Apparently wes is not alone ...

[Scooter]

... in wanting to eviscerate the 1st Amendment:

Poll: Nearly half of Republicans think Trump should have authority to shutter media outlets

Forty-three percent of Republicans think President Trump “should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior,” while only 36 percent disagreed with the statement, according to an Ipsos poll released Tuesday.

A large number of Republicans polled also took issue with the media in general, with 48 percent agreeing that the news media is “the enemy of the American people.” Seventy-nine percent said mainstream media outlets treat Trump “unfairly.”

The Daily Beast first reported the poll results.

While Republicans criticized the media in higher numbers than Democrats and independents, 12 percent of Democrats and 21 percent of independents said the president should have the power to close down news operations “engaged in bad behavior.”
Twelve percent of Democrats and 26 percent of independents agreed the media is “the enemy of the American people."

Trump has repeatedly criticized members of the media on Twitter and at campaign rallies. During a rally last Friday in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., the president lambasted the media as the “fake, fake disgusting news.”

The stance has split Republicans in the executive and legislative branches. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders refused to denounce the “fake news” moniker, while Ivanka Trump and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have said the press is not the enemy of the people.

A majority of all those polled seemed to agree with Trump and Graham, with 57 percent saying the media was “necessary to keep the Trump administration honest.”

However, respondents also seemed overwhelmingly willing to open journalists up to lawsuits, with 72 percent agreeing it should be easier to sue reporters who knowingly publish false information.

Ipsos surveyed 1,003 American adults online from Aug. 3 to 6. The poll did not have a margin of error, but had a credibility interval of 3.5 percentage points.

[Big RR]

If this poll is accurate, it is a real concern.

[Bicycle Bill]

If you have ever said anything, at any time, under any circumstances, to anybody, about what YOU would have done about Hitler and the rise of the Nazi Party if you had lived in 1930s Germany......     Well, here's your chance.

Trouble is, too many people — including the bar-room boasters and message-board macho men — are already doing what the German people themselves did.....  Let someone else do their thinking for them, swallow their bullshit and drink their Kool-aid, and follow the rest of the crowd like a pack of marabunta on the march.

-"BB"-

[Long Run]

I wouldn't read too much into a question that reads: "The president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior." The first qualifier is "should have", and the second is the nebulous "bad behavior." Anyone can read anything they want into this, and given the perceived and often-justified belief in liberal bias for most media outlets, well-documented fake news, etc., it is easy to see how a large percentage of that population would infer "bad behavior" to be illegal behavior. When specific media outlets are named, only 23% of R's favor closing down the specific outlet, and 83% of R's agreed that "freedom of the press is essential for American democracy". I don't know about the 23% or the other 17%, but then I don't know about the 77% of D's who don't see the liberal bias in mainstream media reporting.

With respect to the minority of R's that appear to favor some form of media censorship, I don't think liberals have much ground to wag a finger since they've been cheering Facebook, Apple, and Youtube closing down access for a major conservative wingnut and are arguing for shutting down other conservative views (in addition to the aggressive and often violent demonstrations against conservative speakers, protests and demonstrations). There appears to be a substantial minority on both sides that would favor shutting up the opposition.

[Scooter]

With respect to the minority of R's that appear to favor some form of media censorship, I don't think liberals have much ground to wag a finger since they've been cheering Facebook, Apple, and Youtube closing down access for a major conservative wingnut

Because there is absolutely no comparison between a government taking away someone's right to speak, and a private sector entity choosing to stop giving someone a platform on its own property. Since you are intelligent enough to know the difference, your blatantly partisan disingenuousness is fooling no one.

[Big RR]

LR--I'm not sure what you believe people read into this:

"The president" not the courts, the president on his or her own initiative "should have" does not now have under the law but should have "the authority to close" the right to close or otherwise end their activities "news outlets" in other words, the press, which is protected under the Constitution "engaged in bad behavior." again, not illegal behavior, just bad behavior; absent an explanation, and since this authority is given tot he president alone, (s)he would presumably decide what was or was not bad behavior

I don't see how else it can be spun; this is a power despots crave, and a large percentage of those polled would give it to our president. That scares the hell out of me; I'm surprised you have no problem rationalizing it.

[Bicycle Bill]

With respect to the minority of R's that appear to favor some form of media censorship, I don't think liberals have much ground to wag a finger since they've been cheering Facebook, Apple, and Youtube closing down access for a major conservative wingnut and are arguing for shutting down other conservative views (in addition to the aggressive and often violent demonstrations against conservative speakers, protests and demonstrations). There appears to be a substantial minority on both sides that would favor shutting up the opposition.

Facebook, Apple, and YouTube should not be considered to be 'news media'. They are privately-held, privately-run (and in most cases, privately-funded) social media sites ... much like Gob runs this site, just on a larger scale.

While the "major conservative wingnut" (I can only assume you mean the infamous Info Wars kingpin, Alex what's-his-name) and the rest have the right to their opinions as well as the right to express them, a private company like Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube is under no obligation to build them a platform from which to do so.

Same thing with people protesting conservative shows-of-force like the rallies in Portland, Charlottesville, and elsewhere. They have the right to express their beliefs and opinions in a lawful and orderly manner, just as those holding an alternate viewpoint have the right to display their disapproval — again, so long as it is done in a lawful and orderly fashion. Trouble is, too many people no longer have any concept of what is considered 'lawful and orderly', with the result that chaos and violence generally ensues.

And when you have the person who is nominally the leader of this nation calling for violence against those who displease him —

— it's only going to get worse before it gets better.

