Meet the MSNBC Legal Eagle Who Proposes Destroying the Free Press

It's not on purpose, but Ari Melber's proposal to treat 'fake' news as consumer fraud would have devastating consequences.


Ari Melber

It's the early days of a presidency that has openly declared itself to be hostile to the media (and to be fair—the reverse is also true), and Ari Melber, MSNBC's legal correspondent and a lawyer, has what he thinks to be a brilliant idea—let's have the federal government get more involved in evaluating the legitimacy of news.

I'm not a big MSNBC viewer, but I'm fairly sure that they haven't suddenly become big supporters Donald Trump's presidency. That's not what Melber is going on about. Rather, what Melber has suggested is that the federal government, particularly the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), can use its authority to protect consumers from fraudulent advertising claims in order to fight the existence of "fake news." He suggests that by classifying disprovable media claims as fraudulent, the government has the authority to intervene. "Fraud" is not considered protected speech. He makes the case in a piece for the New Jersey State Bar Association:

To follow First Amendment precedents, the framework could limit the FTC to only regulating posted articles—not seeking prior restraints against future articles—and to only regulate businesses devoted to fraud news.

Legally, a focus on deceptive businesses keeps the FTC in the ballpark of commercial speech, patrolling deceptive practices taken in pursuit of commerce. During the election, the most popular fraud news sites were launched by business people, often abroad, enticed by the market online for political news. They were trying to make money, not express any particular view. …

Since these sites are clearly operating as businesses, it is logical to regulate their commerce and deceptive practices like any other business.

A focus on deceptive businesses would also keep the government away from meddling with actual journalists or citizens exercising their right to lie while engaged in politics.

Where to begin here. First of all most media outlets—whether legitimate or "fake"—are trying to make money, most were launched "by business people," and many are not trying to express any particular view. But some are. "Making money" and "expressing any particular view" are neither opposing choices, nor or they determinants of the validity of the existence of a media outlet. And that a media outlet might be a venture designed to make money doesn't mean it suddenly becomes exempt from the First Amendment protections that the government cannot censor the press.

But that's just semantics (and frustration at people who work in the media who think they aren't already engaged in acts of commerce). The much bigger, so much more important issue here is what it would actually look like were a government agency to decide that it can use a tool to fight consumer fraud to monitor the legitimacy of news.

We already saw what happened when the whole latest outburst about "fake news" happened during the election. People went looking for resources that separated "real" news from "fake" news and we ended up in a place where media outlets with heavily ideological slants were dumped in with media outlets that were deliberately making up stuff.

You don't have to go very far to determine what could happen when a politicized apparatus (and every government agency is partly political) can have control over what can be defined as "fraud" when it comes to information. You don't even have to leave this site! Several attorneys general for states across the country have teamed up to go after ExxonMobil for its participation in the larger debate over climate change. They have decided to attempt to prove that ExxonMobil knew more about what was going on with the burning of fossil fuels and the environment and deliberately attempted to mislead investors and customers. They are attempting to reclassify the debate (free speech) as deliberate consumer fraud (not free speech).

To do so, they've attempted to subpoena decades of communications between ExxonMobil and various policy groups in order to fish for information they hope will make that case. One of the policy groups targeted is the Reason Foundation, the nonprofit think tank that publishes Reason.com and Reason magazine. Reason was dragooned into a highly politicized case where government officials deliberately attempted to reclassify public debate as "fraud" in order to target a disliked business. One of the AGs involved, Kamala Harris, is now a United States senator.

Given Trump's general attitude toward the press and his propensity to declare unflattering coverage to be fake or fraudulent, you don't have to be either a lawyer or a journalist to recognize the very, very bad potential consequences of Melber's proposal. Nobody should make the mistake of assuming that the FTC's behavior would be a value-neutral analysis of truth vs. falsehood. Our government has an extremely lengthy history of applying regulatory pressure in ways that favor whoever is in power and the allies of said people.

Since the left these days is quick to point out the ties between Trump and Russia, let's remind folks like Melber that Russia passed a law classifying discussions of gay relationships in the media (and the public) as propaganda and criminalized it, meaning that the government sees the concept of same-sex couples and families as a fraudulent proposal. If you give the government the power to decide what news is "fake," you will create an environment where people will very quickly want to weaponize it for their own ends.

