Do you think this ad should be censored by any mainstream media outlet?

[lurchadams]

If so... why?

There's no reason to censor fiction. There's also no reason not to post disclaimer before or after such horse **** either.

 

[lurchadams]

Goebbels Media CNN isn’t allowing it to run.

Awww... poor twump! That's ok, CNN shows trump speaking his lies constantly - which is pretty much every time he opens his fat, orange mouth!

 

[lurchadams]

They’ve censored two ads.

CNN Refuses To Air 2 Trump Campaign Ads Over 'Demonstrably False' Claims

Their rationale not to run them are right in the title of your link? Do you even read what you post?

Republicans
Purveyors of Hatred, Lies, and Racism​

 

[trouble13]

YouTube can remove it if it wants, then all they have to finish host the video themselves.

My point is that it being on youtube is not a justification for CNN not running it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

:roll:

47 U.S. Code SS 315 - Candidates for public office | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Seems that this applies only within 45-60 days of a primary runoff. And to broadcast networks, not cable networks. It specifically mentions antenna networks.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[nitroexpress]

Once again they are a PRIVATE organization , and as such can run whatever programming they see fit. It bother you that trump cannot force his Lies on Americans, good.

Many people have a problem with Google's censorship, but you don't have a problem with CNN?????

 

[Casper]

Many people have a problem with Google's censorship, but you don't have a problem with CNN?????

Once again it is their business, if enough people don't like their actions then those companies will pay the price in dollars.

 

[Carjosse]

My point is that it being on youtube is not a justification for CNN not running it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

CNN does not need to justify it, they are a private organization and can decide what ads they want to run. Refusing to run an ad is not censorship simple as that.

 

[trouble13]

CNN does not need to justify it, they are a private organization and can decide what ads they want to run. Refusing to run an ad is not censorship simple as that.

I agree but you argued earlier tjst it did not matter because people can see the add on YouTube. Its a faulty argument.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Carjosse]

I agree but you argued earlier tjst it did not matter because people can see the add on YouTube. Its a faulty argument.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

It is not censorship and is pointless anyways as it is freely available elsewhere.

 

[trouble13]

It is not censorship and is pointless anyways as it is freely available elsewhere.

See your making that same argument again about it being available elsewhere. It really does matter if it is. Just for argument sake what if it was not available anywhere else. Would you then argue that CNN must run it?

On the question of censorship, it most certainly is that. The question really is if its legal to censor political speech. I think thats kind of a grey area but i lean toward allowing that.

What if however we were talking about another form of speech being censored. Like lets say a network refused to carry any pro-gay rights ads. I wonder if the left would adopt the same position for that network and defend their right not to air that content?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Something else just occurred to me about this. It may of opened the door for Trump to refuse to sttend any presidential debate that is moderated by CNN. Maybe even any of the networks that are hostike toward him.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Stealers Wheel]

That had nothing to do with candidate's paid advertisements and you know it. It is whether the FCC can control was network commentators say.

CNN does not have an FCC license. Prove me wrong.

 

[roguenuke]

Something else just occurred to me about this. It may of opened the door for Trump to refuse to sttend any presidential debate that is moderated by CNN. Maybe even any of the networks that are hostike toward him.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

He can already refuse that. I'm pretty sure no candidate has to attend a debate set up by any one, especially not past the primaries.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

See your making that same argument again about it being available elsewhere. It really does matter if it is. Just for argument sake what if it was not available anywhere else. Would you then argue that CNN must run it?

On the question of censorship, it most certainly is that. The question really is if its legal to censor political speech. I think thats kind of a grey area but i lean toward allowing that.

What if however we were talking about another form of speech being censored. Like lets say a network refused to carry any pro-gay rights ads. I wonder if the left would adopt the same position for that network and defend their right not to air that content?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

So long as free, antenna based airwaves TV exists, then it would be available elsewhere unless the campaign chose only to offer it to certain companies that they knew would refuse it and had the legal right (at least from what I have read) to do so. Why would it not be available elsewhere?

Are you under the impression that a Christian network (CTN is one) has to air pro-gay marriage or gay rights ads at the same amount that they air antigay rights ads, or even air them at all?

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[apdst]

Once again it is their business, if enough people don't like their actions then those companies will pay the price in dollars.

Or, they might pay a legal price...

