What is the "fake news" Hillary is complaining abo

[Elijah John]

HRC is calling for legislation that would prohibit "fake news".

Just wondering, what is she referring to?

What are some examples of "fake news"?

[Divine Insight]

And that any media that is only promoting one-sided stories, must state whom they are sponsoring in big letters.

I agree. And if they are on the side of TRUTH those are the big letters they should be able to legally use.

In fact, the absurd division in the USA between supposed "Trump Supporters" versus "Hillary Supporters" is a farce anyway. A lot of people who recognize that Trump is unfit to be president have no love for Hillary either.

Also, have you ever wondered how it came to be that both Trump and Hillary were recognized to be the most undesirable candidates to ever run for office. But now that Trump won the election all of a sudden "Trump Supporters" are acting like Trump is "God's Gift to Mankind"?

Let's face it, the greater of two evils actually won this election and nobody should be happy that Trump is POTUS. Just look at the swap creatures he's appointing to his cabinet. In just about every position he has nominated someone who doesn't believe the office they will be head of should even exist. This is utter insanity.

We are currently witnessing the fall of American Democracy. Assuming that America survives four years of a Trump administration what will be left at that time will be extremely difficult to recover from. America has been a symbol of human decency throughout the world. But that will come to an abrupt end on January 20th, and the USA will be doomed to become a nation of extreme immoral and inhumane values.

So if you were ever proud to be an American soak it up now, because after January 20th it's going to be increasingly embarrassing and shameful to have to admit it to being an American.

[checkers]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

She doesn't realize that everything we observe is fake but neither do most people.

[4insight]

HRC is calling for legislation that would prohibit "fake news".

Just wondering, what is she referring to?

What are some examples of "fake news"?

People really ought to read the news--legitimate sources, at least.

It has come to the fore recently and Hillary was not the first person by any means to begin to complain about it. On November 14th Google and Facebook took aim against fake news being posted on their sites: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/techn ... rvice.html

If I were Hillary Clinton, I would be upset about "Pizzagate" too. I can't blame her for speaking out. As it turns out, it was a black eye for the Trump camp.

As far as I am concerned, gossip has always been a problem and this is no different. We just have to check our sources and know that our sources are legitimate news organizations--not that they are always completely accurate either. Considering Pizzagate, I have to wonder that anyone could possibly believe such nonsense! But Youtube is full of it--anybody who wants to can post whatever they want.

Hillary Clinton has been paying internet trolls to distort the truth or to keep away the truth about what is going on in her life, during the email scandals and etc... I believe that the 6 billion dollars of Federal fund had went to support Hillary's support group. Now she is trying to keep the tax payers funds to support these trolls until the next presidential race. That these trolls while Trump is in office, that they will keep people from knowing what was going on during the time of their reign, and so that Chelsea can take over the throne.





KING: Hillary Clinton camp now paying online trolls to attack anyone who disparages her online http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.2613980

Congress Just Quietly Passed a Bill Targeting “Russian Propaganda� Websites
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/house- ... dbJjLGq.99

http://www.trueactivist.com/house-passe ... fake-news/


$6 Bil Vanishes From State Dept. Under Hillary Clinton http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2014/ ... y-clinton/

[4insight]

[Replying to post 23 by 4insight]

And if these are fake news, then whomever that they has targeted, that the target can sued them in court for defamation of their character. But that is if the story about them were false.

[4insight]

[Replying to post 24 by 4insight]

Video..

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 24 by 4insight]

Video..

I'm very glad to hear that our government is finally going to do something about scam joints like Inforwars and breitbart.com. It's about time.

[catnip]

[Replying to 4insight]

Prove it. And I don't want anything but top notch reporting. No gossip, no lies, no exaggerations. I don't believe she could do it.

[4insight]

[Replying to 4insight]

Prove it. And I don't want anything but top notch reporting. No gossip, no lies, no exaggerations. I don't believe she could do it.

We all knows that she is no good at all.

