General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPost removed
sweetloukillbot
(11,023 posts)PM Martin
(2,660 posts)Still both are protected speech.
Response to PM Martin (Reply #2)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)We point and laugh at them too.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)unless there's some information I'm not aware of.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)not a private web site. Not only that but we "ban" all sorts of right-wing sites. Actually they aren't banned except in LBN, but if someone uses them for an argument they will probably be hidden by a jury and the poster will be looked at by MIRT.
Response to OKNancy (Reply #4)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)As far as I know, there is no list of banned sites.
There are sites which contain subject matter that violates DU rules and links to those pages may be locked by juries and/or hosts, but I know of no written list of sites which are banned across the board.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)it locked or hidden.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)I've used links to RW sites in the Gun and Religion groups to point out the absurdities of RW opinions.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)OKNancy
(41,832 posts)any that promulgate the following ( from the DU terms of service)
Don't be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe).
Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.
Don't go overboard with the crazy talk.
Democratic Underground is not intended to be a platform for kooks and crackpots peddling paranoid fantasies with little or no basis in fact. To accommodate our more imaginative members we tolerate some limited discussion of so-called "conspiracy theories" under the following circumstances: First, those discussions are not permitted in our heavily-trafficked Main forums; and second, those discussions cannot stray too far into Crazyland (eg: chemtrails, black helicopters, 9/11 death rays or holograms, the "New World Order," the Bilderbergers, the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, alien abduction, Bigfoot, and the like). In addition, please be aware that many conspiracy theories have roots in racism and anti-semitism, and Democratic Underground has zero tolerance for bigoted hate speech. In short, you take your chances.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)If Skinner says a site cannot be linked, it cannot be linked. Skinner owns this site and there are numerous sites that cannot be linked to this site.
It is not "against freedom of the press" because there is no freedom to force others to pay for what you wish to say.
Archae
(46,327 posts)But certain web sites set off red flags here as to credibility.
Russia Today
Faux "news"
WND
NewsMax
Age Of Autism
Natural News
The National Enquirer
And so on.
During the days of the Soviet Union, "Pravda" (which means truth,) was anything BUT truth.
It was the official Soviet "news," and as such was full of Soviet propaganda.
Nowadays "Russia Today" is Putin's propaganda outlet, and as such will run anything he states, as fact.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Just because there is freedom of the press does not mean everything a news source puts out is correct. There are reputations whether they are good or bad and you have listed several which ate quoted as truthful and they are not. When I see a link to those in your list I do my own research to locate the truth. It is unfortunate they have believers.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)if I want to. It's called "the internet"
And for those of you tossing out the false equivalency that RT is the same as CBS, ABC, CNN... that's bull.
It's not the same.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)are also typically hidden by juries. Those sites enjoy the same freedom of the press that RT does. Since this is not the federal government, what people decide to be against community standards does not constitute a violation of the First Amendment. I have never been on a jury that hid a RT piece, nor do I think I would based on the source alone, but I sure as hell am not going to put any credibility in it or in the people who post it.
As for you, I think you ought to figure out what the hell the First amendment Actually covers before you run around citing it. The same freedom of speech that prohibits THE GOVERNMENT from censoring RT protects my right to say I think it is a fucking propaganda rag for an authoritarian, former KGB asshole.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)It is a private entity, and it's owners have full editorial control over it's content ..
The fucking RT apologists need to get real ...
Your insistence on shoving THIS kind of rubbish up our collective asses is duly noted ...
Duly fucking noted ...
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)Put up or shut up. Where did she say it? And, while on the subject of freedom of the press, how come you don't know the first thing about it? The lecture you're throwing around here is typical for wing nuts, not DU'ers.
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)Free not to allow it. In the old days garbage like Alex jones got the ax, now it is up to juries.
Cha
(297,220 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)maddezmom
(135,060 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)maddezmom
(135,060 posts)I could keep going.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)maddezmom
(135,060 posts)Makes me as well.
Cha
(297,220 posts)eShirl
(18,491 posts)(besides this one)
Response to eShirl (Reply #6)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
eShirl
(18,491 posts)Response to eShirl (Reply #17)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)You have failed and failed miserably.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Not one.
You have failed, and failed miserably.
You can still delete this OP and let it sink into oblivion to try and garner some form of self respect.