Equal-time rule - Wikipedia

Your claim that as a private business, CNN can do what the **** it wants isn't only true up to a point.

 

[trouble13]

So long as free, antenna based airwaves TV exists, then it would be available elsewhere unless the campaign chose only to offer it to certain companies that they knew would refuse it and had the legal right (at least from what I have read) to do so. Why would it not be available elsewhere?

Are you under the impression that a Christian network (CTN is one) has to air pro-gay marriage or gay rights ads at the same amount that they air antigay rights ads, or even air them at all?

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

The point I'm making is that whether its available on other outlets or not is irrelevant. Are you claiming that free to air stations are legally obligated to run all political ads therefore CNN does not have to?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

The point I'm making is that whether its available on other outlets or not is irrelevant. Are you claiming that free to air stations are legally obligated to run all political ads therefore CNN does not have to?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

The law seems to only apply to those stations that are free, that are actually licensed by the FCC as a broadcast station. CNN is not that. Just like CTN is not a broadcast station, and therefore could choose not to run ads that are progay, prochoice, or even candidates that support those things. And yes I support that. They are not being forced to run ads counter to their beliefs, their stated stances.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

Or, they might pay a legal price...

Equal-time rule - Wikipedia

Your claim that as a private business, CNN can do what the **** it wants isn't only true up to a point.

Except that rule doesnt apply to a station like CNN. From reading that rule, it applies to those stations that you could/can get via antenna, through the digital transmitter that allows you to get free tv. CNN is not such a station.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[apdst]

Except that rule doesnt apply to a station like CNN. From reading that rule, it applies to those stations that you could/can get via antenna, through the digital transmitter that allows you to get free tv. CNN is not such a station.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Cable TV is regulated by the FCC, too...

Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 - Wikipedia

 

[roguenuke]

Cable TV is regulated by the FCC, too...

Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 - Wikipedia

Did you read what that was about? It has nothing to do with individual cable networks, that are pay for networks (which CNN is). It deals with cable television having to provide those channels, broadcast stations (which are the ones I described above) which are free normally, to those who are paying for Cable services, within their local areas, for free. It has nothing to do with the Equal Access Rule.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Did you read what that was about? It has nothing to do with individual cable networks, that are pay for networks (which CNN is). It deals with cable television having to provide those channels, broadcast stations (which are the ones I described above) which are free normally, to those who are paying for Cable services, within their local areas, for free. It has nothing to do with the Equal Access Rule.

You are correct. Nevertheless, we cannot even convince these folks that CNN doesn't have an FCC license that can be revoked. Trump said that nonexistent license needs to be looked into, and therefore his loyal followers insist there must be a license to be revoked because CNN refused to run an ad.

They are also confused because each individual station also has the discretion to air or not air content from their affiliated networks.

 

[joko104]

You realize you are being a fascist for wanting the government to force businesses to run ads, no matter what?

You are going lower and lower, going under the bottom of a barrel.

Believing in free speech in democracy and elections is not fascist whatsoever. Fascists LOVE corporations and the Democratic Party has become the corporate-fascist party - as I have stated hundreds of times on this forum - so most Democrats WANT the rich and corporations to have total control of all elections and government.

Obviously you do not think the Supreme Court did not go far enough with their Citizens United ruling and want the richest corporations on earth to decide what every candidate may and may not say - because the only way people know what candidates and politicians say is thru those corporation's MSM/press propaganda outlets that they totally control.

 

[Ahlevah]

Refusing to run an ad is not censorship.

Any time a Democrat opens her mouth she's lying, so no media outlet (other than the media arm of the Democratic Party, CNN) should ever run an ad from a Democrat.

 

[Carjosse]

See your making that same argument again about it being available elsewhere. It really does matter if it is. Just for argument sake what if it was not available anywhere else. Would you then argue that CNN must run it?

On the question of censorship, it most certainly is that. The question really is if its legal to censor political speech. I think thats kind of a grey area but i lean toward allowing that.

What if however we were talking about another form of speech being censored. Like lets say a network refused to carry any pro-gay rights ads. I wonder if the left would adopt the same position for that network and defend their right not to air that content?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Do you think that companies should be able to deny service to people based on race or sexual orientation?

It is not censoring political speech, you have no right to a platform especially a platform provided by a private company. That is compelled speech.