Link Post: @realDonaldTrump Truth: The Charlie Kirk Act
(truthsocial.com)
Comments (36)
sorted by:
The most consequential act ever repealed to be honest. This movies turning.
I'm so glad her post made it to him!! I also hope him posting it is a sign that he'll be taking action on it 🤞🏻🙏🏻
Im confident he will, but it may be a bit yet. I guarantee he's known about it but it might not yet be the right time.
This just got attention.
Please stickie this! We all need to go comment and let POTUS know we support this. And share it wide!
genuine question, how would this not conflict with free speech? I hate the lying media but how would this actually work. People can still give opinions and say the same thing basically. Maybe they are just forced to say it is opinion
Yeah they are forced to write opinion pieces instead of reporting things as fact. They also are forced to not straight up lie in head lines. Such as MSNBC reporting that the Charlie Kirk shooter had “fascist remarks engraved on bullets,” which is technically true, but said in a way to obviously deceive the audience.
No they aren’t. New York Times V. Sullivan in 64 established the media is able to lie about Public Officials and report those lies as fact. And it’s up to the individual in question to prove they knowingly and maliciously did so. Curtis Publishing V. Butts in 66 expanded the legal precedent to apply to private individuals. Primarily Businessmen, Celebrities etc. Though not exclusively. Gertz V. Robert Welch in 71 technically restored some of the protections of private individuals. Though it’s effectively left up to the states in many cases in how to apply the precedent from the case.
Which means it effectively fixed nothing and in actuality actually successful prosecution against Media and Journalists for lying and libel is expensive and exceedingly difficult. Because the law is on the side of the Journalists.
I know they have protection from the first but it's a little ridiculous to extend that to straight up lies and leave it up to the private individual to prove it in court after the fact. A lot of the time, the damage is done and proving they're lying changes nothing. People STILL call Rittenhouse a murderer. They may have amendment protections for speech, but we also have amendment protections for privacy.
It does seem ridiculous. But current legal precedent favors the media.
Another part of the problem is the laws we have are still very much revolving around the 20th century. Not 2025.
Now every retard with a Computer and WiFi connection can suddenly become a “Journalist” and post whatever about anyone. The problem with that being many of the ‘Citizen Journalists’ aren’t much better than the MSM when it comes to being honest. With just as much recourse for the private citizen
You can have free speech but MSM look at the thingy Obama signed into law in 2013. It allows MSM to be Propaganda channels.
News should just report news. We decide for ourselves how to think
The media needs to report news as news. That has not been the case since this was rolled back. They need to be held responsible for their lies. The Smith-Mundt Act focused on media broadcasting, not private citizens expressing an opinion like on social media. When media is expressing editorial opinions it needs to be expressly declared as opinion.
That is a great concise way to put it.
Yep, and even better if they disclose the truth about how their opinion came about. So, the objective becomes people thinking for themselves about what is true, not manipulating people's minds.
IMHO
There's a significant difference in stating something false and treating it as true, and stating something false, and being required to label it as an opinion.
What she's suggesting isn't a violation of free speech or of enforced censorship, it's a call for the requirement of factual evidence to provide information that is claimed or inferred to be fact. In fact, this was already a law in the past, until Obama had it removed. The media hellhole that we find ourselves in now can be directly attributed to that law being removed.
YES!!!!!!! So glad it got around to him finally
Holy shit!
He's here among us.
It did get to him! Thank God. Now maybe this can finally get corrected.
When the storm hits all these media sites will be toast anyhow. RICO treason sedition clown agents all that.
Wow Trump posted it???
She got her wish (; ty anons
There is a big difference between "fact" and "propaganda". A fact is the truth. Propaganda can be presented as being factual but is actually a lie. Everyone talks about our "God given right to free speech" that is guaranteed by the Constitution. Here is my question for those who say "They have the same right to say what ever they want to just like us!" Did God give us the right to deceive with our words?
i forwarded that to stephen miller when i first saw it. amazing idea, glad someone, somewhere, it got to DJT
This is our beloved President who truly listens to the people, even nobodys and anons. I love him so much!
Wait wait wait wait wait
How is the truth defined?? Hopefully not just what the government says. Be careful how this act is worded & make sure there are ways for any source to prove that they are correct against a slew of false opinions. Isn't Tina Peters in jail because she went against what her state govt said is true?
Yes I think this is a great idea in general but anything can be twisted to do the opposite of what it was intended. This could be used to shut down all alternate media
Truth is Truth. It is everlasting and immutable. It stands up to scrutiny over time.
Truth is not relative but objective—it corresponds to reality and can be known through evidence and reason.
Frank Turek has some compelling videos on what.Truth is. They are worth watching, IMHO. Like this one:
https://youtu.be/C8kpqMA7dmM?feature=shared
Of course but how is it defined in the world of men? You can bet that there were some well-meaning churchmen that felt they were doing God's work to stop the crazy heretic, Galileo Galilei, from poisoning the public with his un-Godly theories of the planets.
I am not denying that there is an ultimate truth & reality in all things but anyone or any institution or government that claims to know the ultimate irrefutable truth is a tyrannical menace to all that is good in humanity, as we have just witnessed with the covid lockdowns, Fauci & the cabal & etc.
So that get's back to my question: How is truth defined? It can't be defined according to some board of experts, but as to something in the realm of the divine that no human can possibly know in entirety.
This is why we sent this to our president, he listened! That’s remarkable!
Perhaps a good idea to redo this for news stations who say they are reporting factual news, but I'm not sure how this would work with content creators with oppinions such as podcastors. I can see an argument that for them this would go against their free speech.
My professor told me that the media has to be compelled to tell the truth because they often work in coordination with LEO and FBI/NSA. And if it is an opinion it must be labeled as a editorial which is a composite opinion piece.
By being able to side skirt accurate reporting that creates a situation where the media can be weaponized against not only against the public but also LEO, FBI, NSA, etc.
And if you have the CIA influencing the media's ability to project deceit it becomes worse.
In other words there has been as silent American civil war happening between agencies for a while now with the CIA spearheading it.