-"BB"-

[Econoline]

Re-phrase the question as "Should President Barack Obama have had the authority to shut down news outlets such as Fox News and Sinclair Broadcasting?" (or maybe "Should a (hypothetical) President Elizabeth Warren have the authority...") and you'll get a *VERY* different response from those same Republicans.

Just sayin'

[Lord Jim]

and you'll get a *VERY* different response from those same Republicans.

And a different response from some of the Democrats as well...

[Big RR]

And therein lies the danger; people willing to forego rights to support an individual. It can lead nowhere good.

[Burning Petard]

It is an old meme (in the earlier meaning of that word) among poly science students that the precepts listed in the Declaration of Independence, when re-worded in current style, will be strongly rejected in a standard poll of Americans. People in general prefer to not be annoyed by things that are strange or challenge their own behavior.

So I am not surprised by the topic that begins this thread. A free press is only free to the entity that owns the press. Freedom of speech implies nothing about a right to be heard. Facebook is a private corporation and like this very forum, may set its own rules and be completely arbitrary about applying them.

snailgate

[Big RR]

Indeed, but the president, any president, should not have any say in that, let alone a unilateral right to shut them down.

[Long Run]

I don't see how else it can be spun; this is a power despots crave, and a large percentage of those polled would give it to our president. That scares the hell out of me; I'm surprised you have no problem rationalizing it.

I am criticizing the vagueness of the question. If you go to the actual poll and responses, 23% would want to give the president authority to shut down a specific media outlet (e.g., WaPo or the Times). Yes, it is ridiculous anyone wants to silence any media source. But this story seems more designed to get clicks than to really schuss out any relevant information.

And (along the lines of changing the names and party affiliation) if Facebook or Youtube were owned by Rupert Murdoch (how did he not end up owning them!) and he took away those platforms from liberal voices, I am pretty sure we'd be hearing arguments that those entities are the equivalent of the public square and should be regulated like other media outlets to ensure fair representation, etc. Ultimately, such censorship will be bad for Youtube, Facebook, et al. and just lead to a Fox News equivalent platform that will take away a huge part of their market, and everyone can keep to their own silo (is that word so-2017 by now?).

[Scooter]

So you have to pull hypotheticals out of your ass and put arguments into the mouths of "liberals" in an attempt to draw an equivalency with government action. Sorry, no cookie for you.

[ex-khobar Andy]

I think I am a strong supporter of the first amendment; although I doubt that I would have lost any sleep if the Nazis had been denied the right to march in Skokie in 1977. And therein lies the problem with this sort of question.

If Trump (for example) tried to shut down MSNBC on the grounds that it is biased against him and his policies (it is; and for entirely justified reasons in my view) I would be incensed and on the streets. I think I would be equally incensed if, for example, Obama had tried to beat down Fox News or the Washington Times. But I haven't bothered to give that any thought because I know it's purely a rhetorical question and it would never happen - nor would Obama try to encourage his fans to shout down or intimidate them at some event. But we know that the first amendment has exceptions (not in the Constitution of course but in the way it has been interpreted) such as "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" as OW Holmes put it.

If the Westboro Baptist Church were shut down on the grounds that they present a clear and present danger to others I would probably be overjoyed for a day or a week: but I think at some point in one of the nights following I would wake and remember Niemöller's words: "First they came for the socialists . . ." My head is a 100% supporter of the first amendment; my heart maybe only 98%.

[Big RR]

Facebook or Youtube were owned by Rupert Murdoch (how did he not end up owning them!) and he took away those platforms from liberal voices, I am pretty sure we'd be hearing arguments that those entities are the equivalent of the public square and should be regulated like other media outlets to ensure fair representation, etc.

And if those arguments can be made, there are plenty who can make them; the response is often partisan, but there are civil libertarians who see beyond the immediate partisan issue and look at the bigger picture. And there are civil libertarians who are on both sides of the spectrum.

Andy--I can't argue with that; it's why we have to think with our brains, and not let our emotions overwhelm us.

[wesw]

yes, BP, but the airwaves are public, and the internet has become no different than other utilities.

a new anti trust push seems needed.

these social media sites are public forums, in my view, and free speech and association must apply to their forums.

[Lord Jim]

So basically wes, you'd have no problem with CNN being shutdown by the government, but a vile 9/11 "truther" and Sandy Hook denier gets kicked off of Facebook, (a private company) and suddenly you're concerned about "free speech"...

[Sue U]

yes, BP, but the airwaves are public, and the internet has become no different than other utilities.

a new anti trust push seems needed.

And yet the Trump Administration just shit-canned net neutrality so that the biggest internet service companies can limit your access to content and make it more expensive. How is that Making America Great Again?

these social media sites are public forums, in my view, and free speech and association must apply to their forums.

Your analogy is bad. The traditional broadcast "airwaves" in this case would be the equivalent of internet service, while social media and other entertainment and business sites would be the equivalent of privately owned TV or radio stations. To the extent there is any regulation of broadcast media (and what there is is pretty weak), it is justified solely by the fact that the traditional broadcast technology allows for only a limited number of broadcasters in any given market. That is not true with the internet. Just because a social media site may be popular doesn't mean that it's somehow been converted into a "public forum" -- it's even a weaker case than arguing that a shopping mall is a "public forum" (and by the way, it's not).

It's the Trump Administration that just clamped down on free speech on the internet by giving control to giant corporations, whose only interest is profit. Thank your feckless leader for that.

[Scooter]

Note that wes does not deny being part of the 43%.