Post removed

[sweetloukillbot]

1. The government banned RT? n/t

[PM Martin]

2. Fox "News" is much worse than RT.

Still both are protected speech.

[sufrommich]

37. "Fox is quoted around here endlessly"

We point and laugh at them too.

[woo me with science]

44. We even have posters who guest there. nt

[Cali_Democrat]

3. It's my understanding that RT has not been banned by the US government

unless there's some information I'm not aware of.

[OKNancy]

4. this site is not the US government - THe first only applies to the govt

not a private web site. Not only that but we "ban" all sorts of right-wing sites. Actually they aren't banned except in LBN, but if someone uses them for an argument they will probably be hidden by a jury and the poster will be looked at by MIRT.

[hrmjustin]

33. Many sites are not allowed to be linked here.

[SecularMotion]

41. Please list the sites which are not allowed to be linked on DU.

[hrmjustin]

50. Infowars.

[SecularMotion]

67. One item is not a list. You claimed there were many sites not allowed.

As far as I know, there is no list of banned sites.

There are sites which contain subject matter that violates DU rules and links to those pages may be locked by juries and/or hosts, but I know of no written list of sites which are banned across the board.

[hrmjustin]

68. there is no official list for this site but if you post infowars and rw sites you will likely get

it locked or hidden.

[SecularMotion]

70. It's all a matter of context.

I've used links to RW sites in the Gun and Religion groups to point out the absurdities of RW opinions.

[hrmjustin]

71. Yes and juries will likely get that but juries will hide some rw site stuff.

[OKNancy]

63. stormfront, infowars, and....

any that promulgate the following ( from the DU terms of service)

Don't be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe).
Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.

Don't go overboard with the crazy talk.
Democratic Underground is not intended to be a platform for kooks and crackpots peddling paranoid fantasies with little or no basis in fact. To accommodate our more imaginative members we tolerate some limited discussion of so-called "conspiracy theories" under the following circumstances: First, those discussions are not permitted in our heavily-trafficked Main forums; and second, those discussions cannot stray too far into Crazyland (eg: chemtrails, black helicopters, 9/11 death rays or holograms, the "New World Order," the Bilderbergers, the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, alien abduction, Bigfoot, and the like). In addition, please be aware that many conspiracy theories have roots in racism and anti-semitism, and Democratic Underground has zero tolerance for bigoted hate speech. In short, you take your chances.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[MohRokTah]

45. There is no such thing as freedom of the press in a privately held forum

If Skinner says a site cannot be linked, it cannot be linked. Skinner owns this site and there are numerous sites that cannot be linked to this site.

It is not "against freedom of the press" because there is no freedom to force others to pay for what you wish to say.

[Archae]

48. We're not against freedom of the press.

But certain web sites set off red flags here as to credibility.

Russia Today
Faux "news"
WND
NewsMax
Age Of Autism
Natural News
The National Enquirer

And so on.

During the days of the Soviet Union, "Pravda" (which means truth,) was anything BUT truth.
It was the official Soviet "news," and as such was full of Soviet propaganda.

Nowadays "Russia Today" is Putin's propaganda outlet, and as such will run anything he states, as fact.

[Thinkingabout]

98. K & R

Just because there is freedom of the press does not mean everything a news source puts out is correct. There are reputations whether they are good or bad and you have listed several which ate quoted as truthful and they are not. When I see a link to those in your list I do my own research to locate the truth. It is unfortunate they have believers.

[OKNancy]

51. I can read any site I want, even Rt or Alex Jones or the BLaze

if I want to. It's called "the internet"

And for those of you tossing out the false equivalency that RT is the same as CBS, ABC, CNN... that's bull.
It's not the same.

[BainsBane]

54. Stormfront, Breitbart, etc.

are also typically hidden by juries. Those sites enjoy the same freedom of the press that RT does. Since this is not the federal government, what people decide to be against community standards does not constitute a violation of the First Amendment. I have never been on a jury that hid a RT piece, nor do I think I would based on the source alone, but I sure as hell am not going to put any credibility in it or in the people who post it.

As for you, I think you ought to figure out what the hell the First amendment Actually covers before you run around citing it. The same freedom of speech that prohibits THE GOVERNMENT from censoring RT protects my right to say I think it is a fucking propaganda rag for an authoritarian, former KGB asshole.

[Trajan]

60. As a matter of fact - DU is not the government

It is a private entity, and it's owners have full editorial control over it's content ..

The fucking RT apologists need to get real ...

Your insistence on shoving THIS kind of rubbish up our collective asses is duly noted ...

Duly fucking noted ...

[DonViejo]

61. Where did Nancy say she was against freedom of the press?...

Put up or shut up. Where did she say it? And, while on the subject of freedom of the press, how come you don't know the first thing about it? The lecture you're throwing around here is typical for wing nuts, not DU'ers.