NEXT: California Mayor Says There's 'No Rational Justification' For City's Six-Figure Pensions

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Well I think it’s a great idea.

    1. Tell us more.

    2. Not surprised coming from a fucktard like you….

  2. Better wait until Trump’s out of office there MSNBC, you just might not like the results.

    1. WaPo, NYT, and CNN hardest hit.

    2. They’re still fighting the previous battle.

  3. Our local paper’s founding statement:

    “To fear God, tell the truth and make money.”

    /Hosea C. Paddock

    1. “but not in that order!”

  4. ‘Given Trump’s general attitude toward the press and his propensity to declare unflattering coverage to be fake or fraudulent, you don’t have to be either a lawyer or a journalist to recognize the very, very bad potential consequences of Melber’s proposal’
    Would it be OK with Obama or Hillary?

    1. Are either of them currently President?

  5. “I’m not a big MSNBC viewer”

    Neither is anyone else

    1. I think Michael Moore fits that description.

      1. he’s a BIG viewer of everything, the fat fuck…

  6. Christ, what an asshole.

    1. Leave Shackford alone.

      1. Sorry, Shackelford.

        1. Rusty Shackleford.

          1. Sounds like a sex move.

        2. Melber is the asshole, obviously. Shackalacka, that guy is alright.

  7. Gosh, I wonder why commentators on Reason were happy to have a Republican nominating a Supreme Court justice rather than Hillary or Gary ‘I like Souter’ Johnson. It baffles the mind

    1. Probably because Hillary is so hostile to the first and second amendments and Johnson was never going to win.

  8. It’s almost as if…wait for it…the progressives are a greater threat to the media than a thin-skinned Trump who has merely suggested a change to libel laws. This must be baffling to Reason’s writers who think their colleagues are just slightly misinformed, but generally good people. But many of those you go cocktailing with are, in fact, slimy pieces of shit who don’t care about freedom or silly things like principles.

    Obama laid the groundwork for this weeks before the election, and I’d bet my left nut that he coordinated with the media and tech giants (Google) in doing it. Reason missed the boat on that as they were too busy harping on remarks about grabbing pussy. When right wing rags like the Daily Caller are doing a better job covering the current political landscape, you really need to look in the mirror, Reason.

    1. It’s not on purpose

      Why are you giving these people the benefit of the doubt? If it smells like shit, looks like shit, and presumably tastes like shit, it’s probably shit. Everything about this cry about fake news stinks of a coordinated effort among these hacks. It makes sense for them from a business standpoint and fits in very nicely with their desire to have an ideological strangehold on the nation. They want the FCC regulating the internet. Plenty of them would sign up for hate speech laws. But Reason refuses to call a spade a fucking spade while printing Nick’s schitzo-dystopian prediction as to what Trump may do.

      1. They aren’t intelligent enough to be given that kind of credit, especially because evil Trump could theoretically control the FTC, and therefore the news.

        1. I dunno, can he control it?
          He can appoint the guy/gal (as if) in charge but that’s about it, right? What the minions do is out of his control, and they can fuck up his preferred policy forty different ways.
          I.e. you can have IRS in Cleveland target right-wing groups under Trump just as well as under Obama. How long does it take to figure out it’s going on in the first place, and then how long before the internal machinery can be forced to do what you order it? And if multiple departments start doing it at the same time, does the office of the president have enough time and resources to go after them all?

          1. A rougue bureaucracy deliberately defying and going against the wishes of the administration. That’ll end well. I’ve long thought that when/ if a coup d’etat ever happens in this country it won’t be the military, but the civilian bureaucracy that does it. And it may not even be violent. Just the unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy acting on its own, the president be damned.

            The only questions are: will “the people” even notice? And if they (we) do, what then?

            1. The only questions are: will “the people” even notice? And if they (we) do, what then?

              We’ve reached a point where there is outrage when the bureaucracy doesn’t openly defy the President. And when the President fires somebody who is being openly insubordinate? Outrage as well.

