Sedition..?

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by sfshooter

This could have something to do with actions of this sort:

"Rowley also ordered Barkley to be evaluated to determine whether he is competent to stand trial."

There are so many incidents today that are a product of a deficient mentality (what the media plays on at times, me thinks). Take the Sandy Hook shooter, definitely a mental case.
A 100 years ago or less our society used to institutionalize people with mental conditions as they were thought to be a threat to society. In some cases they definitely are!
False stories can incite the mentally challenged/handicapped into doing things that cause irreversible harm on others.
The licensing thing on the media wouldn't be too bad of an idea, after all a lot of electricians, heat and air techs, etc... have to be licensed to protect the public from potential harm.

It is a tricky path to tread upon as there is always more than one viewpoint.

Licensing is a bad idea, it creates bureaucratic creep.

[sinjefe]

Originally Posted by scooter

Every belief system will, if given the chance, legislate its beliefs into law and seek to punish non-conformers. Heinlein rightly said that conservatism versus liberalism was a false dichotomy. The world is actually divided into those who would seek to control the behavior and beliefs of their fellow man, and those who had no such desire. The efforts of conservatives to outlaw gay marriage is no different than the efforts of liberals to clamp down on public Christian adherence. The desire to disarm the people is no different than telling a guy in his living room he can’t smoke pot, which makes him docile and hungry at the worst. Clamping down on news stories that highlight facts that aren’t part of your worldview, and calling them fake news, is no different than wanting the left wing idiots put on trial for sedition. You can’t have it both ways; we are all free, or none of us are.

Never give your rulers any power you wouldn’t want in the hands of people who despise everything you believe and stand for.

Encapsulates my belief exactly.

[Golf1echo]

In licencing there would be a State or Federal Board as well as a professional entity to oversee the profession like the AIA in Architecture. I agree, for what we want generally from the press as well as what our media ( Internet, TV, Radio, Pod Casts,news papers,Blogs, short wave programs, etc...)has become licensing is more out of H Klintons book....although that makes me chuckle that perhaps it's not a profession at all

I would rather see the professional press operate more like a guild, I believe they use to...more so. I would think it would be in their best interests. A professional corp of reporters. editors, publishers, and owners that took the charge of representing facts in a neutral format and clearly separated OP ED pieces for what they are all the while keeping celebrities to the entertainment section. There would still be the gaggle of amateur reporters and propagandists but our options would again include an unbiased source of news. Their profession would begin to delineate itself from the amateurs ie. facebook gossip et al.

IMO somewhere along the line they decided putting on circuses, feeding them cake and click baiting was a good business model? I just don't see that as sustaining, perhaps more of our inability to match morals with technological advancements? Feels like the major players either caved in to the notion they would play too taking an active role in promoting their personal agendas...after all that was like getting season tickets to the circus and getting to sit with all the freaks as well or it has become more about profits and shareholders at the expense of integrity. That reminds me of the cautionary tale of " How Yahoo Lost it's Way". The inconvenient fact for them is that they don't exist with out us....

[The Reaper]

We may want to research the history of media in the United States, from the scandalous and outrageous things said during the Revolutionary War through William Randolph Hearst and Yellow Journalism to today.

There is nothing new in opinions (and outright lies) being misrepresented as news and facts. The issue here is the almost total bias to the left of the media today.

I suspect that most other nations with freedom of the press have had similar experiences.

TR

[MR2]

Our "free and unfettered" press has a history of pretty scandalous and outrageous "reporting". This does not mean we should accept past bad behavior and use it to justify current/future behavior.

We have evolved fairly reasonable restrictions on commercial speech. We have laws on slander and libel.

Why can we not hold the members of the former profession once known as journalism to a higher standard, if not just their standard?

Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics

[miclo18d]

Originally Posted by MR2

Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics

Journalistic taqqiya...

[atticus finch]

Originally Posted by Old Dog New Trick

Atticus Finch - Your Post

And I would agree that is what the "opinions" column in a printed news source is about. Problem is as you noted is when editors or owners of a website purposely allow false information or lies to be run as truth to sway or control the message. To control the message or dialogue to the point of creating a false sense of right and wrong. They (MSM) are all quite guilty of spreading false news to undermine our government and elected officials. Sadly both sides are guilty of selling lies to attain power over the people for personal or institutional gain.