[maddezmom]

77. They are free to print it, blog it whatever and a private website is also

Free not to allow it. In the old days garbage like Alex jones got the ax, now it is up to juries.

[Cha]

87. Yo maddezmom.. Read post # 84..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5259026

[arcane1]

105. You obviously have no idea what "freedom of the press" means, or how private websites work.

[Tarheel_Dem]

5. Fuck RT! And the Kremlin it rode in on!

[maddezmom]

74. Agree and Fuck Ron and Rand Paul, too!

[Tarheel_Dem]

76. Damn skippy! n/t

[maddezmom]

78. And forgot to mention...Fuck Paul Craig Roberts, too!!!

I could keep going.

[Tarheel_Dem]

80. They all make me....

[maddezmom]

81. Same. And to see them used here

Makes me as well.

[Cha]

86. Yo Tarheel.. read post #84..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5259026

[eShirl]

6. Which thread is about banning the press?

(besides this one)

[eShirl]

17. Fail. n/t

[MohRokTah]

36. So did you, in your OP.

You have failed and failed miserably.

[MohRokTah]

22. Not a single post in there about the government banning RT.

Not one.

You have failed, and failed miserably.

You can still delete this OP and let it sink into oblivion to try and garner some form of self respect.

[The Magistrate]

26. That Post Does Not Call For Banning Russia Times, Sir

It says that Russia Times distorts and lies, and that it cannot be relied on as a source of facts concerning events in Ukraine, and expresses some wonderment anyone does believe it is a reliable source for news.

[woo me with science]

62. It was a silly thread.

It didn't have to be - it could have opened a useful discussion of bias in media and how to deal with it - but it became silly as soon as the OP proclaimed that any discussion of bias in any other news sources was off-topic.

At that point, the OP became an agenda-driven attempt to encourage avoidance of only one biased source of news, while stubbornly resisting any suggestion that the best way to deal with bias coming from all sides is to consider all sources of information.

[fishwax]

43. that has nothing to do wuth banninf

[elleng]

47. This is NOT about 'banning the press,' or RT,

it states that RT should not be relied on, its an opinion, not a 'ban.'

[uppityperson]

104. Warning that a site is not to be trusted is "banning the press"? Inigo Montoya says it best

[Godhumor]

7. No one asked for RT to be banned in the USA

People are saying that it is not a trustworthy source regarding Russian actions and should be treated as such here at DU.

There is a reason sites like RT, WSWS, Consortium News, etc are not allowed for OPs in LBN, and it has nothing to do with censorship.

[BeyondGeography]

8. 'Every single day we're lying'

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/russia-today-reporter-quits-malaysia-airlines-mh17-crash-coverage-article-1.1871924

Yo.

[sufrommich]

9. Are they being jailed?

[Skidmore]

10. I would say that there is much

you don't understand about this site and the Constitution.

[sufrommich]

23. How about what it's not..it's not the right to taken seriously.

[muriel_volestrangler]

83. "Congress shall make no law respecting ..."

Do you need more of an explanation than that?

[conservaphobe]

11. As much as I'd like to see the feds padlock RT's DC headquarters...

RT does far more damage to itself by being complete bullshit than shutting them down and making them a martyr for the FUCKING IDIOTS who watch their programming ever would.

[tammywammy]

12. Who's advocating the US govt ban RT? Link please.

Edited to add: I really find it amusing your "listen and learn" and then proceed to apply the a first amendment to private individuals on a private message board.

[SidDithers]

13. All the RT supporters, speaking with just1voice...

give me a headeache, with explosions going off like a Starburst Clock.

Sid

[SidDithers]

25. mullard12ax7...

specimenfred1984

Sid

[maddezmom]

79. LOL

Funny stuff.

[William769]

15. FUCK RT! FUCK RT! FUCK RT! FUCK RT! FUCK RT! FUCK RT!

Is that clarification enough!

And add this to it also. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5257045

[MohRokTah]

18. You really don't understand the First Amendment, do you?

We've been calling for banning RT as a source on DU. Nothing about that violates the first amendment. DU is a private entity, not the government.

Sheesh, you need to educate yourself.

[RobertEarl]

66. I know what you mean

Like when i see your name. I have learned to just laugh and pretty much ignore what follows.

See how that works? You are in favor of banning and shaming, you have to accept being banned and shamed. That's how free speech works. Not that you will grok it, but hey, you are posting all over DU, just asking for replies, yes?.

[bluesbassman]

109. Sadly, a lot of people are woefully ignorant of what the First Amendment says and means.

[LanternWaste]

20. The U.S. Government is banning Russia Today?

The U.S. Government is banning Russia Today?