              1. and backlash, don’t forget the backlash…

          2. I dunno, can he control it?

            As it stands now, not really, although who knows how much the commissioner system drives policy. But, if the FTC was determining “news truth,” it would become a different organization all together, so I assume those in power would wield a lot of control over it.

        2. should have stopped after the third word and left it at that…

  9. “It’s not on purpose . . .”

    It never is.

  10. That alt-text can go on 70% of articles. Well done, Scott.

  11. “It’s not on purpose,…” you sure about that?

  12. It’s not on purpose, but Ari Melber’s proposal to treat ‘fake’ news as consumer fraud would have devastating consequences.

    Are you sure it’s not on purpose? What’s that saying: “foreseeable consequences aren’t unforeseen,” or something like that? Pretty sure that’s one of the Iron Laws.

    1. I’m sure that Melber doesn’t realize that his proposal will hurt the people he doesn’t think of as purveying fake news, while Scott is presenting an argument that it most assuredly will.

  13. Too late, the destruction is complete.
    As usual, late to the party.

  14. OT: Skenazy red meat. Or Rico red meat?

    1. Kindergarten Boys Can’t Play With Legos Because “Gender Equality”

      I’m going to call Skenazy. Rico doesn’t do pre-school*.

      (*other than to occasionally borrow from lean heavily on its rhetorical methods)

      1. I’m going to call Skenazy. Rico doesn’t do pre-school*.

        He absolutely does. What do you think he’s been covering the last couple of years? You think all the whiny kids he covers are adults?

      2. It’s Skenazy-Suave intersectionality!

        (I love that Chrome does not recognize the validity of the word “intersectionality”. I’m gonna give this info to some prog college students and sit back and watch the show.)

        1. You are a terrible person, KK. I like that.

          1. Back atchya!

        2. Reason could’ve rolled all the immigration shit into one big bag, lit it on fire and set it on our doorstep.

          1. ding-dong…

        3. That ought to keep ’em distracted for a couple of minutes. Kind of like cats playing with laser pointers.

    2. Interesting that the teacher’s solution to promoting “gender equity” isn’t to take away the dolls and encourage the girls to play with the Legos but to ban the boys from playing with the Legos entirely.

      “Keller claims that she sees her social experiments as “fair” because “fair is getting what you need to succeed or to get better.””


      1. I know that if I were a parent, I would love my kids’ teachers performing unauthorized, unscientific “social experiments” on them!

        1. (includes new “Lego Architecture” series set into lunchbox every day)

        2. If I were a parent, that teacher would soon find herself pulling my boot out of her ass and that school would find itself with one less student (thankfully CO has open enrollment and lots of charter schools).

        3. in return can we practice medical experimentation on the teachers?

      2. How are legos exclusively a boy’s interest?

        1. They’re not. It’s just that the girls in her class were more attracted to the dolls, so she decided to force them to play with Legos, while at the same time depriving the boys of Legos.

    3. That meat’s green and fuzzy by now. OFN. Kinda funny that anyone got around to talking about it today.

      1. Aye – that story is from 2015.

  15. During the election, the most popular fraud news sites were launched by business people, often abroad, enticed by the market online for political news.

    If only we could ban foreign fake news from immigrating to these shores. Maybe we need some like extreme vetting?

    1. Like the NY Times?

      1. nah, they’re just dumb fucks, not fake fucks…

  16. I’m not surprised a kike lawyer is behind this

    1. Note to lurkers: Hail Rataxes is a troll who spews nonsense and insults onto every thread. Their views do not represent the views of this commentariat, who support an ideology founded mostly by Jews.

      1. Spoken like a kike lawyer.

        1. You moron. Kike is a soccer player, not a lawyer.

          1. I thought he was a utility player for the Dodgers.

        2. Yes, yes, mindless idiot prattle, we get it.

          1. But mostly make it.

            1. Hi again

      2. Note to lurkers: Hail Rataxes is a troll who spews nonsense and insults onto every thread.

        Just like Tupla?

        1. Tulpa at least tries to be coherent and fails, you could replace Hail with a chatbot and it would significantly improve the quality of their posts.

          1. Sounds more like Mary Stack’s newest sock.

      3. Of all the vibes one might get from the H?R comment section, antisemitic ain’t one. Is there a lobotomy requirement before trolling here?

