moviePig thinks Dalton Trumbo should have gone to prison (was: House Democrats Want "Oversight" over Fox News Editorial Decisions)

[Adam H. Kerman]

Note: I have cut Ubi's insipid crosspost, removing newsgroups that Ubi
has never ever read. Always check your crosspost. Assholes like Ubi play
games with them, but you, the author, are responsible for where you post.

I'm adding a crosspost to the movie group, given that I'm discussing
moviePig's inability to understand lessons presented in a movie.

moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>On 4/5/2019 10:12 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 10:06:24 -0400, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:

>>>...or, to put it more accurately:

>>> House Democrats Want To Know If Trump *Has* Such "Oversight"

>>...or, to put it most accurately:

>>House Democrats Want to Violate Freedom of the Press

>...by determining whether it's been violated? How very catch-22...

Why, no, moviePig, that's NOT what "freedom of the press" means. It's a
clear restriction on censorship by the government, that there shall be
no such law. Congress is specifically named.

It's Congress, one of the independent political branches of government.
The law never applies to Congress. The tool Congress has to impose
censorship, or to punish people for freely exercising their civil
rights like Americans, is to create a scenario in which someone might be
sent to prison for contempt of Congress for being uncooperative with a
Congressional investigation.

You pretend to like movies, but I'm sure that's a misrepresentation like
everything else in your writing. Let me be the first to inform you that
there was a movie called Trumbo in 2015. It starred Bryan Cranston as
the title character. Dalton Trumbo was a real life writer who exercised
his First Amendment right to peaceably assemble as a member of the
Communist Party, something that was not unusual during the 1930s.

During the anti-Commie witchhunts in the late 1940s and early 1950s, he
refused to name names before the House Un-American Activities Committee in
1947. He was one of the Hollywood Ten. He served 11 months in prison for
refusing to cooperate.

Is there a lesson moviePig might have learned from this movie? It
appears that's not possible.

So if a Congressional investigation seeks to investigate how news was
gathered for a particular news story and whether the decision was made
to publish, and the publisher refuses to cooperate with the
investigation, then that's a clear infringement on freedom of the press
but done in such a way that the publisher faces prison.

This is beyond moviePig's understanding, of course.

[moviePig]

> ...

Afaics, the press should be afforded freedom of *press-relevant*
activities, i.e., the gathering and dissemination of information of
interest to the public. This does not, however, give the press any sort
of blanket "diplomatic immunity" for all conduct. So, if there's reason
to suspect impropriety in a news organization's operation (especially
impropriety that concerns, ironically, abridgement of the press's
freedom), no free-press shield should impede an investigation.

(While one might argue about whether the suspicions currently being
investigated ultimately comprise such an impropriety even if confirmed,
that would be a wholly different discussion...)

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[Adam H. Kerman]

That's terribly nice that you say that in THIS followup, but that
contradicts the position you took earlier, and continues to contradict
what you wrote next. You manage to contradict yourself from one
paragraph to the next.

Certain members of Congress proposed to investigate how the news was
gathered and the decision made by the publisher not to publish.

Congress is a governmental body. If the investigation proceeds, that's
censorship. It's not clear to me if it's a civil rights violation,
because Congressional investigations have been used many times in the
past to infringe upon individual liberty. A congressional investigation
is not the making of a law so there may be no civil rights violation.

>(While one might argue about whether the suspicions currently being
>investigated ultimately comprise such an impropriety even if confirmed,
>that would be a wholly different discussion...)

One who opposes censorship (You clearly favor censorship) might not make
that argument.

Publishers are not prevented from being partisan. You might have noticed
that newspapers have an editorial page in which the publisher expresses
his own opinion. They have editorial policies in which straight news
is published in a way that may suggest partisanship but one cannot
investigate. If it is partisan and the reporting was wrong or facts were
misinterpreted, one gets to publish his very own rebuttal. That's how
this liberty thing works, moviePig.

In the 19th century, it was quite common for newspapers to have a political
party name in their title; a handful of such titles survive today. It's
not a First Amendment violation to gather news, then have the story
squashed because the publisher refuses to publish it. It's not even a
campaign disclosure law violation as that idiot FPP claimed earlier.

[Ubiquitous]

Didn't you announce that you had killfiled Adam?

--
Democrats (2016): We must believe the results of the Mueller investigation!
Democrats (2019): We don't believe the results of the Mueller investigation!