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)It says that Russia Times distorts and lies, and that it cannot be relied on as a source of facts concerning events in Ukraine, and expresses some wonderment anyone does believe it is a reliable source for news.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)It didn't have to be - it could have opened a useful discussion of bias in media and how to deal with it - but it became silly as soon as the OP proclaimed that any discussion of bias in any other news sources was off-topic.
At that point, the OP became an agenda-driven attempt to encourage avoidance of only one biased source of news, while stubbornly resisting any suggestion that the best way to deal with bias coming from all sides is to consider all sources of information.
fishwax
(29,149 posts)elleng
(130,904 posts)it states that RT should not be relied on, its an opinion, not a 'ban.'
Response to Corruption Inc (Reply #14)
tenderfoot This message was self-deleted by its author.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)Godhumor
(6,437 posts)People are saying that it is not a trustworthy source regarding Russian actions and should be treated as such here at DU.
There is a reason sites like RT, WSWS, Consortium News, etc are not allowed for OPs in LBN, and it has nothing to do with censorship.
BeyondGeography
(39,374 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)Skidmore
(37,364 posts)you don't understand about this site and the Constitution.
Response to Skidmore (Reply #10)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,316 posts)Do you need more of an explanation than that?
conservaphobe
(1,284 posts)RT does far more damage to itself by being complete bullshit than shutting them down and making them a martyr for the FUCKING IDIOTS who watch their programming ever would.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)Edited to add: I really find it amusing your "listen and learn" and then proceed to apply the a first amendment to private individuals on a private message board.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)give me a headeache, with explosions going off like a Starburst Clock.
Sid
Response to SidDithers (Reply #13)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)specimenfred1984
Sid
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)Funny stuff.
William769
(55,147 posts)Is that clarification enough!
And add this to it also. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5257045
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)We've been calling for banning RT as a source on DU. Nothing about that violates the first amendment. DU is a private entity, not the government.
Sheesh, you need to educate yourself.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Like when i see your name. I have learned to just laugh and pretty much ignore what follows.
See how that works? You are in favor of banning and shaming, you have to accept being banned and shamed. That's how free speech works. Not that you will grok it, but hey, you are posting all over DU, just asking for replies, yes?.
bluesbassman
(19,373 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)The U.S. Government is banning Russia Today?
Or (and I find this a wee bit more likely) you're simply miffed because many people recognize it as an invalid and unreliable source of news, compelling you to melodramatically shout "first amendment!!!!" due to an astounding lack of any valid premise...
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)RT is 100% within their constitutional rights to lie their asses off a bout everything under the sun, and the government cannot ban them.
The OP doesn't seem to understand how the first amendment works.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)I am telling you I don't trust it. I will no longer read it, nor will I give any credibility to anyone who continues to site it uncritically. Post all the fucking crap you want. It doesn't make it true, and you can't force anyone to believe it.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Cha
(297,220 posts)R3druM
(50 posts)US Government banned RT and blocked its domain? And if not, what is your point, exactly?
Response to R3druM (Reply #29)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Lacking a valid premise (yet making up for it in hysterics), confusion as response is all you're likely to receive.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)You need to learn the terms you are using before you use them.
Response to stevenleser (Reply #31)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)You're the one who has no fucking clue what the first amendment says even though you quoted it.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Spend some time researching what the first amendment means. You have a lot of work to do to understand it.
R3druM
(50 posts)Answer these two simple questions:
1. Did US Government censored or attempted to censor RT or its domain?
2. If NO, what is your OP have to do with First Amendment ?
Peacetrain
(22,876 posts)has called for banning RT.. Thinking twice about using them as a source.. yeah.. but no one has called for banning RT..
Hong Kong Cavalier
(4,572 posts)When that happens, let's talk. Until then...
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)It lets you know who else is completely ignorant about the first amendment besides the OP.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)GoneOffShore
(17,339 posts)And on reading the whole thread and your responses, you are beyond confused.
The government has not banned, throttled or censored RT.
Various DUer's have asked that RT stories not be linked to.
One of these things is not like the other and has no bearing on First Amendment issues.
Go back and read the First Amendment again. Until you understand it.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)..become "the press" just because they put on the public face of one?
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)A) It's not banned, people here just don't like it. I can take it or leave it. B) This is a private website, and the Bill of Rights doesn't apply here.
Not applying this to RT specifically, but it's not anti-democratic to limit sources here. The democratic part of this website is the agreed-upon community mores that we all function under. Coming in and posting some shit from National Review and insisting you could because "freedom" would be a violation of our collective principles. That is undemocratic.