        1. Pretty sure most of our trolls didn’t have a brain to begin with, so no lobotomy required.

          1. optional lobotomy…cool band name!

    2. Beware the Evil Juice!

  17. OT: on Shermer s site, George Michael writes:

    “To its critics, the alt-right is just a code term for white nationalism, a much-maligned movement associated with neo-Nazis and Klansmen.3 The movement, however, is more nuanced, as it encompasses a much broader spectrum of rightist activists and intellectuals besides white nationalists including those who believe in libertarianism, men’s rights, cultural conservatism, isolationism, and populism. Nonetheless, its origins can be traced to various American white nationalist movements that have endured for decades.

    1. And those who have blue eyes and those who have brown eyes!
      Do I have to connect the dots for you?

    2. Radix is full of ‘ex-libertarians’ who go “yeah, libertopia would be great and all that, but only if we manage to keep the blacks out.”

      Siding with white nationalists is like siding with progressives, an open rejection of libertarian principles.

    3. VoxDay might not be the Pope of Alt-Right, but he’s at least its Martin Luther, what with nailing his points to the metaphorical church door.
      And point 2 says

      It [alt-right] is also an alternative to libertarianism.

      1. The state is an alternative to libertarianism.

      2. The alt-right has a bunch of cheerleaders who want to pull a bunch of diverse groups together into a coherent bloc to push policy a la progressives. It makes sense considering even the white nationalists are a vague collection of different ideologues arguing about whether Christianity or Germanic paganism is the true white religion. I get the feeling the ‘libertarians’ they’re talking about are of the ‘look, we should be able to do whatever we want, but in a white homeland, because collectivism’ variety.

      3. It [alt-right] is also an alternative to libertarianism.

        Count me as an anti-Papist.

      4. I.e. no, you can be alt-right, or libertarian, but not both, if either word is to have a meaning.

        1. meaning? meaning? what is meaning?

      5. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.

        The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.

        But don’t call us White Nationalists, but that’s somehow inaccurate.

        The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.

        American is for white people. Anyone else that comes here is begging to be molested.

        1. Yup, that’s why I don’t have much sympathy for “but, alt-right is not so bad, they’re not all racist….”
          They are so bad. Don’t like it? Shoulda nailed the points and claimed the term first. At least Vox Luther is kind enough to let you use alt-light.
          Don’t like SJWs? Great! Awesome! Go get them! But that don’t make me like you (and if you’re honest with yourself, I’m out the door/into an oven once you’re done with Jews and Gypsies, your professed love of Putin notwithstanding), any more than agreeing on “gay marriage is a fine thing” makes me like Anita Sarkeesian.
          It’s also why Milo can’t be alt-right, what with being Jewish.

          1. I don’t understand the “alternative to libertarianism” at all. Even the one or two points that aren’t completely antithetical to liberty, individualism and self-ownership are completely undercut by all the rest.

            It mostly just seems like re-branded Third Way Socialism, which was nothing but re-branded American Bund Naziism.

            1. I think he means “alternative” as in “different way to look at the world”, not “you can use this to substitute for” . Point 2 says, just before

              The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk’s 10 Conservative Principles, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism.

              What he is saying is, if you want to be “alt-right” you can’t be “mainstream” or “libertarian” conservative. This is a separate political movement, not a stream inside an existing one.

              1. What he is saying is, if you want to be “alt-right” you can’t be “mainstream” or “libertarian” conservative. This is a separate political movement, not a stream inside an existing one.

                That makes much more sense. Whew. We don’t need more fucksacks claiming to be libertarian than we are already saddled with.

                1. Funnily enough, I think I remember seeing somewhere Vox is a former libertarian. I mean, who else would even remember to add “libertarianism” to his political manifesto?

                  1. Within the Rep/Dem duopoly there has always been the strange breed of people who call themselves “libertarian” because they “don’t like paying taxes for them thar nigger babies.”

