TexasCHLforum.com

JALLEN wrote:

VMI77 wrote:.

CNN is essentially renting its broadcast privileges from the citizens of America. They can't broadcast whatever they want, and just about every network has cashiered people like this idiot merely for uttering one politically incorrect sentence. That it hasn't happened in this case is the product of open media bias and the fact that they don't care what millions of Americans think if those Americans aren't leftists --or at least, if those Americans are not in support of this particular fundamental element of the collectivist agenda. Again, if this Marxist agitator is not a citizen, he's here by permission, and CNN has no right to employ a foreigner in the US --they have to get permission to do so. Would we tolerate a radical Muslim with a national platform on CNN advocating Sharia Law? I doubt CNN would even try to get away with it. Advocating the violation of the US Constitution as a Marxist hypocrite is no different.

I believe CNN is cable only, no airwaves are harmed in the spewing of its daily bile, no licenses required.

They do from time to time have Muslims discussing Sharia law, but don't advocate it openly 24/7.

CNN has every right to employ this fellow, assuming he is here lawfully. There is no requirement in immigration situations that someone be a right thinking, true-blue American in thought, word and deed. They can keep you out of you have a criminal background, I think, or a loathsome disease perhaps. Even if they couldn't have him here in the States, it is child's play to broadcast from anywhere in the world these days.

Unfortunately, "advocating the violation" of the US Constitution is a matter of interpretation, and frequent dispute. Not everyone who disagrees with you is guilty. Even Supreme Court Justices differ on questions of interpretation, often 5-4. Constitutional interpretation is not a clear cut as you make out, and never has been in the ~220 years since it was adopted.

Well, they don't need a broadcast license, but many cities (if not all) require cable to be strung under license in the public right-of-way, and charge fees. CNN isn't directly licensed, but they broadcast via cable that is strung in public right-of-way --so they benefit from the use of public property. As far as the garbage that CNN broadcasts, you've got me there: I don't watch broadcast television of any kind, and there is no way I'd subject myself to a broadcast of any of the propaganda that is the mainstay of the MSM today.

As far as entry into the US is concerned, I don't believe there is ANY legal RIGHT to enter the country if you're not a US citizen. They've turned back British citizens from entering the country based on nothing more than innocuous text messages. The government labels people who have no criminal records as undesirable and prevents the from entering the country all the time. And don't forget, there's this thing called the no fly list, which is entirely arbitrary, and even includes American citizens. There is no legal process for having your name removed. And if you're a foreigner, it effectively prevents you from legally entering the US. So I haven't seen any evidence in the application of US law that suggests foreign nationals can't be denied entry arbitrarily and without cause.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Even so, because I revere the Constitution, and because I believe that its protections extend to anybody who lives here and has not taken up arms against the nation, I think it would be wrong to banish Piers Morgan.........even though it wouldn't hurt my feelings one bit if he were hit by a bus tomorrow.

I agree with this interpretation but I apparently don't see the application of it in the same way. I see this particular case as grey rather than black & white. There is no inherent right for citizens of another country to reside in the US. He is here by "permission" not by right. Yes, I agree that he can say whatever he wants and not be ARRESTED or prosecuted or sent to jail. However, because broadcasting, especially national broadcasting, even on cable, is effectively done under government license, I see no reason why he should be allowed a national platform in order to attack the Constitution of the United States. In essence, the airwaves, and the ROW for cable television, are the public property of the taxpaying citizens of America.

CNN is essentially renting its broadcast privileges from the citizens of America. They can't broadcast whatever they want, and just about every network has cashiered people like this idiot merely for uttering one politically incorrect sentence. That it hasn't happened in this case is the product of open media bias and the fact that they don't care what millions of Americans think if those Americans aren't leftists --or at least, if those Americans are not in support of this particular fundamental element of the collectivist agenda. Again, if this Marxist agitator is not a citizen, he's here by permission, and CNN has no right to employ a foreigner in the US --they have to get permission to do so. Would we tolerate a radical Muslim with a national platform on CNN advocating Sharia Law? I doubt CNN would even try to get away with it. Advocating the violation of the US Constitution as a Marxist hypocrite is no different.

Abraham wrote:Only until the last few days did I know Piers M. existed.

His views are something I've never heard and all this talk about him is good for him.

All publicity is good publicity and so on...

On another note, shutting down opinions, worthy or not, isn't the American way. We gun folk aren't Blackshirts. Remember, ye old - I'll defend your right to say, etc...

Also remember, often times folks who use over use the "Bully Pulpit" have a way of inserting foot into mouth and losing their audience, if they ever had it...

It's not shutting down his opinion to allow him to remain in the US without broadcasting on a US network. He can blog, write letters to Congressmen, etc. Why should an anti-American British commie get to spew is drivel on a US television network??? None of us have a show on CNN...and that's the point....the networks have an OBLIGATION to inform the public, and if they were doing that, there WOULD BE someone representing our viewpoints on CNN.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Lets not end up like left leaning nut jobs calling for the murder of NRA members.

Exactly. Piers Morgan is a vile little man with the blackhearted soul of the most avaricious communist party aparatchik, but it is his right under the First Amendment to be a blackhearted soulless commie aparatchik, and to bestow his verbal diarrhea upon the rest of us as if it were peals of wisdom dripping from the bum of an angel. In turn, I have the First Amendment right to boycott CNN—which I've been doing for a long time now anyway—and to boycott their advertisers whenever I am aware of one.

THAT is exactly how Piers Morgan ought to be reacting to guns: boycotting Winchester and Bushmaster, and refusing to buy anything with a Cabela's logo on it.

Here is my sincerest prayer for knuckleheads like Morgan.......I sincerely pray that they enjoy an extraordinarily terrifying experience at the hands of a thug, and that he is rescued by an armed citizen......with an EBR.

In principle I would agree, but when the deck is stacked so that only one group or side is principled, and the other side uses those principles to undermine and destroy the Republic that makes the basic freedoms those principles support possible, then I think we need to even the playing field. It's a little different now with cable, but the whole basis of granting the news networks space to use the airwaves included a responsibility to inform the public. The news media clearly no longer serves that purpose. Cable is a little different, but it still depends on government license. As such, "news" services have a public obligation to be informative and truthful. None of them are fulfilling that obligation.

And in this particular case, the scoundrel we're talking about is a British twit who obviously hates this country. The Brits wouldn't allow an American who attacked the British Socialist Utopia to have such a platform in Britain, nor would any other European government allow a such platform for an American to attack their country. There is no place for a British citizen to use his bully pulpit to influence the internal politics of America. This nasty piece of human debris should either be deported, or have no more of a pulpit than the average American. If he wants to stay here and exert the same level of influence as the rest of us fine....let him spill his vile garbage. If not, let him go find himself a pulpit back in the Socialist Utopia.