Shrike47
(6,913 posts)For instance, Hobby Lobby is free to impose its' religion on its' employees all day long. And it does.
Skinner can also restrict you from assembling peacefully in his front yard to petition him for relief from grievances.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)itsrobert
(14,157 posts)roamer65
(36,745 posts)For more impartial news, I watch NHK from Japan on my Roku.
Cha
(297,220 posts)Russia Today Anchor Admits Spreading 'Lies' For Putin
By Catherine Taibi @cathtaibi
Another Russia Today anchor has resigned from her post at the Kremlin-funded TV network. I resigned from RT today. I have huge respect for many in the team, but I'm for the truth. pic.twitter.com/m...
HuffPost Media @HuffPostMedia
46 Retweets 7 favorites
Corespondent Sara Firth's announcement came nearly two hours after she stated on Twitter that RT anchors "do work for Putin" and spread "lies," in a conversation with RT London correspondent Polly Boiko. Firth alleged that the network asks its anchors to "obscure the truth," and now she is saying she's had enough.
Polly Boiko @Polly_Boiko
@ukTanos what am i spreading?
Sara Firth @Sara__Firth
Follow
@Polly_Boiko @ukTanos Lies hun. We do work for Putin. We are asked on a daily basis if not to totally ignore then to obscure the truth
11:50 PM - 17 Jul 2014 550 Retweets 175 favorites
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/18/sara-firth-resigns-russia-today-lies-anchor_n_5598815.html
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)Sickening.
Cha
(297,220 posts)wool prop pushers.
It does.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)A young lady of integrity. Let's hope some others, who are alledgedly principled, will soon follow suit. The Putinistas are blowing up social sites like this for the past couple of days. They know the piper's about to get paid, and they're desperate. They have absolutely no credibility left, if they ever had it to begin with.
Cha
(297,220 posts)5 years later we'd have putin propagandistas swearing his "news" outlet was good for us. Rofl. Hell, we know fox is no better.. so what? Do you get your info from fox "news"? I actually get mine from respected and trusted sources on the net.. who have earned my trust over the years. Bam.
P.S. they had NONE to begin with.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)and waving it around?
The first amendment is SOLELY about protecting the citizenry from the government. It says NOTHING about private entities deciding to ignore one another or 'banning' any given source (especially of nonsense) from a private website.
I have no idea what started this diatribe, but if you're going to pull out the first amendment, you should understand what it says before you come across all Sarah Palinesque on folks.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)Because a website prefers not to give a certain other outlet credibility is in no way a violation of the freedom of the press.
Oh gawd, the stupid it burns
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Or did some people say they don't like RT as a source?
Because the First Amendment only covers the former.
Coventina
(27,120 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)It constrains what the government may or may not do. A privately owned website, like DU, is perfectly free to ban specific news sources if it chooses to. I don't really have a problem with banning RT as a news source on DU. This isn't "Russian Propaganda Underground". Nor would I have a problem with banning right-wing sources like WorldNetDaily, the Washington Times, and so on. No-one I'm aware of has called for RT to be barred legally from broadcasting. That would be a First Amendment issue.
I'm sick of people who don't know what the First Amendment actually says bleating about "free speech" and "freedom of the press" in situations that have nothing to do with it.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)The sheer number of people on the internet who really have no clue what 1st amendment rights mean is mind boggling.I see this everywhere.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)All_Corners
(39 posts)... Is one of the things I like best about the 1st amendment.
Thanks for the reminder.
Spazito
(50,338 posts)just LOL!
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)Should we allow Alex Jones and David Icke here too? Where does it end?
markpkessinger
(8,396 posts). . . since you seem to be terribly confused about the matter.
The First Amendment MEANS:
- that the GOVERNMENT will not abridge the freedom of the press.
The First Amendment DOES NOT MEAN:
- that any particular private entity or content provider has any obligation whatsoever to provide a platform for any particular member of the press; or
- that any particular member of the press is entitled to be free of criticism, or to be free of decisions by private entities against providing a platform for that member of the press.
If your OP had used the word "speech" in place of "press," it would have made the error right wingnuts typically make about the meaning of freedom of speech. Most Democrats have a pretty good awareness of the distinction between the government and private entities, and of the significance of that distinction when it comes issues such as freedom of the press and freedom of speech.
I hope I have been helpful in clarifying matters for you.
PoliticalPothead
(220 posts)are the same people who vociferously defend the NSA.