                2. need new fuck-sacks for all the different flavors of fucktards…

            2. What even is an “alternative to libertarianism,” aside from one flavor or another of authoritarianism?

    4. They seem to be making a few friends, anyway…

      Why the alt-right is right

    5. I thought George Michael’s boyfriend killed him?

    6. I’m pretty sure alt-right covers all the people whose beliefs are right-wing, but not well represented in the political establishment. Before too long, Christian Right socons are gonna be alt-right.

      1. No, there is that problem, but these are the alt-right defining themselves, not projection about their beliefs by their ideological opponents.

        These fuckers are a cancer.

        1. No, SF, not all of them.

      2. I would say that is correct. Alt-right is anyone who became dissalusioned with the republican establishment. While that may include many groups with diverging interests, none of them hold a true claim. Given the belief that the alt-right holds power now many of those sub groups are attempting to claim they are the true alt right, but it’s bullshit.

  18. Gee, MSNBC employee turns out to be a fascist statist. In other news, water found to be wet.

  19. “MSNBC correspondent demands that they be taken off the air.”

  20. “Since these sites are clearly operating as businesses, it is logical to regulate their commerce and deceptive practices like any other business.”

    MSNBC included, I assume?

    1. nah, now way MSNBC could be considered a business in any meaningful sense…but I would consider them a disgusting collection of fucktards, slime balls and jackasses…is there a collective noun for the intersectionality of that population? yes… a douchebag of MSNBC reporters and editors…

  21. Authoritarian’s gonna authoritarian. This man would fit right in on a soviet cadre. I’m impressed at Scott’s restraint here not to call it like it is but I guess that’s why they earn a paycheck.

    1. It’s ok, they cooed. Only four years to go. We can make it! Our Top Man will be back on top, the toppest of tops. The power is not the problem. Just the one wielding it.



      Eight years.

  22. I often wonder why progs don’t think through the consequences of their policies. Maybe they really are infected with the view that they’re on “the right side of history” and thus the feds who enforce the “fake news” regs will all be good socialists.

    If they read any history of socialist nations they might not be so sanguine about that either.

    1. There is no question that they believe, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that they are unequivocally on the “right side” of history,

      They will never imagine the iron law that says what you empower a government to do unto others, will inevitably be done unto you.

    2. It’s only a function of getting the right men to do the job. And the press always considers themselves and those they support to be the right men.

  23. let’s have the federal government get more involved in evaluating the legitimacy of news

    But remember, the left is super worried about fascism.

    Something something dark night, falling something landing on something.

  24. I really wish more people would remind the left that the 1st Amendment doesn’t just protect the right of news corporations to write news or opinion. It isn’t freedom of the press as in The Press. It is freedom of the printing press to publish whatever you gods damn want to without the government punishing you for it. (Which is obviously different than the market determining if people actually want to pay to read your dribble.)

  25. You know what cracks me up about these crazy kids? They’ve finally got the gun pointed at their own forehead, and they’re demanding the caliber of the bullet be increased.

    They’re nothing if not consistent.

  26. 1a says what?

  27. Early entrant for The Woodchipper Award.


    What a nasty little bunch of tyrannical scum bucket opportunists the lawyers after Exxon are. They qualify to for entry into The Inferno.

  28. Nobody should make the mistake of assuming that the FTC’s behavior would be a value-neutral analysis of truth vs. falsehood

    Stupid Stankler, his idea would work if the right people were running the FTC. I am thinking a small group of highly respected journalists and well-respected politicians would do a fine job at determining the true facts.

  29. If the guy is affiliated with MSNBC then you can bet it’s intentional. That’s the network of liberal fascists who absolutely detest anyone doing anything unless they have either asked the government for permission or been given orders by government. Well, so long as their team is in control of government that is. And I don’t use the word fascist hyperbolically here. I mean it. These are authoritarians who would cheerfully have government agents murder anyone who they disagree with.

    1. +1 day to be like China: Tom Friedman

  30. “If you give the government the power to decide what news is “fake,” do anything you will create an environment where people will very quickly want to weaponize it for their own ends.”

  31. What the hell is that doing on the website of the New Jersey State Bar Association, anyways? You’d hope they’d know better.