[moviePig]

My position on this hasn't varied (and if it did I'd say so).

> Certain members of Congress proposed to investigate how the news was
> gathered and the decision made by the publisher not to publish.
>
> Congress is a governmental body. If the investigation proceeds, that's
> censorship.

No, it's an investigation.

It's not clear to me if it's a civil rights violation,
> because Congressional investigations have been used many times in the
> past to infringe upon individual liberty. A congressional investigation
> is not the making of a law so there may be no civil rights violation.
>
>> (While one might argue about whether the suspicions currently being
>> investigated ultimately comprise such an impropriety even if confirmed,
>> that would be a wholly different discussion...)
>
> One who opposes censorship (You clearly favor censorship) might not make
> that argument.

I don't favor censorship -- although few agree on what if comprises.

> Publishers are not prevented from being partisan. You might have noticed
> that newspapers have an editorial page in which the publisher expresses
> his own opinion. They have editorial policies in which straight news
> is published in a way that may suggest partisanship but one cannot
> investigate. If it is partisan and the reporting was wrong or facts were
> misinterpreted, one gets to publish his very own rebuttal. That's how
> this liberty thing works, moviePig.
>
> In the 19th century, it was quite common for newspapers to have a political
> party name in their title; a handful of such titles survive today. It's
> not a First Amendment violation to gather news, then have the story
> squashed because the publisher refuses to publish it. It's not even a
> campaign disclosure law violation as that idiot FPP claimed earlier.

I don't recall FPP's statement, but I could easily see a violation here
of the *spirit* of campaign financial disclosure. Of course a publisher
can be partisan. In fact, I'd argue that pure non-partisanship
*anywhere* is a chimera. But, given the power of the media to sway
outcomes in a democracy, I think we're entitled to know whose hand is on
the wheel. And the bigger the hand the more we're entitled.

[moviePig]

You don't understand. And you don't need to.

[Adam H. Kerman]

There's no logic in your writing, then. This is nothing new.

>> Certain members of Congress proposed to investigate how the news was
>> gathered and the decision made by the publisher not to publish.

>> Congress is a governmental body. If the investigation proceeds, that's
>> censorship.

>No, it's an investigation.

There's no crime to investigate here, moviePig. There's no malfeasance
that doesn't rise to the level of a crime to investigate either. There's
nothing for Congress to do except intimidate a publisher, apparently
without violating his civil rights because "it's an investigation" and
not a witchhunt.

Is that what Dalton Trumbo thought, moviePig, or have you still failed
to learn any lesson from that movie?

>> It's not clear to me if it's a civil rights violation,
>> because Congressional investigations have been used many times in the
>> past to infringe upon individual liberty. A congressional investigation
>> is not the making of a law so there may be no civil rights violation.
>>
>>> (While one might argue about whether the suspicions currently being
>>> investigated ultimately comprise such an impropriety even if confirmed,
>>> that would be a wholly different discussion...)
>>
>> One who opposes censorship (You clearly favor censorship) might not make
>> that argument.

>I don't favor censorship -- although few agree on what if comprises.

Unfortunately for you, you provided evidence to the contrary in what
you've written in this very thread.

>> Publishers are not prevented from being partisan. You might have noticed
>> that newspapers have an editorial page in which the publisher expresses
>> his own opinion. They have editorial policies in which straight news
>> is published in a way that may suggest partisanship but one cannot
>> investigate. If it is partisan and the reporting was wrong or facts were
>> misinterpreted, one gets to publish his very own rebuttal. That's how
>> this liberty thing works, moviePig.

>> In the 19th century, it was quite common for newspapers to have a political
>> party name in their title; a handful of such titles survive today. It's
>> not a First Amendment violation to gather news, then have the story
>> squashed because the publisher refuses to publish it. It's not even a
>> campaign disclosure law violation as that idiot FPP claimed earlier.

>I don't recall FPP's statement, but I could easily see a violation here
>of the *spirit* of campaign financial disclosure.

I'm really not interested in moviePig's entirely made up concept of
"spirit". Either something is covered by the law, or it is not.
Ordinary editorial decisions of a newspaper or a media organization are not
subject to campaign disclosure law.

I'm sorry you don't understand why there some difference between that
statement and National Enquiring buying a story with actual cash in
order to suppress it. That's an in kind contribution subject to campaign
finance law, if reported by the campaign, or a direct contribution if
the newspaper disclosed it itself.

>Of course a publisher can be partisan.

