CNN doesn't like the US 1st amendment

[El_Kabong]

Is this the article the OP was talking about?

Why Benghazi issue won't go away | CNN

(“Why Benghazi issue won’t go away”, by Timothy Stanley)

The reason I ask is, a) the OP didn’t provide a link; b) the comments therein seem to be about pretty much anything except the title topic, including lengthy (and tedious) back-and-forth regarding voter ID and the recent IRS scandal. If one particular post was removed (and it appears there is no way to know except for the OP’s say-so), there seems to remain ample expression of viewpoints, sane and stupid, from both right and left. I’m not sure why that one lone post would be singled out when there are hundreds of others that one who drinks deeply of the “liberal media” Kool-Aid might find go against the supposed narrative.

Bottom line: another teapot tempest of manufactured outrage. Yawn.

[RTFirefly]

@bobot

Is it considered Government restriction of free speech when the FCC does it? Hey, I’m just asking questions.
Kiddies, here’s a Rock and Roll song for you, it’s a young fella named Stevie Earle, and his tune is called: F The CC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIoCafn27Ds

If that song had a point, I couldn’t figure it out.

So could you please be more specific about how the FCC is restricting free speech?

[El_Kabong]

Is this the article the OP was talking about?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/18/opinio...iref=allsearch

(“Why Benghazi issue won’t go away”, by Timothy Stanley)

I should have mentioned that the article itself is not exactly flattering to the administration, which would make the idea that CNN is censoring opinions that tend to agree with its viewpoint…strange.

[John_Mace]

@Darth_Panda

Why the fuck can’t we have one thread about scientific racism without you trying to derail it with immigration reform?

It all goes back to the Iraq War. Do you even know why we went there?

[El_Kabong]

@John_Mace

It all goes back to the Iraq War. Do you even know why we went there?

To seize their pistachio resources?

[running_coach]

@El_Kabong

To seize their pistachio resources?

That’s just plain nuts.

[Salix]

I notice that CNN uses Disqus for its comments section. Do you suppose the poster quoted in the OP uses that Zapata quote as a signature at the end of every post? Because if that’s the case, then Disqus’s automatic spam filter might be to blame, not CNN’s moderation.

From here:

Comments marked as spam

Comments are removed from public view (or “disappear”) when they are filtered as spam, whether manually by a site moderator or automatically by our system.

The following commenting behavior can cause comments to be marked automatically as spam:

Including a signature in multiple comments. For example, appending a name or website link to the end of multiple comments;
Bad or strange syntax. For example, excessive paragraph breaks, bad punctuation, double-spaced comments;
Posting the same comment multiple times to the same page, or across sites;
Using multiple links in one or multiple comments.

Continually posting similar messages can also reinforce the spam filter to become more sure of its actions and flag such more aggressively.

To prevent this from happening further, contact the moderator(s) of the site(s) in question where your comments are disappearing. They’ll want to first edit your comments to remove the relevant text and then approve your comments. If you’ve posted duplicate versions of the disappearing comment, we’d recommend the moderator(s) approve only one of the duplicate comments and delete the rest in order to keep those comments from being counted against you.

Note that we’re continually working to keep these types of false positives from happening while continuing to effectively block spam.

Including a signature in comments

As mentioned above, including a signature in multiple comments can cause those comments to be marked as spam as this is similar to a common spammer tactic of repeating similar text across multiple comments.

If you’d like others to see your name or website address, kindly enter that information at Edit Profile > Profile tab instead.

Now, it’s quite possible that the CNN moderators sifted through the thousands of comments on that article and arbitrarily deleted one that wasn’t even all that extreme or offensive. But it’s more likely that the poster’s signature triggered the spam filter.

[bobot]

@RTFirefly

If that song had a point, I couldn’t figure it out.

So could you please be more specific about how the FCC is restricting free speech?

Usually in a discussion about free speech, there is a side that claims the right protects the freedom to say anythyng, anywhere, without repercussion. In response to this, another side will point out that there certainly are repercussions, just that the government won’t stop you. My point is that in the form of the FCC, the government certainly limits speech. And, I never pass up an opportunity to link to a Steve Earle song.
(Try saying “Fuck” on the radio, and you’ll see how the FCC restricts free speech.)

[UncaThomas]

In any event, only citizens of the United States are allowed to vote whether that right is implicit or explicit.

I think it’s clear that it is implicit but that’s really a bit immaterial to the key point that only citizens have the right to vote.

So, how does one ensure that only genuine US citizens exercise the right to vote?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@WWhiskey

A news agency that doesn’t allow different viewpoints from its constituents isn’t a news agency , it’s a propaganda device.

News agencies don’t have constituents. They have viewers or readers, employees, executives, board members and shareholders.