    1. You don’t know NJ attorneys as well as I do. They’ve lucky if they know that there is a constitution.

  32. Nobody should make the mistake of assuming that the FTC’s behavior would be a value-neutral analysis of truth vs. falsehood. Our government has an extremely lengthy history of applying regulatory pressure in ways that favor whoever is in power and the allies of said people.

    Melber seems to be under the delusion that the FTC, and really the entire federal bureaucracy will always be on “his side” and therefore will only ever go after and punish his side’s enemies. You’d think last November 8th would have disabused him of that notion, but clearly he’s a mental deficient incapable of learning anything. What a fucking tool.

    1. See my comment above. At least they’re consistent.

  33. I’m shocked that people who want to overturn Citizens United, and regulate the internet, would suggest such a thing. Shocked, I tells ya.

  34. OT: Trump freezing out CNN over “fake news.”


    1. What, he’s gonna get Twitter to shadowban him to CNN?

  35. And FFS, the President has NO legal or constitutional responsibilities to hold press conferences with anointed members of the glitterati. He has to provide a State of the Union message to Congress once per year (and that can be written) and that’s pretty much it. It is up to whoever wants to say whatever the hell they want to about the President and let the people decide how much stock they want to put in it.

    This really isn’t rocket science. Of course, it is about money (which the left finds so disgusting, except when they are the ones who stand to make or lose it).

    1. “But, but…the people’s right to know.” [faints] /prog

    2. I would love to see a President someday who doesn’t hold press conferences, delivers the state of the union to Congress in writing, whose written SOTU is limited to things like “We spent XXX amount of money on ________, YYY amount of money on __________, incurred ZZZ amount of debt, etc.”

      IOW, only carried out the duties of the office as specified in the constitution. No more, no less. Of course, I can keep dreaming too. Never gonna happen.

  36. The alt-right seeks the utter destruction of the left, while Reason tries to build bridges to them and stabilize their freefall like a shit-stained parachute, parroting their unprincipled talking points. They should be our allies, we are told.

    Shack extends the olive branch and says “summon the liberaltarians!”

    And the shitposters croak in Pepe voices “no!”

    Fascists in the commentariat! Fascists everywhere!

    1. It would proably help if so many people would stop reading the articles like they are paranoids scanning the classified ads for secret messages from the Evil Progmonsters of the Bad Faith Nebula.

      1. Evil Progmonsters of the Bad Faith Nebula


        1. I thought that episode of Warty Hugeman was a little weak.

          1. Not every at bat can be a homerun.

      2. I missed an opportunity to shitpost on the last one:

        Looking for a Left/Libertarian Alliance Against Trump? Maybe Rethink Reflexive ‘#DeleteUber’ Reactions

        There will obviously be places of intersection between libertarians and the left?places where we’ve been on the same team even before Trump, like criminal justice reform, immigration, and the scaling back of the drug war. But unless the left is willing to reconsider its relationship with authority and its desire to want to use power to punish its opponents (which occasionally includes libertarians, lest we forget), what are libertarians supposed to see as the endgame of all this?

        It’s a nice dream that we can work together with the left for liberty. But the left has shown that they’re deeply-committed enemies of liberty. If I must choose between helping build back up what was crumbled and maybe “convincing” a few liberaltarian turncoats to help us, and seeking their utter destruction while they’re down and bleeding out on the ground, I choose the latter. Not because I’m vicious, but because I’ve fucking had enough. We’ve lost so much ground to these fucks, and we simper and whine like a kicked puppy and beg for collusion.

        1. We just want George Clooney to say one nice thing about us.

          1. He decided not to wreck The Diamond Age via SyFy miniseries, does that count as a ‘nice thing’?

        2. We watched as the commentariat exploded in anger over Johnson/Weld. “Dilution of our purity!” was the mantra. Now we seek to sooth the left and somehow bring them into the fold.

          Go out to the front lines and see that if there is anything they hate more than Trump right now, it’s us. That is not a pool from which to seek allies. The Koch machine is trying this strategy right now, and it’s plain as day. We send out messengers to an enemy that shoots messengers, as if that has ever worked at any point in the past. I want a lot of things they want, but this is just a failed battle plan that has been tried to no avail countless times before.

          Divide our enemies. Drive them before us.

          1. Now, back to my regularly scheduled shitposting.

            Vive la shitposts!