You're missing the point that it's neither illegal nor a First Amendment
violation.

[moviePig]

Quote for me, please, a logically inconsistent pair of my statements.

>>> Certain members of Congress proposed to investigate how the news was
>>> gathered and the decision made by the publisher not to publish.
>
>>> Congress is a governmental body. If the investigation proceeds, that's
>>> censorship.
>
>> No, it's an investigation.
>
> There's no crime to investigate here, moviePig. There's no malfeasance

> that [does?] rise to the level of a crime to investigate either. There's

> nothing for Congress to do except intimidate a publisher, apparently
> without violating his civil rights because "it's an investigation" and
> not a witchhunt.
>
> Is that what Dalton Trumbo thought, moviePig, or have you still failed
> to learn any lesson from that movie?

If a purported news publisher is actually a secret political organ, I
feel we should know about it. And I wouldn't be shy about searching for
laws to uncover it. An "intimidating witchhunt" would be an
investigation when there's no such connection responsibly alleged.

>>> It's not clear to me if it's a civil rights violation,
>>> because Congressional investigations have been used many times in the
>>> past to infringe upon individual liberty. A congressional investigation
>>> is not the making of a law so there may be no civil rights violation.
>>>
>>>> (While one might argue about whether the suspicions currently being
>>>> investigated ultimately comprise such an impropriety even if confirmed,
>>>> that would be a wholly different discussion...)
>>>
>>> One who opposes censorship (You clearly favor censorship) might not make
>>> that argument.
>
>> I don't favor censorship -- although few agree on what if comprises.
>
> Unfortunately for you, you provided evidence to the contrary in what
> you've written in this very thread.

Please quote that statement.

>>> Publishers are not prevented from being partisan. You might have noticed
>>> that newspapers have an editorial page in which the publisher expresses
>>> his own opinion. They have editorial policies in which straight news
>>> is published in a way that may suggest partisanship but one cannot
>>> investigate. If it is partisan and the reporting was wrong or facts were
>>> misinterpreted, one gets to publish his very own rebuttal. That's how
>>> this liberty thing works, moviePig.
>
>>> In the 19th century, it was quite common for newspapers to have a political
>>> party name in their title; a handful of such titles survive today. It's
>>> not a First Amendment violation to gather news, then have the story
>>> squashed because the publisher refuses to publish it. It's not even a
>>> campaign disclosure law violation as that idiot FPP claimed earlier.
>
>> I don't recall FPP's statement, but I could easily see a violation here
>> of the *spirit* of campaign financial disclosure.
>
> I'm really not interested in moviePig's entirely made up concept of
> "spirit". Either something is covered by the law, or it is not.
> Ordinary editorial decisions of a newspaper or a media organization are not
> subject to campaign disclosure law.
>
> I'm sorry you don't understand why there some difference between that
> statement and National Enquiring buying a story with actual cash in
> order to suppress it. That's an in kind contribution subject to campaign
> finance law, if reported by the campaign, or a direct contribution if
> the newspaper disclosed it itself.

Allay your grief, as I understand well the difference between mere
autonomous editorial bias and clandestine purchase of a mouthpiece. And
it's the latter that would warrant, e.g., congressional investigation.

>> Of course a publisher can be partisan.
>
> You're missing the point that it's neither illegal nor a First Amendment
> violation.

No, I'm not. That's more or less what I meant by 'can'.

>> In fact, I'd argue that pure non-partisanship
>> *anywhere* is a chimera. But, given the power of the media to sway
>> outcomes in a democracy, I think we're entitled to know whose hand is on
>> the wheel. And the bigger the hand the more we're entitled.

[FPP]

Jesus Christ, this shit isn't hard, people!

"National Enquirer Parent Company Admits to Helping Trump Commit
Criminal Violation of Campaign Finance Law"

"Hours after Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer was sentenced to
three years in prison in part for violating campaign finance laws via
secret hush-money payments, the parent company of the National Enquirer
has resolved a related federal investigation by admitting that it also
participated in the payment scheme with the express purpose of aiding
the Trump 2016 campaign. The news was announced in a statement released
by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York,
which prosecuted Cohen"

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/national-enquirer-admits-trump-campaign-finance-crime.html

And there's a fucking audio tape of Trump and Cohen discussing Pecker's
involvement.

How much fucking proof do some people need?

"The National Enquirer’s parent company acknowledged paying hush money
to a woman who alleged an affair with Donald Trump to “suppress the
woman’s story” and “prevent it from influencing the election.”