Or (and I find this a wee bit more likely) you're simply miffed because many people recognize it as an invalid and unreliable source of news, compelling you to melodramatically shout "first amendment!!!!" due to an astounding lack of any valid premise...

[MohRokTah]

30. The courts have ruled on this.

RT is 100% within their constitutional rights to lie their asses off a bout everything under the sun, and the government cannot ban them.

The OP doesn't seem to understand how the first amendment works.

[BainsBane]

28. No one is advocating its censorship by the government

I am telling you I don't trust it. I will no longer read it, nor will I give any credibility to anyone who continues to site it uncritically. Post all the fucking crap you want. It doesn't make it true, and you can't force anyone to believe it.

[MohRokTah]

32. People who cite RT automatically lose all credibility with me.

[Cha]

90. Yo MohRokTah.. Read post #84..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5259026

[R3druM]

29. I am confused

US Government banned RT and blocked its domain? And if not, what is your point, exactly?

[LanternWaste]

56. Lacking a valid premise, confusion as response is all you're likely to receive.

Lacking a valid premise (yet making up for it in hysterics), confusion as response is all you're likely to receive.

[stevenleser]

31. This OP is a joke. Freedom of the Press doesnt entitle any media to freedom from criticism

You need to learn the terms you are using before you use them.

[MohRokTah]

42. No, it's all you.

You're the one who has no fucking clue what the first amendment says even though you quoted it.

[stevenleser]

49. No, as over a dozen have replied to you, you are misusing all the terms you are using.

Spend some time researching what the first amendment means. You have a lot of work to do to understand it.

[R3druM]

64. Once again...

Answer these two simple questions:

1. Did US Government censored or attempted to censor RT or its domain?

2. If NO, what is your OP have to do with First Amendment ?

[Peacetrain]

34. I would not line the bottom of my birdcage with RT.. but no one

has called for banning RT.. Thinking twice about using them as a source.. yeah.. but no one has called for banning RT..

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

38. When did the US Government propose to ban Fox New....er...RT?

When that happens, let's talk. Until then...

[MohRokTah]

40. Gotta love the transparency in Recs

It lets you know who else is completely ignorant about the first amendment besides the OP.

[steve2470]

46. so DU is the federal government or a state government now ? nice to know this

[zappaman]

53. "banning" the press

[Tarheel_Dem]

75. I love that pic! It speaks volumes.

[GoneOffShore]

55. You seem confused.

And on reading the whole thread and your responses, you are beyond confused.

The government has not banned, throttled or censored RT.

Various DUer's have asked that RT stories not be linked to.

One of these things is not like the other and has no bearing on First Amendment issues.

Go back and read the First Amendment again. Until you understand it.

[hrmjustin]

57. RT is propaganda. I don't take it seriously.

[gcomeau]

58. Since when did a government propaganda appendage...

..become "the press" just because they put on the public face of one?

[Starry Messenger]

59. This is like tea baggers who complain about their first amendment "rights" on Facebook.

A) It's not banned, people here just don't like it. I can take it or leave it. B) This is a private website, and the Bill of Rights doesn't apply here.

Not applying this to RT specifically, but it's not anti-democratic to limit sources here. The democratic part of this website is the agreed-upon community mores that we all function under. Coming in and posting some shit from National Review and insisting you could because "freedom" would be a violation of our collective principles. That is undemocratic.

[Shrike47]

65. The 1st Amendment binds the Government, not private entities.

For instance, Hobby Lobby is free to impose its' religion on its' employees all day long. And it does.

Skinner can also restrict you from assembling peacefully in his front yard to petition him for relief from grievances.

[LordGlenconner]

69. Yeah, I remember my first beer, too, kid.

[sufrommich]

72. lol.nt

[itsrobert]

73. Fail

[roamer65]

82. RT and Faux are propaganda channels.

For more impartial news, I watch NHK from Japan on my Roku.

[Cha]

84. Yo, Corruption.. another RT Anchor Resigns Admits Spreading Lies for Putin..

Russia Today Anchor Admits Spreading 'Lies' For Putin
By Catherine Taibi @cathtaibi

Another Russia Today anchor has resigned from her post at the Kremlin-funded TV network. I resigned from RT today. I have huge respect for many in the team, but I'm for the truth. pic.twitter.com/m...
HuffPost Media @HuffPostMedia

46 Retweets 7 favorites

Corespondent Sara Firth's announcement came nearly two hours after she stated on Twitter that RT anchors "do work for Putin" and spread "lies," in a conversation with RT London correspondent Polly Boiko. Firth alleged that the network asks its anchors to "obscure the truth," and now she is saying she's had enough.

Polly Boiko @Polly_Boiko

@ukTanos what am i spreading?