            1. Viva la REEEsistance!

          2. what about the lamentations of their women?

            1. I wish to hear the dulcet tones of their destruction. Why single out one instrument when you can have a symphony?

      3. It would proably help if so many people would stop reading the articles

        I thought this was standard operating procedure for the Commentariat?

        1. Wouldn’t we have to start reading the articles first?

          1. fuck that noise…


          1. Warms the cuckolds in their hearts.

      4. We all know you typed that while wearing your Obama pajamas clutching a mug with the “I’m with Her” logo and preparing to worship at your shrine to Elizabeth Warren, SugarFree.

        1. “Obama pajamas”

          Poetic. I like it. The ones patterned with murder drones chasing down children.

          And if you didn’t have a shrine to Elizabeth Warren, how else would you use your blanket to send her smoke signals?

          You should have mentioned Fake News CNN on in the background.

    2. And the shitposters croak in Pepe voices “no!”

      “Kek”! Pepe says Kek!

      Hmm… Cow Says Moo, Pepe Says Kek….could be a market in preschool shitposting books…

      1. I must’ve missed the Pepe line in that stupid song. Fun fact: what the fox REALLY says is [devil sounds].

        1. Interesting that he turns his ears backwards each time, as if to avoid the sound of his own voice.

          1. Can you blame him?

      2. “Kek” or “cack”?

    3. But if it weren’t for shitposts, many folk’d have nothing to post at all! Would you deny us their essence?

      1. not to mention their precious bodily fluids…

    4. I think “Shack” said that, as awesome as it would be to fight government abuses with half the country on our side instead of 3%, the left hasn’t even bothered to pretend it cares about freedom this time around. They want total power, they are entitled to total power, and they will fucking destroy the country unless their birthright is given to them.

      1. That was certainly how I interpreted his “…Left/ Libertarian Alliance…” from the other day, but apparently a lot of other people saw it as nothing more than another example Reason’s rampant… cuckholdishness (not a real word).

        1. cuckholdishness (not a real word).

          Cuckoldry. That’s the word you’re seeking.

      2. There are probably many more of us than 3%. That was just the number who had enough balls to pull the trigger at the voting booth knowing that they were going to lose no matter how they voted. It was an “up yours” to the calculus of our electoral structure.

        The proggies are on the run. Their screeching is music to the carnivores. We can feed with the wolves, or bleat with the fucking sheep.

        1. Well… if the progressives really do end up on the ash heap of history (we can only hope), then I expect there will be a split on the right, and one of those factions may well end up being more amenable to our preferences than either the current right or the commies.

  37. A leftie advocating a government agency convert to the Ministry of Truth. Who could have seen that coming?

    1. They really do think 1984 was an instruction manual.

  38. You do not have to dislike Trump to think that this a noxious idea either. In fact, the awfulness of this idea has nothing to do with any particular public official. The government cannot be trusted with such authority, period.

    But I do rhink this is symptomatic of the Left today. They implicitly trust the government, because they have convinced themselves that the permanent bureaucracy is the only institution that can be reliably disinterested on any subject. It is nonsense, of course, but they honestly seem to believe that.

  39. Wait, Mr. Shackford. You’re supposed to be a cosmo and a prog sympathizer. How could you say something critical about MSNBC? Won’t that mean you will now get disinvited to the cocktail parties?

  40. Some dipshit caller on an NPR show a few years back said he really thought that there were too many choices when it came to news media. I think this is what he was getting at.

    1. We don’t need 23 choices of deodorant.

      1. Particularly when you don’t even use one.

        Recall the powerful stench of Occupy Wall Street.

  41. Where would progs be now if the FTC blocked stories because of dubious (at the time at least) claims about secondhand smoke and global warming back in the 80s?

  42. Ari Melber, MSNBC’s legal correspondent and a lawyer, has what he thinks to be a brilliant idea?let’s have the federal government get more involved in evaluating the legitimacy of news.

    MSNBC obligingly fires up the woodchippers. Maybe they’ll volunteer to leap in too.

  43. Better wait until Trump’s out of office there MSNBC, pokemon go 1.25.0, iOS 10.2 jailbreak tweaks.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.