Freedom of Press


Oh wow, I didn’t even notice that, just assumed the poll would be from a valid source.

Probably didn’t even have any weighting of w/e, just done via a simple audience of the people who go on that website.


I’m not a Social Democrat, I’m a Democratic Socialist, so well done.


Ah, so you’re a tanky.


“‘Tankie’ is a colloquial label for a communist who is believed to defend the policies of the Soviet Union, particularly under Stalin.”

Don’t like stealing people’s words, “And there goes any reason for me to take you serious”.


And only someone with those beliefs would think infringing upon the freedom of the press is a good idea.

Political dissenters? Gulag!


Your inability to even acknowledge the replies above gives us no reason to take you seriously.


Yes, because I have definitely endorsed the imprisonment of dissenters, mass executions, gulags and the destruction of democracy in this debate. Grow up.


If you can’t see the dangerous precedent your suggestion would create then you shouldn’t be debating at all.

Things have a cause and effect, your desires do not exist in a political vacuum.


As in the one point above that you made about polling (Waller’s post was a compliment to yours and so they can be taken as one), and that I may have been working on a reply on but decided to tackle Lake’s point first as it was shorter and required a shorter response. Please don’t assume that I was just cowering, because I was quite clearly man enough to face all of your previous points.


You’re the one who needs to grow up. You’ve basically compared me to one of the worst dictators of all time, all in order to ignore the fact that I literally only take issue with the idea of a free press as it exists in our society today. Nowhere have I attacked free speech, freedom of association, parliamentary democracy, elections etc. Once you make spurious claims like this, your argument loses most of its legitimacy.

As to dangerous precedent, that would imply that I hold similar views on any of the other issues that I have already mentioned, such as elections, free speech, association and such, which I do not. Secondly, it implies that I would affiliate myself with people whom I even suspected were Stalinists, which I would never do.


If you don’t support these things then don’t support something that sets the precedent for these things. Why should political opinions be considered in a vacuum? It makes no sense.

You don’t get to tell people to grow up when you’re the one that can’t look past his desires.


It is the freedom for 6-7 newspapers/media outlets (and by extension the individual men and women who own them) to distort the public view in their favour and put forward their own political agenda.

Outlets pander to their readership; they meet their consumers’ demands. I mean, the English Sun backed the Tories while the Scottish Sun backed the SNP for fuck’s sake, and a Tory reading the Mirror is hardly going to vote Labour all of a sudden. Not to mention the effects media decentralisation has had on polarisation in the US.

You would have more manipulative, fake news if you increase sources present and end up decreasing the influence of genuinely good sources like Reuters or AP.


Don’t care personally, so long as anti-free press regulation does not extend to Russia Today, Sky News and Breitbart. I’ll care then.


Can’t tell if serious or not.


Quite clear link between the Sun supporting the SNP in Scotland and their desire to see Labour out of power in general. Newspaper owners have always enforced their own views on their newspapers. You only have to look at the Rothermere’s, Murdoch with The Sun along with the TUC and George Lansbury with the Daily Herald on the other end of the spectrum. And why wouldn’t they? By propogating their own agenda they can contribute to a government that serves their agenda getting elected and thus gain power and status, preserving their cultural hegemony.


Why not?

I have no reason to care about whether MSNBC remains solvent or not.


So you just don’t think people who disagree with your opinions should have rights


…consumer demand responds strongly to the fit between a newspaper’s slant and the ideology of potential readers, implying an economic incentive for newspapers to tailor their slant to the ideological predispositions of consumers.

[. . .]

We find little evidence that the identity of a newspaper’s owner affects its slant. After controlling for geographic clustering of newspaper ownership groups, the slant of co-owned papers is only weakly (and statistically insignificantly) related to a newspaper’s political alignment. Direct proxies for owner ideology, such as patterns of corporate or executive donations to political parties, are also unrelated to slant.



I just won’t fight or advocate for them since I really don’t care about them.

Just because I won’t go out to some gay pride shit doesn’t mean I want gays jailed. What a truly ridiculous thing to allege.


I don’t see political apathy much different than malice.