitutions. Anyone who was actually sentenced to
death would be able to appear to a higher state court (maybe) and a
federal court (certainly), claiming that death for such an act was cruel
and unusual.

Once you have dismissed the notion that the death penalty itself is not
cruel and unusual, it seems a little priggish to then argue over what it
should be used for.

The usual expression in such cases is "now we're just debating the price"
after the late George Bernard Shaw ...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"S K" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

There is increasing talk among "pro-lifers" that abortion is murder and the >mother who gets one must be put to death. The former confederacy and
states like Idaho are quite receptive to that idea.

That's a really broad generalization and you don't include specifics. I
have seen no statistics to support your view that a majority of people in
the states you mention would support this or that legislatures in those
states are likely to pass such a law. But even if they did, it is the right
of the people in those states to pass whatever laws they collectively want,
as long as courts (including federal) support the decisions. That's how our system works.

if they go down the slippery slope and start passing laws like
contraception or gay sex is a capital crime - doesn't that show that the >"federalism" of the constitution is a flawed concept.

Again, I repeat that the people in individual states can collectively and through their elected officials decide what laws to pass, and if those laws pass muster in the courts (including federal), then that is our system at
work and it's hard to see how this makes federalism "flawed".

If the only way the federal government can get this power back is through a >constitution amendment, Red America will make sure that it does not happen.

Again, our system has a process for passing constitutional amendments, and
if enough people through their elected officials support an amendment, then
it will be passed. Again, it's hard to see how this makes the system
"flawed". It may mean that individuals may personally disagree with some
of the decisions made by states or the federal government, but that's just
part of the system.

And there is no such thing as "Red America". Our country is a collection of individuals who have varying ideas, and some of them come together in groups because they share philosophies. But ultimately, we are a nation of individuals who ultimately vote as individuals.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Roy <[email protected]> wrote in news:uqmvgf$3obni$[email protected]:

(By your logic, you are trying to suppress the White House staff's
free speech! Surely you know better than that. Criticism is not an
attack on free speech but an exercise of it.)

What you say is true but we don't know what happens behind closed doors.
Reporters who are critical of Biden may not get interviews or other
such access to the White House. Question: When was the last time Biden
gave an interview to Fox News?

Biden is not the one denying White House press credentials to reporters he doesn't like. Trump did that.

Additionally, most of Fox is not news. According to Sean Hannity it's "advocacy journalism." That is not news.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 22:33:24 -0800 (PST), Roy wrote:

What you say is true but we don't know what happens behind closed doors.
Reporters who are critical of Biden may not get interviews or other
such access to the White House. Question: When was the last time Biden
gave an interview to Fox News?

And that is irrelevant to the concept of free speech.

The First Amendment does not compel anyone to speak to reporters or
anyone else.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 22:32:48 -0800 (PST), Roy <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2/15/2024 9:37 PM, John Levine wrote:

According to Roy <[email protected]>:

...

I did a quick search and I didn't find one state that was talking about
death penalty for abortion.

The referenced article doesn't mention one either.

You should look harder. The second paragraph of that article has links
to five state bills that would treat abortion as homicide.

None of the bills suggested it would have the death penalty attached.

Don't some or all of those states already have a death penalty for
murder? Or they are planning to. They're not going to mention this when discussing abortion because it would turn off some/many voters, and
that's the reason if you searched for abortion murder or abortion
death penalty etc. you wont' find anything.

There are lots of "homicide" crimes like killing someone as a result of >driving drunk.

Because killing someone while driving drunk is not considered
intentional (even though he drank intentionally). Almost every
abortion is intentional, on the part of the doctor and the woman,
especially clear when the patient signs a permission form in advance.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Stuart O. Bronstein" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

Roy <[email protected]> wrote in news:uqmvgf$3obni$[email protected]:

(By your logic, you are trying to suppress the White House staff's
free speech! Surely you know better than that. Criticism is not an
attack on free speech but an exercise of it.)

What you say is true but we don't know what happens behind closed doors.
Reporters who are critical of Biden may not get interviews or other
such access to the White House. Question: When was the last time Biden
gave an interview to Fox News?

Biden is not the one denying White House press credentials to reporters he >doesn't like. Trump did that.

Additionally, most of Fox is not news. According to Sean Hannity it's >"advocacy journalism." That is not news.

I agree that the shows done by Hannity and Ingraham and Watters are not news per se but commentary (until Hannity used it several years ago, I don't
think I had ever heard the phrase "advocacy journalism", which sounds a bit like an oxymoron). But Fox does have some legit news shows, like the first
half hour of Special Report (hosted by Bret Baier), where the straight news reporting is pretty indistinguishable from the regular networks. Also, the Sunday Fox News Report and much of the stuff done by Shannon Bream and
others don't really fit into the commentary arena.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 10:25:03 -0800, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

Additionally, most of Fox is not news. According to Sean Hannity it's "advocacy journalism." That is not news.