Sara Firth @Sara__Firth
Follow
@Polly_Boiko @ukTanos Lies hun. We do work for Putin. We are asked on a daily basis if not to totally ignore then to obscure the truth

11:50 PM - 17 Jul 2014 550 Retweets 175 favorites

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/18/sara-firth-resigns-russia-today-lies-anchor_n_5598815.html

[maddezmom]

88. But people here still are fans no matter what RT does

Sickening.

[Cha]

91. Yeah, but it says even more about them in the face of all this evidence.. dyed in the

wool prop pushers.

[maddezmom]

93. Yeppers

It does.

[OKNancy]

96. maybe they have a new job?

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/1014850092

[Tarheel_Dem]

99. "We are asked on a daily basis if not to totally ignore then to obscure the truth".

A young lady of integrity. Let's hope some others, who are alledgedly principled, will soon follow suit. The Putinistas are blowing up social sites like this for the past couple of days. They know the piper's about to get paid, and they're desperate. They have absolutely no credibility left, if they ever had it to begin with.

[Cha]

107. It's unreal, Tarheel.. who the hell knew back in the error of bush on DU that

5 years later we'd have putin propagandistas swearing his "news" outlet was good for us. Rofl. Hell, we know fox is no better.. so what? Do you get your info from fox "news"? I actually get mine from respected and trusted sources on the net.. who have earned my trust over the years. Bam.

P.S. they had NONE to begin with.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

85. Why is it always people who don't understand the first amendment pulling it out

and waving it around?

The first amendment is SOLELY about protecting the citizenry from the government. It says NOTHING about private entities deciding to ignore one another or 'banning' any given source (especially of nonsense) from a private website.

I have no idea what started this diatribe, but if you're going to pull out the first amendment, you should understand what it says before you come across all Sarah Palinesque on folks.

[NightWatcher]

89. "congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of the press"

Because a website prefers not to give a certain other outlet credibility is in no way a violation of the freedom of the press.

Oh gawd, the stupid it burns

[NuclearDem]

92. Did the federal government shut down RT USA?

Or did some people say they don't like RT as a source?

Because the First Amendment only covers the former.

[Coventina]

94. It's so cute how you've confused criticism with censorship.

[Spider Jerusalem]

95. The First Amendment applies specifically to the government.

It constrains what the government may or may not do. A privately owned website, like DU, is perfectly free to ban specific news sources if it chooses to. I don't really have a problem with banning RT as a news source on DU. This isn't "Russian Propaganda Underground". Nor would I have a problem with banning right-wing sources like WorldNetDaily, the Washington Times, and so on. No-one I'm aware of has called for RT to be barred legally from broadcasting. That would be a First Amendment issue.

I'm sick of people who don't know what the First Amendment actually says bleating about "free speech" and "freedom of the press" in situations that have nothing to do with it.

[sufrommich]

101. "I'm sick of people who don't know what the First Amendment actually says"

The sheer number of people on the internet who really have no clue what 1st amendment rights mean is mind boggling.I see this everywhere.

[arcane1]

106. I believe it's time to repost this, since it may as well be the OP

http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/

[All_Corners]

97. Freedom to mock obvious mouthpieces of dictators...

... Is one of the things I like best about the 1st amendment.

Thanks for the reminder.

[Spazito]

100. LOL....

just LOL!

[Tarheel_Dem]

102. I certainly hope you're not a Civics educator, or student, for that matter. That would be a shame.

[arcane1]

103. A classic misinterpretation of the First Amendment. DU is not the government.

Should we allow Alex Jones and David Icke here too? Where does it end?

[markpkessinger]

108. A brief tutorial on what "freedom of the Press' does, and DOESN'T, mean under the First Amendment...

. . . since you seem to be terribly confused about the matter.

The First Amendment MEANS:

• that the GOVERNMENT will not abridge the freedom of the press.

The First Amendment DOES NOT MEAN:

• that any particular private entity or content provider has any obligation whatsoever to provide a platform for any particular member of the press; or
  
  
• that any particular member of the press is entitled to be free of criticism, or to be free of decisions by private entities against providing a platform for that member of the press.

If your OP had used the word "speech" in place of "press," it would have made the error right wingnuts typically make about the meaning of freedom of speech. Most Democrats have a pretty good awareness of the distinction between the government and private entities, and of the significance of that distinction when it comes issues such as freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

I hope I have been helpful in clarifying matters for you.

[PoliticalPothead]

110. It's not surprising that many of the people who dislike free speech and freedom of the press

are the same people who vociferously defend the NSA.

[steve2470]

111. I think actually, this is a contract law matter....

By posting here, you're agreeing to the TOS, which is a contract between an individual and Democratic Underground, LLC. DU lawyers, if I'm assessing this wrong, please correct me.