The admission came as federal prosecutors announced Wednesday that they
would not prosecute the company, American Media Inc. (AMI), for its role
in a scheme to tilt the presidential race in favor of Trump. In the
agreement, AMI said it would cooperate with prosecutors and admitted it
paid $150,000 to Karen McDougal before the 2016 election to silence her
allegations of an affair with Trump."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/publisher-of-the-national-enquirer-admits-to-hush-money-payments-made-on-trumps-behalf/2018/12/12/ebf24b76-fe49-11e8-83c0-b06139e540e5_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5c77e251380f
--
"Following the racist mass murder of Muslims in New Zealand, Trump
shrugged off the threat of white nationalism, saying "I think it's a
small group of people that have very, very serious problems."

"This is the first time Trump has minimized the size of his rallies."
-Victor Laszlo

[Adam H. Kerman]

Always delete that blithering idiot Ubi's crosspost, particularly that
asshole's crosspost to a nonexistent newsgroup. Even though Ubi plays
these insipid games, you, the author, are responsible for what
newsgroups you post into, so check your Newsgroups header.

Note that I'm crossposting to the movie group because, despite a
thorough discussion with me elsewhere in the thread, moviePig is STILL
apologizing for an attempt at government censorship. He still failed to
learn the lessons of the movie Trumbo.

moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:

>On 4/8/2019 1:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:

>>>On 4/8/2019 11:04 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:

>>>>>On 4/8/2019 10:08 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On 4/7/19 8:28 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>>>>>NoB...@nowhere.com wrote:

>>>>>>>>>Please cite case law that would support your theory.

>>>>>>>>What is it about the Constitution these people do not understand?

>>>>>>>The part where you seem to think it doesn't allow Congress
>>>>>>>oversight powers.

>>>>>>The media are private companies and individuals, not government
>>>>>>officials. Individual American citizens and the businesses they
>>>>>>run are not subject to congressional oversight.

>>>>>To any extent that they claim special status as media, they must be
>>>>>subject to *some* sort of oversight...

>>>>They're not claiming special status. The Constitution grants them that
>>>>without any condition of oversight to which other citizens are not subject.

>>>Well, there's this (as a claim of special status):

>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporter%27s_privilege

>>>Yes, a reporter protecting his sources isn't the same as a news outfit
>>>concealing its secret purpose as a political organ, but in both
>>>instances, some proof of authenticity does seem at issue.

>>No, it's not. A newspaper can publish whatever it wants for any reason it
>>wants** without having to answer to any government official. The ability to
>>do so is doubly protected by the 1st Amendment-- generally in the Free
>>Speech Clause and specifically in the Free Press Clause.

>>**Defamation being the only exception, and even that is a matter of concern
>>to the Judicial Branch. It's none of Congress's business.

>So, *any* citizen can declare themselves to be a news organization and
>be afforded the treatment and sanctity of a journalist? Putin's secret
>immigrant mother-in-law can do that? Bernie Sanders's PAC can do that?
>It doesn't seem reasonable. And it does seem like misrepresentation...

Do you really need your hand held to understand the fundamental civil
rights of an American?

Freedom of the press is an all-encompassing freedom. The writer is free
to prepare to write, to do the writing, and especially, to distribute
what he has written so that others may read it. None of it is subject to
government regulation, nor government oversight, nor a criminal
investigation.

Whether one is a journalist or news organization or just an amateur
putting pen to paper, the protection applies to all who write.

How did you live to 75 years of age being entirely ignorant of this?

[BTR1701]

In article <q8gk1v$30f$2...@dont-email.me>,

Well, to be fair, moviePig has gone on record many times as not having
much use for a robust system of free speech. He's actually rather keen
on censorship, so long as it's done for the common good, of course.

[FPP]

Wrong.

But you have the right to lie under the Constitution, so we wouldn't
dream of robbing you of that.

Carry on.

--
Trump: "I'm rich." (* but you can't see my taxes.)
"I'm smart." (* but you can't see my grades.)
"I'm totally exonerated." (* but you can't see the report.)

[moviePig]

Could you cite one of those many times, please? ...one stating a
favored position rather than merely exploring the issue's complexity?

[FPP]

Get yourself a comfy chair... you're gonna be a while, and you might as
well sit.
Pack a lunch wouldn't be a bad idea, either...

[stanislaw lemons]

johnny got his gun is my first movie memory