Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, September 19, 2016

Donald Trump cited "freedom of expression" Monday as a potential roadblock in the fight against terrorism, remarks that set a troubling precedent if he's elected president in November. Trump suggested that press freedom is preventing law enforcement from arresting the publishers of bomb-making instructions. "I see the other day, and they're all talking about it so wonderfully, because, you know, it's called freedom of the press, where you buy magazines and they tell you how to make these same bombs that I saw," Trump said in an interview on on Fox and Friends. "Now people will go crazy, they'll say, 'Oh Trump is against freedom of the press.' I'm not against. I'm totally in favor of freedom of the press. But how do you allow magazines to be sold?"

Advertisement

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Trump didn't mention any specific titles, but he's presumably referring to Al Qaeda's English-language propaganda magazine Inspire or jihadi websites that publish bomb-making instructions. However, publications such as Inspire are not sold at any mainstream U.S. bookstores or newsstands, as Trump suggests, but can be found on the internet. It's also unclear who is supposedly speaking "wonderfully" about jihadi propaganda in the context of press freedom, as Trump contends.

"We should arrest the people that do that because they're participating in crime," Trump continued. "We should arrest them. Instead they say, 'Oh no, you can't do anything, that's freedom of expression.'"

He added that "we don't want to touch them because of freedom of speech."

What's chilling about Trump's remarks isn't his criticism of jihadi propaganda ― which is clearly awful -- but his casual dismissal of "freedom of expression" and "freedom of speech," bedrocks of American democracy, as potentially disposable in fighting terrorism. He presented an ominous scenario on Fox News in which U.S. counter-terrorism is being stymied by the First Amendment, though didn't provide evidence to support his assertion. Meanwhile, Trump has repeatedly expressed unwavering support for the Second Amendment and against restrictions on guns.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Worth a read:

TRUMP VS. THE CONSTITUTION: A GUIDE
It may be true that Donald Trump has read the Constitution.
But it's unclear if he understands it

www.politico.com

#1 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2016-09-19 11:49 AM | Reply

This is the doofus who pledged to defend a nonexistent "Article XII."

#2 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2016-09-19 11:52 AM | Reply

"It may be true that Donald Trump has read the Constitution. But it's unclear if he understands it"

Kazir Kahn said Trump hadn't read the Constitution. Trump said Kahn didn't have the right to say that.

Draw your own conclusion.

#3 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-09-19 11:55 AM | Reply

"Now people will go crazy, they'll say, ‘Oh Trump is against freedom of the press.'

Trump wants us to have the same freedom of the press that Putin allows in Russia..... as long as it is Trump Media that provides the state-controlled information.

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2016-09-19 12:15 PM | Reply

She called for an "intelligence surge" to disrupt plans before they happen as well as close coordination with Silicon Valley, saying "the government cannot do this without the tech communities."

"The recruitment and radicalization that goes on online has to be much more vigorously intercepted and prevented," Clinton said, which is how, she says, tech companies can assist the federal government.

www.nbcnews.com

#5 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2016-09-19 01:29 PM | Reply

Trump has shown that he's actively hostile to the First Amendment. He declared it should be easier to sue newspapers for publishing articles he doesn't like.

He's also a big fan of dot-com mogul Peter Thiel, who used his fortune to fund lawsuits by other people that destroyed Gawker.

Thiel told people said last week that Trump wants to nominate him to the Supreme Court.

#6 | Posted by rcade at 2016-09-19 01:30 PM | Reply

I posted Clinton's remarks as a differing strategy of the same issue Trump is touting. Trump wants to go after jihadi magazines for inciting violence. Would you feel the same way about protecting a KKK magazine or an anti-LBGT zine? or would you declare them to be hate speech and want to shut them down?

Clinton seems to want to expand the intelligence gathering arm of big brother using tech giants - to do what exactly -shut down hate speech and go after publishers. I'm not saying either one is right or wrong, but lets not play pretend games about First Amendment freedom of speech when in fact what we're talking about is differing opinions on what is acceptable speech and what powers can be used to control it.

