First Century Record of Jesus by a non-Christian?

[Tassman]

so you have no problem with Breitbart and Fox News then, which you always complain are fake news.

Not at all. Everyone knows they're to the right of Ghengis Khan and takes that into account.

[Sparko]

Very true but, despite Trump's paranoia, the MSM is not trying to pass off blatant falsehoods as fact. Outlets such as CNN or the BBC...or Australia's ABC et al, provide a variety of contrary opinions via balanced discussion panels etc. Denigrating the press (Hitler called it 'lügenpresse', i.e. "lying press") is abridging the freedom of speech as guaranteed in the First Amendment.,

The websites like the one in the OP are hardly "the press" they are scams set up by hucksters who merely generate sensationalist and false stories as clickbait to get paid for views on the ads on their pages. They are no more "the press" than the National Enquirer is a real newspaper.

[Tassman]

The websites like the one in the OP are hardly "the press" they are scams set up by hucksters who merely generate sensationalist and false stories as clickbait to get paid for views on the ads on their pages. They are no more "the press" than the National Enquirer is a real newspaper.

The website in the OP has a clear disclaimer at the bottom of its page: "World News Daily Report assumes all responsibility for the satirical nature of its articles and for the fictional nature of their content". It's hardly claiming that it's content is true.

[Sparko]

The website in the OP has a clear disclaimer at the bottom of its page: "World News Daily Report assumes all responsibility for the satirical nature of its articles and for the fictional nature of their content". It's hardly claiming that it's content is true.

and yet you are defending it as "news" for some reason.

Most people don't notice that disclaimer and post the stories on facebook and social media, where the disclaimer doesn't show up, and people click on the link and go to the page and by the time they notice the disclaimer, IF they do, they have already been served up with the ads and the scammers have made some more money.

[Tassman]

and yet you are defending it as "news" for some reason.

I'm defending the freedom of the press, essential as a counter to politicians with dictatorial tendencies...like Trump.

Most people don't notice that disclaimer and post the stories on facebook and social media, where the disclaimer doesn't show up, and people click on the link and go to the page and by the time they notice the disclaimer, IF they do, they have already been served up with the ads and the scammers have made some more money.

Caveat emptor! Always check your sources.

[Doug Shaver]

What if it's an independent judiciary deciding what is and isn't lies, rather than the government?

Lying in general is not illegal, but certain kinds of lying are illegal in certain circumstances. When a person is accused of lying in those circumstances, somebody has to decide whether it is so. An independent judiciary is the somebody our society has chosen, and I don't have any better idea.

[Sparko]

I'm defending the freedom of the press, essential as a counter to politicians with dictatorial tendencies...like Trump.



Caveat emptor! Always check your sources.

You can't check the sources until you go to the site, at which time you have already been fooled into clicking the link and giving the spammer what he wants.

And since when is scamming people into spreading false news "freedom of the press'

Oh wait, I forgot you believe CNN and The New York Times are real news too.

carry on.

[Tassman]

You can't check the sources until you go to the site, at which time you have already been fooled into clicking the link and giving the spammer what he wants.

And since when is scamming people into spreading false news "freedom of the press'

Oh wait, I forgot you believe CNN and The New York Times are real news too.

carry on.

The alternative is to believe that what’s “true” is what Donald Trump tells his faithful supporters is “true”.

And they believe him.

[Sparko]

The alternative is to believe that what’s “true” is what Donald Trump tells his faithful supporters is “true”.

And they believe him.

ah changing the subject. The last tool of the defeated.

[Tassman]

ah changing the subject. The last tool of the defeated.

Not at all! Freedom of the press is essential to counteract the likes of Trump, who is a proven, pathological liar.

[Sparko]

Not at all! Freedom of the press is essential to counteract the likes of Trump, who is a proven, pathological liar.

Which has nothing to do with the topic of whether a fake news site should be allowed because of the first amendment. Like I said, you were changing the topic because you know you were defeated.

[Tassman]

Which has nothing to do with the topic of whether a fake news site should be allowed because of the first amendment. Like I said, you were changing the topic because you know you were defeated.

Labelling legitimate news sites as "fake news" just because one doesn't like the content, is contrary to the First Amendment.

[Sparko]

Labelling legitimate news sites as "fake news" just because one doesn't like the content, is contrary to the First Amendment.

how? My first amendment rights say I can call a news site "fake" if I want.

And we are talking about an ILLEGITIMATE news site, that even SAYS it is fake on the page.

[DesertBerean]

and yet you are defending it as "news" for some reason.

Most people don't notice that disclaimer and post the stories on facebook and social media, where the disclaimer doesn't show up, and people click on the link and go to the page and by the time they notice the disclaimer, IF they do, they have already been served up with the ads and the scammers have made some more money.

THIS! exactly.

[rogue06]

Labelling legitimate news sites as "fake news" just because one doesn't like the content, is contrary to the First Amendment.

Oh do tell how it violates the First Amendment