“Dumb. She should have done a ‘Full Monty’ [disclose everything] at the beginning. She was using ­e-mail when she took over. They put the personal system in the basement a few months later,� he wrote, adding that Hillary tried to give herself cover by saying he, too, had used private e-mail while in office.

“She didn’t need any advice or OK from me; she was already doing it. I gave her written guidance on why and how I had been doing it,� he wrote. “I warned her staff three [times] over the past two years not to try to connect it to me. I am not sure HRC even knew or understood what was going on in the basement.� http://nypost.com/2016/09/14/colin-powe ... l-clinton/











Clinton's Planned Parenthood ties run deep http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/h ... ies-120794

[4insight]

[Replying to post 28 by 4insight]

She doesn't want anyone of her supporters to know the truth about her lies that MSM will not tell you (Except for FOX news). She says one thing at the hearings, but when she is in front of her supporters, that doesn't watch or keep up with politics, she lies and tells them that it is a right-wing conspiracy. And she tries to play with her supporter's minds to get them to ignore them hearings, and have them to tune into reality T.V. shows.


\
John 18:38 “What is truth?� retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him.

[bluethread]

That said, that speaks about government programs not private communication.

This brings up an interesting question. Should a public news media source be considered "private communication"?

We have tons of laws regulating what public businesses can do in an effort to protect consumers. Would it be that much different to place regulations on what public media sources should be able to produce?

I don't think this is necessarily as clear cut in the first amendment as one might think. One could argue that the first amendment protects the rights of people to voice their "opinions". But does it necessarily protect the right to spread outright lies whilst claiming that it is a known fact, when in truth there is no evidence to even support it?

I mean, if something like Infowars made it clear that they are just voicing unsubstantiated opinions, then they could say whatever they like under the first amendment. But if they are going to report total falsehoods that have no evidence behind them as FACTS, then I think it would be realistic to expect there to be regulations against that.

I'm not convinced that this would necessarily be in violation of the first amendment.

After all, we have limited what companies can say about their products. They have to tell the truth and not lie. In a sense you could argue that this would be in violation of the first amendment because companies should have the freedom to say whatever they like about their products whether it's true or not.

Tobacco companies should be able to tell people that smoking their cigarettes will vastly improve the health of the consumer, and according to the first amendment the government shouldn't be able to make them say otherwise.

Well it should be a law, that anyone whom put down any disinformation without any proof, must be stated before it starts, that it is Fictional. Like the way they rated R,PG,G. And that any media that is only promoting one-sided stories, must state whom they are sponsoring in big letters. And so if they are on the side of Hillary, that they must state in big letters that they are Hillary's supporters. But if they do leaves out information that only promoted one-side stories and without stating what side that they are promoting will be fined, and cannot reopen under another name, just to avoid from paying the fine. But some will try to just take the money and run.

The fines should be $10,000,000 fine for every letter that was used in the offense. And if not able to pay the fine, then they should have all the individuals that were in with it, even the actors, serve a mandatory sentenced of more than five years. And the media must from now on, be known as a what they are, when they has committed an offense. And that will keep corporations from trying to sneak things in, and just pay only a $100 fine. Just imagine if there's a billion dollar fine, no media will not ever tries to spread disinformation at all.

No, it should not. Business regulation and regulation of the press are treated differently in the constitution. Business is regulated by the interstate commerce clause, that tasks the federal government to arbitrate between differences in state laws and consolidate them where necessary. However, speech and the press are regulated by the first amendment that says, "Congress shall make no law . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Therefore, in order for the Congress to regulate business all that is necessary is for there to be a conflict between the laws in various states. In order to regulate speech or the press there must be a conflict with other constitutional rights. There is no constitutional right to hear only the truth. There is an inferred right to privacy, and the Supreme court has determined that right is diminished to the degree one makes things public. There is no third party right to accurate information. In fact, without consideration(actual investment) there is no legal right protecting one against being told a falsehood.