#8 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2016-09-19 01:52 PM | Reply

Wow...seriously? I just made my point.... that was uncalled for. I wasn't trolling you. I accurately pointed out that what Trump is saying is similar to deleting posts based on opinion. I'm not complaining about moderation, I'm pointing out that people don't agree with different opinions and free speech is gone depending on who has the power.

#9 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2016-09-19 01:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Would you feel the same way about protecting a KKK magazine or an anti-LBGT zine?

Obviously I would, given the Skokie decision and other cases where the First Amendment has protected unpopular speech.

Even if we could ban jihadi magazines, it wouldn't prevent that information from being spread on the Internet. It would probably cause it to spread further.

#10 | Posted by rcade at 2016-09-19 02:00 PM | Reply

"it should be easier to sue newspapers"
" used his fortune to fund lawsuits"

Ok, so is litigation your issue? Or maybe you could specify what specific speech Trump should leave alone and what speech he is free to scrub from the earth.

#11 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2016-09-19 02:03 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

I accurately pointed out that what Trump is saying is similar to deleting posts based on opinion.

I think the comparison is inaccurate.

Trump is talking about government limits on free speech.

The Retort is privately owned, and like any private forum can set any rules for speech that the owner wants.

#12 | Posted by rcade at 2016-09-19 02:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Ok, so is litigation your issue?

It's not just about litigation. It's also about the government arresting people for speech or shutting down their sites and publications.

Like Trump's buddy Putin does.

#13 | Posted by rcade at 2016-09-19 02:06 PM | Reply

Then how does Trump's position of wanting to shut down a hate speech magazine inciting violence and offering recipes for bombs differ from Clinton's "intelligence surge" for the purposes of "The recruitment and radicalization that goes on online has to be much more vigorously intercepted and prevented" ??

Shut down publication vs. spy on, intercept, and prevent??

How can one candidates strategy be criticized while the opponents similar strategy be ignored?

Aren't they virtually the same result through different means of codifying and regulating what speech is 'allowed' to be free?

#14 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2016-09-19 02:17 PM | Reply

I wouldn't think that Trump's personal opinion on this would matter even if he became president because in theory, he can 't just ignore the Constitution.

But Bush and Obama were allowed to disregard the 4th ammendment so I guess the precedent is already in place.

#15 | Posted by Sully at 2016-09-19 02:18 PM | Reply

Imagine if he'd said the same about the 2nd amendment:

"I'm not against. I'm totally in favor of (it). But how do you allow magazines to be sold?"

#16 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-09-19 02:24 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Trump won't mess with the Two Amendment.

The One Amendment?

Not so much.

#17 | Posted by donnerboy at 2016-09-19 02:26 PM | Reply


I rarely quote TV shows or movies, but this one seems apropos...

With the first link, a chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.

--- Capt. Jean-Luc Picard, Star Trek: TNG - The Drumhead


It always amazes me that those who view the Second Amendment as an absolute right, are so willing to just toss the First Amendment aside.

#18 | Posted by LampLighter at 2016-09-19 02:29 PM | Reply

"I wouldn't think that Trump's personal opinion on this would matter..."

According to some it's an imminent danger. Putin has been cited and we're mere inches from KGB lockdown.

But the discussion I find interesting in the midst of Trump hysteria, is that free speech is actually a subjective construct that is wholly abandoned based on personal views, and that some people will defend it to their deaths until they are personally offended. Then an entirely different argument is made to defend scrubbing 'free' speech.

That's why I've always maintained that the notion of 1st amendment rights is an illusion depending on who is in power.

#19 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2016-09-19 02:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If it was an illusion, there would be plenty of examples of American free speech rights being restricted under President Obama or President Bush. Name some.

#20 | Posted by rcade at 2016-09-19 02:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Trump never received that pocket-sized Constitution thingy, I see.

#21 | Posted by e1g1 at 2016-09-19 03:35 PM | Reply

That's why I've always maintained that the notion of 1st amendment rights is an illusion depending on who is in power.

#19 | Posted by SheepleSchism

Are you posting from Russia?

The 1st amendment is still a basic right in America no matter who is in power.

The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change over time and do not depend on who is in power.

