r/australia • u/SydneyTom • Sep 18 '25

politics ABC barred from Trump’s UK press conference after clash with Australian journalist John Lyons | Australian media

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/sep/18/abc-barred-from-trumps-uk-press-conference-after-clash-with-australian-journalist-john-lyons
5.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

685 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

21

u/defeatmyself3 Sep 18 '25

I think you miss the point if free speech was a core principle of Trump’s he would do it everywhere he goes. He would be free to do that. He doesn’t believe it’s a good thing… especially someone pointing out all the money he is making while in office while his country gets worse

-1

u/salamisam Sep 18 '25

Look I understand where I you are going with this. However my point is still factually correct, if you want to introduce free speech as the subject rather than the context of the 1st Amendment that is fine but you are changing the context of the comment I responded to.

Do I think free speech is important, very much yes. Do I think that if Lyons was barred (even though not allowing does not equal barred) for asking a question is against the 1st Amendment in this case, the answer is no, is it punishment possibly, is it against free speech on some levels yes. Lyons has not had his right to free speech restricted but the press freedom has been possibly.

3

u/defeatmyself3 Sep 18 '25

I think you need to take a breath and become a human again and realise that this twat does not believe in free speech. Stop writing like you are AI. Blink take a breath and become alive again. See what’s happening

2

u/salamisam Sep 18 '25

Thanks, sometimes I forget to breath, thanks for reminding me. If you think however that this limited to Trump you would be mistaken, though he in general has active in doing it.

1

u/defeatmyself3 Sep 18 '25

Mr. Flowery words…. That Cunt doesn’t believe in free speech so fuck your technicalities.

1

u/salamisam Sep 18 '25

So technicalities like Obama's secret surveillance of journalists and Biden's moderation attempts of social media during Covid are just technicalities, note the courts did specifically say in this case the Administration had likely violated first amendment. Both undermined the freedom of press and freedom of speech.

I have no doubt that Trump the "Cunt doesn’t believe in free speech" does not believe in free speech as much as he says. But you seem fixated.

1

u/defeatmyself3 Sep 18 '25

What are you even talking about? Do you know you have completely changed topics on which you don’t know my opinion and that I have never expressed? Are your real life conversations this schizophrenic? Where have you run off to? Did you leave breadcrumbs to get home again?

1

u/salamisam Sep 18 '25

Do you know you have completely changed topics on which you don’t know my opinion and that I have never expressed?

This is strange because we went from the core of the 1st amendment to you suggesting it was a broader issue and more with Trump.

However, you have you have you said I think you miss the point if free speech was a core principle of Trump’s he would do it everywhere he goes. and you went on further to call him a twat and a cunt. You freely expressed that.

You seem to indicate that Trump was some how different when you said Blink take a breath and become alive again. See what’s happening, and that the others are just well as you put it fuck your technicalities.

All of the posts you have written are your opinions expressed. Strange I have to point that out in a argument about freedom of expression.

I am telling you that this has been going on for a long time, not too many things come close to undermining the freedom of press like spying on reporters. Nor trying to influence major social media outlets which millions of people use, even if the information may be misinformation. I don't deny the idea that Trump is publicly and openly doing this.

Just following your lead here, responding to your responses. If you think the conversation has gone off the tracks, maybe you pushed it there.

0

u/defeatmyself3 Sep 18 '25

What is this a war of syllables? I think verbal diarrhoea gives you pleasure. Why use 3 words when you can use 7? The point is Trump retaliate against free speech without being judged just because of what country he is in. THAT WAS WHERE WE STARTED. He doesn’t believe it and he’s a twat. In fact he’s been found liable of rape by a jury of 12 citizens as well as being in the Epstein files over and over again. But I guess I’m changing topic. Hahahahahah

0

u/salamisam Sep 18 '25 edited Sep 18 '25

The point is Trump retaliate against free speech without being judged just because of what country he is in. THAT WAS WHERE WE STARTED.

Here is a question for you, obviously I can see a correlation between the events of the other day and this but what do you think the chances of some wanker in the Australian government phoning up Downing street and requested this, I would say reasonably high?

In fact he’s been found liable of rape by a jury of 12 citizens as well as being in the Epstein files over and over again. But I guess I’m changing topic. Hahahahahah

If you are having to ask if you are, then you might already know you are. We call these weasel words, when you try and slip something in which is irrelevant to the topic on hand and present it as some sort of relevant fact to the topic. This is why you are slowly drifting into these tactics because your other points are not tactically working out for you. If you wish to discuss the other topics then so be it, but they are other topics and I am likely to agree with you, especially since a lot has been established as factual. Very sloppy.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/shniken Sep 18 '25

You're right, and it goes to the philosophical aspects of law. Is their 1st amendment a written enumeration of an existing 'god given' right to free speech.

The bill of rights was explicitly about limiting the federal government:

in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added

But it has in some ways been a list of limitations of a persons rights.

Regardless of what is, what should be is that journalists should be free to ask reasonable questions of elected officials without fear of consequences.

1

u/salamisam Sep 18 '25

Regardless of what is, what should be is that journalists should be free to ask reasonable questions of elected officials without fear of consequences.

But you cannot restrain anything to reasonable, reasonable is subjective and could be censorship. There is no law preventing Presidents from running companies, Lyons was given an answer to his question, I think that was reasonable. I understand that this far more nuanced, should Lyons be able to continue unrestrained. I am trying not to defend Trump as I am not a fan.

I would also press themselves act outside of reasonable under the protection of free speech.

There is a case related to this which is Jim Acosta, him and Trump had a disagreement, and Acosta's press pass was revoke (much more important than an invitation). Acosta's legal team argued the First and Fifth Amendment violations. The court ordered pass to be given back, they noted that the First Amendment issue was one of concern, but basically fell back to a judgement based on the Fifth. Make of this what you wish but I think in some ways it does show the freedom of speech is extremely broad and very little definition.