The term for what the left has been doing for 50+ years is 'culture war' and the word I was struggling to find to describe it's intent is the word 'subversive'. That word perhaps best illustrating the difference I was trying to define. The left's intent with what they are doing is subversive against our civic institutions, our public institutions (education) and our cultural standards.
Whereas speaking out on an honest basis of legitimate criticism is a civil right and I personally believe to be a bonafide civic obligation.
It's by no means a subversive activity, it is the exact opposite. It has been cleverly mischaracterized as 'anti-government' by the statists within our civic institutions, per usual they never answer one question: "how is engaging in a civil right for the purpose of fulfilling a civic obligation in accordance with the law an action opposed to legitimate government?" Because it is not, that's why the question never gets asked within the current culture war and the statists don't want people to understand that.
I personally dont think another 'law' is the answer, laws right now are not stopping the left and too many of the 'laws' on the books have been used by the left as a weapon in the culture war being waged. Over & above that the culture war is a battle for hearts and minds, with the ultimate objective being the attainment of power by the leftists and/or statists for the purpose of using government sponsored violence against the individual when that serves the statists agenda. Speaking truth to power, such as the question I posed about 'anti-government' is the best weapon we have as power is always based on a lie. Prove the hypocrisy of the lie power hides behind by making the statists defend thier lies via questions such as that. That is how we defeat the leftist media. It is what Trump did to the media the weekend of the second debate and anyone watching that situation could see for themselves the result.
He defeated them soundly and to a very large degree destroyed thier ability to conduct their cultural warfare on the political front.

Originally Posted by Old Dog New Trick

My question is, what is the tipping point where the active rebellion ends and escalates to armed underground insurgency based on lies, mischaracterization of the person legally accented to power, or through the deceptive practices of the press?

I fully understand this cuts both ways and at some point in the future those on the right (side of history) will be judged by hopefully the same narrow brush.

At what point do we call a spade a spade and put the shovel down? (ETA: wait it's my thread, put the hammer down.)

Given where things are now in the culture war as a result of Trump winning this election and what it has done to the leftists ability to do what I previously wrote above and the why of what they're doing. I don't think we on this side of the political fence are going to have to make this decision. Looking at things now I suspect that decision will be made for us by the left and put us in a far better position as a result.
If one views the actions of the left through the lense of their own manual of operations (strategic ? tactical?) "rules for radicals" you get a far better idea of what they are doing and why. One of the rules in there is: "appear the strongest when you are the weakest" Meaning react the most vociferously and stridently when the opposition (this means us..) has hit them the hardest and they are at their weakest.
Trump in a lot of ways has single-handedly if not completely destroyed the lefts ability to conduct their cultural war, then he has handed them a defeat on the scale of the battle of midway island with the same long-term result.
The left staked everything they had on this election, politically, culturally, etc, they lost and they are at their weakest point they've ever been in 50+ years.
We've all seen the violent talk, the threats, etc, and the outright violence they've already engaged in. That is in my own thinking only the start of what is to come. At some point the leftists will resort to the open violence they only threaten now as that is the only option they have left outside of being genuinely defeated on the cultural front. They want an illegal revolution either by cultural warfare or by genuine violent warfare, as every other leftist through history has done. lenin, hitler, castro, pol pot, every damned one of them follows the same M/O, the leftists in this country follow the same ideology and they're following the same M/O, cultural warfare if possible, open warfare via genuine violence if the cultural fails.
By virtue of that the decision will have been made for us.
This being why it'll put us in a better position, we are responding via force against the lethal violence the left will engage in, consequently we are morally right in doing so as it is a basic civil right we are engaging in and arguably our civic responsibility to do so.

[Stobey]

Originally Posted by scooter

The licensing of the media is a horrible, horrible idea. Who would grant such a license? Who would determine if they broke its terms? Who would benefit most? .

Originally Posted by atticusfinch

I personally dont think another 'law' is the answer, laws right now are not stopping the left and too many of the 'laws' on the books have been used by the left as a weapon in the culture war being waged.

I agree with what both of you have had to say w/regard to this issue; but... something wicked this way comes:


Critics Slam Congress for Creating an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth” 12/15/16 by Alex Newman

Under the guise of countering foreign “propaganda,” the GOP-controlled Congress quietly passed a bill last week that will unleash even more government propaganda on humanity, while at the same time establishing what critics blasted as an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth.” The “bipartisan” but flatly unconstitutional scheme, dubbed the Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act, also calls for providing tax funding and training to “journalists,” media outfits, and other propagandists willing to parrot the U.S. government's viewpoints. According to its sponsors, the goal is to help promote Washington, D.C.'s “foreign policy goals.” The potential for abuse, though, is nearly endless, and the bipartisan establishment's “foreign policy goals” are often at odds with the Constitution — not to mention common decency, human liberty, and peace. And so, critics are speaking out forcefully.

The deeply controversial legislation, approved by the U.S. Senate on December 8, was not voted on as a stand-alone bill, but was instead buried deep inside the 1,576-page National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2017. Because the NDAA funds the military and is considered “must pass” by lawmakers with little regard for the oath they took to the Constitution, Big Government-loving politicians often sneak outlandish schemes into the NDAA that otherwise would almost certainly be rejected.

The full article here:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...istry-of-truth


( see also today's article 12-24-16 by William F. Jasper: )
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...inister-agenda