We have a similar situation t'other side of t'pond. "GB News" is not
registered as a news outlet, so not subject to the same regulations. It's
the Sargasso Sea of failed right wing politicians.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/16/2024 10:14 PM, Rick wrote:

I agree that the shows done by Hannity and Ingraham and Watters are not
news per se but commentary (until Hannity used it several years ago, I
don't think I had ever heard the phrase "advocacy journalism", which
sounds a bit like an oxymoron). But Fox does have some legit news shows,
like the first half hour of Special Report (hosted by Bret Baier), where
the straight news reporting is pretty indistinguishable from the regular networks.  Also, the Sunday Fox News Report and much of the stuff done
by Shannon Bream and others don't really fit into the commentary arena.

--

You can't just look at Fox News cable network. They run
http://foxnews.com website and Fox News App on the Internet. They also
supply news video to the Fox TV channel broadcasting affiliates.

See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Broadcasting_Company

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Roy" wrote in message news:uqqn6s$ga9r$[email protected]...

On 2/16/2024 10:14 PM, Rick wrote:

I agree that the shows done by Hannity and Ingraham and Watters are not
news per se but commentary (until Hannity used it several years ago, I
don't think I had ever heard the phrase "advocacy journalism", which
sounds a bit like an oxymoron). But Fox does have some legit news shows,
like the first half hour of Special Report (hosted by Bret Baier), where
the straight news reporting is pretty indistinguishable from the regular
networks. Also, the Sunday Fox News Report and much of the stuff done by
Shannon Bream and others don't really fit into the commentary arena.

--

You can't just look at Fox News cable network. They run http://foxnews.com >website and Fox News App on the Internet. They also supply news video to
the Fox TV channel broadcasting affiliates.

See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Broadcasting_Company

And I would agree the Fox News app and website both definitely skew to the right

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/17/2024 3:15 PM, Rick wrote:

"Roy"  wrote in message news:uqqn6s$ga9r$[email protected]...

On 2/16/2024 10:14 PM, Rick wrote:

I agree that the shows done by Hannity and Ingraham and Watters are
not news per se but commentary (until Hannity used it several years
ago, I don't think I had ever heard the phrase "advocacy journalism",
which sounds a bit like an oxymoron). But Fox does have some legit
news shows, like the first half hour of Special Report (hosted by
Bret Baier), where the straight news reporting is pretty
indistinguishable from the regular networks.  Also, the Sunday Fox
News Report and much of the stuff done by Shannon Bream and others
don't really fit into the commentary arena.

--

You can't just look at Fox News cable network.  They run
http://foxnews.com website and Fox News App on the Internet.  They
also supply news video to the Fox TV channel broadcasting affiliates.

See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Broadcasting_Company

And I would agree the Fox News app and website both definitely skew to
the right

--

So? MSNBC skews left. I was trying to point out that while that one
FOX stream that is heavy with commentary is complimented with other
products and streams that cover the news.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Roy" wrote in message news:uqrjds$lti4$[email protected]...

On 2/17/2024 3:15 PM, Rick wrote:

"Roy" wrote in message news:uqqn6s$ga9r$[email protected]...

On 2/16/2024 10:14 PM, Rick wrote:

I agree that the shows done by Hannity and Ingraham and Watters are not >>>> news per se but commentary (until Hannity used it several years ago, I >>>> don't think I had ever heard the phrase "advocacy journalism", which
sounds a bit like an oxymoron). But Fox does have some legit news
shows, like the first half hour of Special Report (hosted by Bret
Baier), where the straight news reporting is pretty indistinguishable
from the regular networks. Also, the Sunday Fox News Report and much
of the stuff done by Shannon Bream and others don't really fit into the >>>> commentary arena.

--

You can't just look at Fox News cable network. They run
http://foxnews.com website and Fox News App on the Internet. They also
supply news video to the Fox TV channel broadcasting affiliates.

See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Broadcasting_Company

And I would agree the Fox News app and website both definitely skew to
the right

--

So? MSNBC skews left. I was trying to point out that while that one FOX >stream that is heavy with commentary is complimented with other products
and streams that cover the news.

And my point is that the Fox News Channel actually and perhaps ironically
does a much more objective job covering straight news than either the Fox
News website or app. I think if you saw a transcript of a straight news
story as reported on Bret Baier's Special Report or Shannon Bream's Fox News Sunday and did not know what network it was from, you would not be able to distinguish it from one produced on CBS, NBC or ABC. But the Fox News website and app clearly skew their story selection to the right and even
their reporting on specific stories.

