Corporate media conspiracy unfolds after CNN declares NO COMMENTARY ALLOWED on Trump-Biden debate

The first presidential debate for the 2024 election cycle is scheduled to air on CNN on June 27, and the fake news giant is already threatening Americans with lawsuits if they attempt to broadcast or add their own commentary to it.

Hosted by Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, the debate is strictly off-limits to live streamers who want to use any footage or audio for editorial purposes. According to CNN, the entire debate will be copyrighted, meaning only CNN is allowed to provide commentary on it.

Defying the longtime fair use doctrine, CNN insists that Americans be prohibited from exercising their free speech rights with regard to the debate, which is supposed to serve the public interest.

“CNN is now threatening any social channels that provide commentary on the debate stating they will not allow the use outside of CNN,” announced commentator Tim Pool on X.

“Commentary on a presidential debate is the epitome of fair use and we fully intend to provide insight and real-time fact-checking Thursday LIVE.”

(Related: Did you know that CNN wants to limit the amount and frequency of travel for Americans: “Carbon passports may be the answer?”)

CNN only restricting INDEPENDENT media from covering debate

CNN responded to Pool’s X post by reiterating the network’s overly restrictive control over the debate:

“Confirming that we are offering digital platforms the ability to stream the debate only via CNN YouTube. We are not granting digital entities the right to stream the debate on their own YouTube channels. I hope that helps.”

Saagar Enjeti from Breaking Points also confirmed via X that CNN is not allowing independent media channels to stream the presidential debate “despite granting permission to all other terrestrial news organizations.”

“A blatant protection racket to protect elite media,” Enjeti added alongside a screenshot of CNN‘s email correspondence.

The fair use doctrine is a portion of copyright law in the United States that allows for the limited use of copyrighted material without having to obtain permission from the rights holders.

“This includes uses such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research,” Reclaim The Net says.

“The principle aims to balance the interests of copyright holders with the broader public interest, promoting freedom of expression and innovation in the process.”

There are three compelling arguments as to why debate commentary must be considered fair use:

• The nature of a presidential debate is one of undeniable public importance in that it is pivotal in shaping public opinion and informing voters about where candidates stand on important issues.
• Commentary and live analysis of debates adds incredible value to the voting process by providing educational insights, critical analysis, and fact-checking.

“This transformational use differs markedly from simply rebroadcasting the debate,” Reclaim the Net explains. “It serves an educational purpose and often uses only as much of the original work as is necessary to provide effective commentary.”

• Commentary and critique complement an original debate broadcast – they don’t replace it. Neither diminishes the market for the original, in other words, and some would argue that commentary and critique increase audience engagement with the original debate footage.

To restrict commentary and critique as CNN is trying to do infringes on the public’s right to engage in political discourse, this being a fundamental tenet of a representative democracy. Then again, when has CNN ever supported representative democracy?

Elon Musk of Tesla agrees that the public has a right to watch presidential debates in whatever way they wish, including with commentary and critique. In this case, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) does not apply.

The latest news about the 2024 presidential election can be found at Rigged.news.

Sources for this article include:

ReclaimTheNet.org

NaturalNews.com