Oh? So the Washington Post didn't hire terrorists and get off Scot free? CNN didn't commit felony blackmail against an American citizen on the fourth of July and not suffer any consequences? The New York Times didn't do, hell, all the awful shit they've done and yet they're still doing it, while they're owned by a goddamn foreigner?
If you or I had done a tiny fraction of the shit that even a single one of these so called "press" have done publicly we would die in a windowless cell.
Don't tell me they don't have untold privileges compared to real people.
Edit: first you claim they don't have legal privileges. I list half a dozen examples of them having legal privileges to commit crimes that would put anyone here in prison. Seems like you think that is just hunky dory, and if that is the case then to be frank you're a complete idiot.
It is the height of faux intellectual cuckoldry to defend the goddamn media on this website of all things. The press is the enemy, full stop.
Oh and here's the cream of the crop, I forgot this one briefly.
The power to commit espionage live on TV and never see a day in court over it. MSNBC.
The press are the enemy, simple as that. When the fighting starts it's going to be a jump ball as to whether them or the judges start getting clipped first.
Not literal legal protections? Publishing Bradley Manning's stolen intel cost servicemen's lives, and they knew the damage it would have, did it anyway and they were never punished. They have the literal power to commit espionage live on camera.
As long as they claim "protecting a source" they can get away with crimes that regular people would never see the light of day again for. It's formally codified in about two dozen states, and has been successfully claimed in federal court many times. Especially in the last thirty years.
Same with Assange's password-protected State documents, even if you don't think they were as damaging. He didn't actually leak anything to the public - the media did.
While that faggot should never have been in the military and protections for leakers should be applied evenly, those protections also cover things like the biden laptop, and more importantly the Snowden leaks.
Dudes unhinged, so much so he's advocating for what the journos want. They want to be a separate class of people who get more rights and he unknowingly wants to give it to them
I don't think he's unhinged, he's citing examples of corrupt institutions getting away with unethical shit. Hating how sick the american media is, is normal. But his solution, reducing freedom of speech, is not correct.
That's what makes him unhinged, dude's so mad about something that he's being tricked into advocating for the stance the people he's mad at have.
Or did he forget when they tried to tell everyone that they get to look at leaked documents but it's illegal when we do it? They lied, and apparently he believed them.
Other examples being how AJ is getting treated vs. media that slandered Covington kids and others, or the White House Press Corp - which is a totally essential function of a free press that courts will step in to defend when barred from the WH - but which can also be carefully curated to be hand-picked members from preferred establishment organizations.
It is not, the fact that you want to curtail freedom because of bad actors is commie thinking. You're saying the exact same shit they're saying, thinking it would be used against them and not us you absolute fucking buffoon.
Oh? So the Washington Post didn't hire terrorists and get off Scot free? CNN didn't commit felony blackmail against an American citizen on the fourth of July and not suffer any consequences? The New York Times didn't do, hell, all the awful shit they've done and yet they're still doing it, while they're owned by a goddamn foreigner?
If you or I had done a tiny fraction of the shit that even a single one of these so called "press" have done publicly we would die in a windowless cell.
Don't tell me they don't have untold privileges compared to real people.
Edit: first you claim they don't have legal privileges. I list half a dozen examples of them having legal privileges to commit crimes that would put anyone here in prison. Seems like you think that is just hunky dory, and if that is the case then to be frank you're a complete idiot.
It is the height of faux intellectual cuckoldry to defend the goddamn media on this website of all things. The press is the enemy, full stop.
Oh and here's the cream of the crop, I forgot this one briefly.
The power to commit espionage live on TV and never see a day in court over it. MSNBC.
The press are the enemy, simple as that. When the fighting starts it's going to be a jump ball as to whether them or the judges start getting clipped first.
All of that is corruption provided by the current regime, not actual legal protections.
We all hate the journo goblins, but "freedom of the press" is not what you're referring to.
Not literal legal protections? Publishing Bradley Manning's stolen intel cost servicemen's lives, and they knew the damage it would have, did it anyway and they were never punished. They have the literal power to commit espionage live on camera.
As long as they claim "protecting a source" they can get away with crimes that regular people would never see the light of day again for. It's formally codified in about two dozen states, and has been successfully claimed in federal court many times. Especially in the last thirty years.
Same with Assange's password-protected State documents, even if you don't think they were as damaging. He didn't actually leak anything to the public - the media did.
While that faggot should never have been in the military and protections for leakers should be applied evenly, those protections also cover things like the biden laptop, and more importantly the Snowden leaks.
No it doesn't cover the Biden laptop. That guy is being prosecuted for "stealing" it even though Huntard forfeited it by leaving it there for years.
That's another example of exactly what I'm talking about.
Why would we not eliminate this blatant double standard if given the chance?
Dudes unhinged, so much so he's advocating for what the journos want. They want to be a separate class of people who get more rights and he unknowingly wants to give it to them
I don't think he's unhinged, he's citing examples of corrupt institutions getting away with unethical shit. Hating how sick the american media is, is normal. But his solution, reducing freedom of speech, is not correct.
That's what makes him unhinged, dude's so mad about something that he's being tricked into advocating for the stance the people he's mad at have.
Or did he forget when they tried to tell everyone that they get to look at leaked documents but it's illegal when we do it? They lied, and apparently he believed them.
Other examples being how AJ is getting treated vs. media that slandered Covington kids and others, or the White House Press Corp - which is a totally essential function of a free press that courts will step in to defend when barred from the WH - but which can also be carefully curated to be hand-picked members from preferred establishment organizations.
Literally no you wouldn't. Have any of the people on the internet that doxxed and blackmailed by internet randos have those internet randos arrested?
People do shit they do all the time, the only "protections" they get are from each other not from the law.
Oh? So if I went and stole Biden's tax returns I wouldn't be jailed for it? Or Pelosi?
Dude they sent the secret service after a company that used a meme picture of Biden's face for an energy drink.
There is absolutely a gigantic double standard here and ignoring it is suspicious as hell on your part.
It is not, the fact that you want to curtail freedom because of bad actors is commie thinking. You're saying the exact same shit they're saying, thinking it would be used against them and not us you absolute fucking buffoon.
Yeah that'll show me for questioning our media overlords huh dude?