Fourth Estate, the fourth branch of government

A free press = totalitarianism?

Big Brother is getting closer.

BTW, I saw a video from the O'Reilly show, in which he carefulliy edited an interview with Joe Biden to make it appear that Biden believed something he did not.

So should the government step in and make O'Reilly tell the truth? I don't think so, although if it was defaming to Biden, he might have a cause for a lawsuit.

Since most people expect O'Reilly to lie, it probably isn't that defaming.

 

First, lying is wrong biblically...not just your opinion. However, you are from texas and maybe that's just an homage to Peggy Hill ;-)

Second, your OP questioned whether the press should have that influence. I still am not sure how someone could regulate influence, but to limit a free press flies in the face of the First Amendment. (and there is legal recourse if the press is lying.)

Third, you accused someone of totalitarianism for wanting to keep the press free. Such and absurd statement made me wonder if you had a point at all or if your usual word twisting was just your way of saying that you could not defend your point.

However, you have stated your point now: lying is wrong. I concur. So does God.

 

EG,

What?! There is someone to my right?!

I'm starting to get dizzy thinking of an old Johnny Cash song, "The One on the Right Is on the Left".

 

FTR, your real name isn't Sue by any chance? :laugh:

 

No and I don't got no rhythm either, being an old white guy. But your joke did make me cry, cry, cry.

 

Well, except that FDR was definitely FTL.

Did I redeem myself?

 

Someone accused you of totalitarinism because you wanted to limit, not only the press, but even its influence. I agree, that would be totalitarinism. Then you accused that person of being totalitarian. Then people wondered what your point was and you said that lying is wrong.

I agree, lying is wrong, but that was not your OP.

Regarding lying by the press, here's the wonderful thing about a free society...you are under no obligation, whatsoever, to listen to, subscribe to, or watch a reporter that you feel is a liar, slurrs his L's in a weird way, or for any reason at all. Its your choice!

 

EG,

Doing OK, mostly. Light day at work. Yourself?

It's true, the Supreme Court has looked more to free speech in cases where it has backed up religious speech, rather than the free exercise clause. IMO, that is because they believe a religious speech is more palatable if defended simply as speech. I can see somewhat of a textual argument in their defense, though, that being that perhaps religious liberty includes liturgy, sacraments, ceremonies, rather than necessarily public speech of whatever nature. Just a guess.

Off to lunch, as opposed to "out to lunch" as my lib friends here may suspect.

 

Where in the U.S. has this happened?

 

Dude, what does that have to do with my question? Where in the U.S. do they lock preachers up for speaking against sin?

 

EG,

I disagree somewhat:

The BoR limited only the central government. Baptist preachers were locked up (and even horsewhipped, reportedly) in the colony and pre-Constitution State of Virginia. There were many reasons for the Bill of Rights but the primary reason for it is that anti-Federalists raised such a ruckus during the ratification debates over the Constitution that there was really very little choice. Though none of the states made their ratification conditional on a BoR, beginning with Massachusetts several did attach a list of recommended amendments to their ratification. The biggest practical reason we have it is that James Madison promised he would push for it during his campaign for his seat in the First House of Representatives and he carried through, quite diligently, on his promise. There were also many reasons for the various protections afforded under the First Amendment. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press were themselves often referred to by anti-Feds as the palladium or bulwark of liberty. Religious liberty was not so described nearly as often.