#22 | Posted by donnerboy at 2016-09-19 06:15 PM | Reply

Name some. #20 | POSTED BY RCADE

www.aclu.org

Then there's the issue of shouting down dissent, censorship, moderation, etc.

Censorship is the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.[1]
Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is referred to as self-censorship. Censorship could be direct or indirect, in which case it is referred to as soft censorship. It occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel.

Depending on who's in power of a website, server, news outlet, a town or city, a state, or a nation determines how far one can go with their 'freedom of speech'.

As long as one is towing the line, they have nothing to worry about. Start speaking out and you'll be on a list.

#23 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2016-09-19 07:01 PM | Reply

The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change over time and do not depend on who is in power.
#22 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

You'll see when the SHTF... your 'freedoms' will evaporate. the funny part will be when you remember that some dude named SheepleSchism told you.

#24 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2016-09-19 07:04 PM | Reply

Spoken like a true democrat.

He has never been a republican or a good businessman hes a socialist no one else could be friends with Hillary. The race is a scam your voting Hillary no mater which one you vote for..

#25 | Posted by tmaster at 2016-09-19 07:24 PM | Reply

Depending on who's in power of a website, server, news outlet, a town or city, a state ...

You're comparing government to private spaces again, even though they have nothing to do with each other in a discussion of speech limits.

Asserting a right to free speech on someone else's dime is obnoxious.

#26 | Posted by rcade at 2016-09-19 07:41 PM | Reply

"You'll see when the SHTF..."

When the "SHTF" is when our freedoms are tested the most. There have been many times in our history where civil liberties are put to the test. Those were darker chapters of our history. Are you saying we are entering a "dark chapter" in our history again? WE have somehow survived each of those dark chapters.

I thought we had just left one which fostered .

They have always occurred during times of war. And we are still grappling with those issues left beind by the Bush Administration. The Patriot Act, NSA wiretapping, the Extraordinary Rendition Program, GITMO, American Citizens held as Enemy Combatants, Immigration concerns, rise of the TSA, Torture, and many others.

I guess you will have to define SHTF. IS Congress going to grow a set and finally going to declare we are at War?

#27 | Posted by donnerboy at 2016-09-19 08:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#20- Snowden for one.

#28 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2016-09-20 11:51 AM | Reply

Trump: "I'm totally in favor of freedom of the press. But how do you allow magazines to be sold?"
I think what he meant was you can still have the freedom to print whatever you want, you just won't be able to distribute it. Unless he authorizes it.

#29 | Posted by woe_is_W at 2016-09-20 12:42 PM | Reply

"I wouldn't think that Trump's personal opinion on this would matter even if he became president because in theory, he can 't just ignore the Constitution.
#15 | Posted by Sully"

But see, 2001-present.

#30 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2016-09-20 05:13 PM | Reply

Sheeple is making a common mistake in thinking the 1st Amendment has anything to do with private citizens or entities stifling speech. It doesn't. The 1st Amendment only curbs government action. If there is no government action, there is no 1st Amendment violation.

So boycotting a business, shouting down a speaker, censoring a comment on a private website, etc. have nothing to do with the 1sy Amendment. Nothing.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

#31 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2016-09-20 05:16 PM | Reply

This bears repeating:

The 1st Amendment only curbs government action. If there is no government action, there is no 1st Amendment violation.
So boycotting a business, shouting down a speaker, censoring a comment on a private website, etc. have nothing to do with the 1sy Amendment. Nothing.
Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

#31 | POSTED BY MONTECORE

#32 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-09-20 05:58 PM | Reply

Now THAT is newsworthy!

(By the way, will anyone explain to me why I can flag on some threads but not on others? The threads I see come in three flavors: one I can flag, a second others flag (because I see the flag totals), but I can't flag, and a third no one seems to be able to flag (or at least I don't see any flag totals).
Wtf, over?

#33 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2016-09-20 08:05 PM | Reply

IS Congress going to grow a set and finally going to declare we are at War?

#27 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2016-09-19 08:03 PM | FLAG:

We can't declare war on IS. If we did, we would have to recognize that IS is a real nation.

#34 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2016-09-21 08:40 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable

Drudge Retort