And yes, MSNBC and to an extent CNN both skew largely to the left.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 22:33:24 -0800 (PST), Roy <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2/15/2024 9:33 PM, Stan Brown wrote:

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 16:56:12 -0800 (PST), Roy wrote:

Free speech is something we can all support

It's easier to support if you know what it is.

...

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 13:41:05 -0800 (PST), Roy wrote:

Meanwhile local, state, and federal governments are trying to suppress
free speech. A current example is the White House criticizing the news
media for discussing Biden's mental health.

No, "criticizing the news media" is not an attempt to "suppress free
speech". It is, in fact, an example of free speech. The news media
have the right to cover the news and comment on it. People who don't
like their coverage or their analysis have the right to say so.
Suppressing free speech -- well, free press, in this case -- would be
preventing them from printing what they wanted to. That has not
happened, and I think the chances of its happening under this
President are roughly nil. (No doubt Der Furor _would_ try to
suppress free speech if he gets in, as we all know he goes ballistic
whenever he is criticized, plus he doesn't believe the Constitution
applies to him.)

(By your logic, you are trying to suppress the White House staff's
free speech! Surely you know better than that. Criticism is not an
attack on free speech but an exercise of it.)

What you say is true but we don't know what happens behind closed doors.
Reporters who are critical of Biden may not get interviews or other
such access to the White House. Question: When was the last time Biden
gave an interview to Fox News?

Maybe he's annoyed at "Fox News" for spending weeks or months lying
about Dominion Voting Machiunes and trying to convince the USA that
Biden lost the election he won. This is a big problem that is still
with us, when iirc 60% of Republicans still think Biden didn't win the election. Why should he promote his enemy?

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/15/2024 1:41 PM, Roy wrote:

Meanwhile local, state, and federal governments are trying to suppress
free speech.  A current example is the White House criticizing the news media for discussing Biden's mental health.  Similarly we know they suppressed discussion on the safety of the COVID vaccines.

The White House has a right to criticize the new media for anything they
don't like. That's the free speech of whoever actually says it (and/or
writes the speech in which it is said.

Suppressing discussion *is* a violation of free speech.

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/22/2024 8:25 AM, S K wrote:

On Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 11:42:40 PM UTC-5, Barry Gold wrote:

On 2/15/2024 1:41 PM, Roy wrote:

Meanwhile local, state, and federal governments are trying to suppress
free speech. A current example is the White House criticizing the news
media for discussing Biden's mental health. Similarly we know they
suppressed discussion on the safety of the COVID vaccines.

The White House has a right to criticize the new media for anything they
don't like. That's the free speech of whoever actually says it (and/or
writes the speech in which it is said.

Suppressing discussion *is* a violation of free speech.

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

This is b.s. So if President Biden cuts short Fox twerp Doocy's malevolent questions short with a terse put-down - is THAT a violation of free speech?

That depends on the reason, which makes it (probably) too squishy for
the courts to rule on. Let's say Biden cuts Doocy short. Doocy goes to
court over it. Chances are the courts won't even listen. If they do, he
can argue that Doocy was taking too much time compared with other
reporters.

I remember one episode of "The West Wing" where C J Cregg decided that
the several dozen reporters in her briefing room all represented only 7 different corporations (each corp. owning several news outlets) and had
the maintenance staff remove all but 7 chairs. She told the (decidedly unthrilled) reporters to sort it out among themselves.

IIRC things returned to normal the next episode, but it did make a point
about the concentration of power in the news media.
--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"S K" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

On Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 11:42:40 PM UTC-5, Barry Gold wrote:

On 2/15/2024 1:41 PM, Roy wrote:

Meanwhile local, state, and federal governments are trying to suppress
free speech. A current example is the White House criticizing the news
media for discussing Biden's mental health. Similarly we know they
suppressed discussion on the safety of the COVID vaccines.

The White House has a right to criticize the new media for anything they
don't like. That's the free speech of whoever actually says it (and/or
writes the speech in which it is said.

Suppressing discussion *is* a violation of free speech.

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

This is b.s. So if President Biden cuts short Fox twerp Doocy's malevolent >questions short with a terse put-down - is THAT a violation of free speech?

That's actually an example of free speech. Biden can say whatever he wants
at his press conference (his venue), which includes cutting anyone off he wants. Doocy is perfectly free to express his views when he returns to his venue, which is his own network. Free speech doesn't mean you have to
share your venue with anyone else.


--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)