[Ambivalid]

@UncaThomas

In any event, only citizens of the United States are allowed to vote whether that right is implicit or explicit.

I think it’s clear that it is implicit but that’s really a bit immaterial to the key point that only citizens have the right to vote.

So, how does one ensure that only genuine US citizens exercise the right to vote?

Has there ever been a problem with non-citizens attempting to or succeeding in voting in US elections? If not, why fix something that isn’t broken? Unless, of course, one has ulterior motives in wanting such a “solution”.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@UncaThomas

So, how does one ensure that only genuine US citizens exercise the right to vote?

Take the registration process out of the hands of the states. Establish a federal agency with the sole purpose of maintaining voter rolls, which it can share with the states at election time. This federal agency can maintain its database from all variety of sources, including previous registrations, driver’s licence and passport applications, birth and death certificate filings, etc. Of course, this will likely require standardization of the electorate, in the sense that the individual states will not be able to apply their own additional disenfranchisement rules like felony conviction and such.

It won’t ensure 100% (I’m not sure anything can) but it’ll help.

[WWhiskey]

@Bryan_Ekers

News agencies don’t have constituents. They have viewers or readers, employees, executives, board members and shareholders.

All of those elements could be described as constituents of a larger item, I.E. The group as a whole

con•stit•u•ent (kənˈstɪtʃ u ənt)

adj.

1. serving to make up a thing; component: the constituent parts of a motor.
2. having power to frame or alter a political constitution or fundamental law, as distinguished from lawmaking power: a constituent assembly.
   n.
3. a constituent element, material, etc.; component.
4. a person who authorizes another to act in his or her behalf, as a voter in a district represented by an elected official.
5. a linguistic element considered as part of a construction. Compare immediate constituent, ultimate constituent.
   [1615–25; < Latin constituent-, s. of constituēns, present participle of constituere to set up, found, constitute =con- con- + -stituere, comb. form of statuere to set up. See statute]
   con•stit′u•ent•ly, adv.
   syn: See element.
   Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

Hope this helps!

[WWhiskey]

@Bryan_Ekers

Take the registration process out of the hands of the states. Establish a federal agency with the sole purpose of maintaining voter rolls, which it can share with the states at election time. This federal agency can maintain its database from all variety of sources, including previous registrations, driver’s licence and passport applications, birth and death certificate filings, etc. Of course, this will likely require standardization of the electorate, in the sense that the individual states will not be able to apply their own additional disenfranchisement rules like felony conviction and such.

It won’t ensure 100% (I’m not sure anything can) but it’ll help.

It would also require some kind of ID! LMFAO

[RTFirefly]

@bobot

Usually in a discussion about free speech, there is a side that claims the right protects the freedom to say anythyng, anywhere, without repercussion. In response to this, another side will point out that there certainly are repercussions, just that the government won’t stop you. My point is that in the form of the FCC, the government certainly limits speech.

Well, yeah. And the medium over which it is limiting speech is…?

And, I never pass up an opportunity to link to a Steve Earle song.

Gotta say, my first impression of him was that he is a clueless airhead.

(Try saying “Fuck” on the radio, and you’ll see how the FCC restricts free speech.)

Help, help, we’re repressing ourselves! Come see the violence inherent in the commons!

[Bryan_Ekers]

@WWhiskey

All of those elements could be described as constituents of a larger item, I.E. The group as a whole

Hope this helps!

Not even slightly. The responsibilities CNN has to its “constituents” (as you are choosing to define it) are entirely different from those that government officials have to their constituents. Of relevance, the latter requires First-Amendment protection. The former does not.

It would also require some kind of ID! LMFAO

Sure. If the list of acceptable IDs is sufficiently broad and no political party can tinker with the qualifications for its own electoral advantage, so be it.

[WWhiskey]

@Bryan_Ekers

Not even slightly. The responsibilities CNN has to its “constituents” (as you are choosing to define it) are entirely different from those that government officials have to their constituents. Of relevance, the latter requires First-Amendment protection. The former does not.

Sure. If the list of acceptable IDs is sufficiently broad and no political party can tinker with the qualifications for its own electoral advantage, so be it.

So to be fully understood, you are for voter I.D.?

[Bryan_Ekers]

Well, if you check the ID requirements at Elections Canada, I’ve no complaints. Of course, I’d object to tightening these up if I had reason to believe the effort was driven by the goal of election manipulation.

[WWhiskey]

Being new here, I only just learned that your a foreigner , it does look like you like to correct grammar and math as well as enjoy watching and poking fun at us southerners.
I’ve only been to Goose Bay as far as destinations in Canada, nice place.

[Bryan_Ekers]

I wasn’t correcting your grammar about “constituents”. You were using the term in a grammatically correct but utterly useless manner.

And I only ridicule Americans when they’re being stupid. I unfortunately have much opportunity.