*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[wufwugy]

Nothing. They ignore him. Last article the BBC had on him was when he got banned from Twitter.

If it wasn't for the fact I follow Katie Hopkins, I'd have no idea what you were talking about.

Did he really get thrown in prison for speaking about rape gangs?

[Savy]

Did he really get thrown in prison for speaking about rape gangs?

Seriously what news do you read? What is your source for this?

In fact before you like that what do you think he got arrested for?

[wufwugy]

Seriously what news do you read? What is your source for this?

In fact before you like that what do you think he got arrested for?

I'm asking you specifically because I don't seek out journalism since it all sucks.

I merely hear about stuff from non-news sources (that are obviously biased but that's okay since they don't masquerade as "journalism"). So I don't know if it's true.

[Savy]

I'm asking you specifically because I don't seek out journalism since it all sucks.

I merely hear about stuff from non-news sources (that are obviously biased but that's okay since they don't masquerade as "journalism"). So I don't know if it's true.

Lol that's funny you don't get your news from news therefore it can never be bias because that's not where you get your news from except it is.

[wufwugy]

Lol that's funny you don't get your news from news therefore it can never be bias because that's not where you get your news from except it is.

I consume resources that are about as biased as it gets.

I don't consume much journalism because that medium's air of legitimacy more easily leads astray when its bias manifests (very often).

The difference here is that when I hear things I know to take them with a grain of salt. Contrast this to the many people who think they are getting credible information because it's from a journalistic new source, when actually they're not.

[Jack Sawyer]

I consume resources that are about as biased as it gets.

I don't consume much journalism because that medium's air of legitimacy more easily leads astray when its bias manifests (very often).

The difference here is that when I hear things I know to take them with a grain of salt. Contrast this to the many people who think they are getting credible information because it's from a journalistic new source, when actually they're not.

You are outsmarting yourself here

[OngBonga]

Did he really get thrown in prison for speaking about rape gangs?

Depends who you ask. If you ask one of his supporters, yes. If you ask the police, no.

He was filming people going into court, and the police came and nicked him for "breach of the peace" and "incitement". That'd be ok if they put him in a cell overnight and then released him the next day. But he was currently serving a suspended sentence for reporting on rape gang cases, and they appear to be activating it.

Whether you like him or not, he's trying to do his job. Standing there filming people going into court, that is not "breach of the peace" or "incitement", it's "journalism".

I'm not going to lose any sleep over it though.

[wufwugy]

Depends who you ask. If you ask one of his supporters, yes. If you ask the police, no.

He was filming people going into court, and the police came and nicked him for "breach of the peace" and "incitement". That'd be ok if they put him in a cell overnight and then released him the next day. But he was currently serving a suspended sentence for reporting on rape gang cases, and they appear to be activating it.

Whether you like him or not, he's trying to do his job. Standing there filming people going into court, that is not "breach of the peace" or "incitement", it's "journalism".

I'm not going to lose any sleep over it though.

What do you think about the UK law that you can't report on events/issues currently at trial?

[BananaStand]

What do you think about the UK law that you can't report on events/issues currently at trial?

I think George Zimmerman would have liked that policy

[wufwugy]

I think George Zimmerman would have liked that policy

It strikes me as a dangerous law.

[BananaStand]

It strikes me as a dangerous law.

Agreed. But it's addressing the right problem.

There is a non-negligible percentage of the population that believes Michael Brown had his hands up, begging for his life, and then was shot in the back execution style by a racist cop who got out of bed that day intending to kill a black kid.

As a result, you had "the Ferguson Effect" where cops wouldn't bother to do policing because they were afraid of a scandal. Murder rates went up.

Is that really what we consider an acceptable consequence of a free press?

When NBC doctored Zimmerman's 911 tapes....is that free press? Or is that a deliberate attempt to deceive?

Should there be consequences for the latter?

[wufwugy]

When NBC doctored Zimmerman's 911 tapes....is that free press? Or is that a deliberate attempt to deceive?

Should there be consequences for the latter?

This is an issue I'd like to hear viewpoints on from people smarter than me. I have no clue if I think the "deliberate attempt to deceive" should be illegal or not. I don't like it, but I don't have a handle on the most important elements of the topic so I can't say whether or not it's better for it to be legal or illegal.

[Savy]

What do you think about the UK law that you can't report on events/issues currently at trial?

This isn't true. He got arrested for disturbing the peace. What he does is he takes his little groups to events like this, causes it to kick off as he brings idiots with him and then makes out he's the most innocent person and it's everything against him because he gets in trouble.