Link Post: @realDonaldTrump Truth: The Charlie Kirk Act
(truthsocial.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (36)
sorted by:
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.