Freedom of the Press.

4n7hr4x · #1 (**permalink**) 11-27-2007, 07:49 AM

Okay so the Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantee freedom of the press, yet in order to provide news to others you must get a license from the FCC, which is a part of the government. How is that freedom of press, if they don't like the kind of news you're putting out they just take away your license. How the general public has not noticed that is way beyond me.

Since the FCC requires a license for television news broadcasts why don't we create a news station on the internet, today the internet is almost more popular than TV anyway, you could expect to reach just as many people with a Internet only news source as with a TV only news source.

If the FCC starts to give you shit, you just move the server to Europe and then there really isn't a damn thing they can do about it.

The reason I brought this up, if you go to youtube and watch some videos on there, you see that there are many things going on in this country that you never hear about on the news, yet Brit Brit shaving her head and loosing her kids is way more important that several hundred thousand people protesting in New York for the 9/11 truth.

Comments...

**Opunaya** · 11-27-2007, 07:58 AM

Well, if this whole "Internet2" thing takes off, there's going to be absolutely nothing we can do about it, since the World Wide Web will be controlled by the government, right?

You have a good idea though, but how exactly would you go about this? Are you going to make a central news website that posts actual news that other sites have already done? Link them? And what about the report videos? You'll have to pay newscasters, cameramen, etc. then you have to figure out how to have contacts. Or are you not worried about getting the scoop? I have no clue where I'm going with this.

everyone's favo · 11-27-2007, 08:07 AM

Just as Opu pointed out, there is A LOT you need to do before something like this can really pick up. You also need to press your own flesh: word of mouth is often not enough. Your trying to reach an audience that most often, would rather NOT see the truth. That is why Tittney Slears is more important than the 9/11 Trust protesters.

The FCC is around to not just protect the government, but to protect the common person. There are some things that should not be broadcasted for the simple fear of someone with enough intelligence getting a hold of it.

Swift19 · 11-27-2007, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by everyone's favo

Just as Opu pointed out, there is A LOT you need to do before something like this can really pick up. You also need to press your own flesh: word of mouth is often not enough. Your trying to reach an audience that most often, would rather NOT see the truth. That is why Tittney Slears is more important than the 9/11 Trust protesters.

The FCC is around to not just protect the government, but to protect the common person. There are some things that should not be broadcasted for the simple fear of someone with enough intelligence getting a hold of it.

like military secrets which another country could use against us. that is still a possibility. the US is not immune to attacks from abroad.

everyone's favo · 11-27-2007, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swift19

like military secrets which another country could use against us. that is still a possibility. the US is not immune to attacks from abroad.

Your right, but you still need to shore up any hole. Its better to be safe and protect yourself than to not take the precaution at all.

Thats also why the 9/11 Truth protesters have little publicity: do you really think our government would want word about OUR OWN PUBLIC being against our policies. That shows weakness to other countries. And yes, I do understand most of these countries already know about this. But again, it shows that we are weaker by publicizing it.

Swift19 · 11-27-2007, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by everyone's favo

Your right, but you still need to shore up any hole. Its better to be safe and protect yourself than to not take the precaution at all.

Thats also why the 9/11 Truth protesters have little publicity: do you really think our government would want word about OUR OWN PUBLIC being against our policies. That shows weakness to other countries. And yes, I do understand most of these countries already know about this. But again, it shows that we are weaker by publicizing it.

it's all about the balance between security and freedoms. too much either way is just stupid.

**Brother of Yeshua** · 11-27-2007, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swift19

like military secrets which another country could use against us. that is still a possibility. the US is not immune to attacks from abroad.

No but if we didn't send our troops all over the world playing policeman, we could actually protect ourself at home. If we weren't having our brave men and women in the military being held in a purposely prolonged war, we would have a lot less to worry about because hey, if anything crazy happens, we have one of the greatest militaries in the world right here at home. Instead we're caught in what Thomas Jefferson would refer to as "entangling alliances."

Also, the FBI has been accused (with rather strong evidence) of spying on reporters. They, of course, deny this. In any fair court, they would be convicted of it imo. They're have been a few whistle blowers over the years that have seen them and verified that they were in fact following them. There's always a convenience excuse though...

**Opunaya** · 11-27-2007, 10:05 AM

If you didn't think the FBI was covering the media, and the reporters, then guess what? You're retarded. Of course they're going to do that, since it is one of their top investigative priorities at the moment:

1. Protect the United States from terrorist attack;
2. Protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage;
3. Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes;
4. Combat public corruption at all levels;
5. Protect civil rights;
6. Combat transnational/national criminal organizations and enterprises;
7. Combat major white-collar crime;
8. Combat significant violent crime;
9. Support federal, state, local and international partners; and
10. Upgrade technology for successful performance of the FBI's mission.

tombinghamthegreat · 11-27-2007, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother of Yeshua

Also, the FBI has been accused (with rather strong evidence) of spying on reporters. They, of course, deny this. In any fair court, they would be convicted of it imo. They're have been a few whistle blowers over the years that have seen them and verified that they were in fact following them. There's always a convenience excuse though...

They tend to do these things during conflicts to try to oppress people. It is similiar to what Russia does but Russia tends to kill reporters that oppose the state, making Russia one of the deadlist places for reporters.

11-27-2007, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother of Yeshua

No but if we didn't send our troops all over the world playing policeman, we could actually protect ourself at home. If we weren't having our brave men and women in the military being held in a purposely prolonged war, we would have a lot less to worry about because hey, if anything crazy happens, we have one of the greatest militaries in the world right here at home. Instead we're caught in what Thomas Jefferson would refer to as "entangling alliances."

You honestly can't put up a formidable defense without a good offense. I agree that we shouldn't meddle in other's business. However, without actually going over and policing other 'terrorist states' we really have no control over them. I'm not saying its a good thing. All I'm saying is we can't thwart terrorism with just staying at home with our troops. Its a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation.

I'm glad I'm not a policy maker.