«12. . .824825826827828829830. . .2,1812,182»
I wonder why...
Seven Days Ago
"6 Dislikes"
The fu*k did I do to offend yah'll
Besides WERE the damn recruiters, stop whining and do something about it.
Ferguson turns on whether there was a SECOND attack.
Officer Wilson was attacked - his smashed eye shows that.
But did Mr Brown charge for a second attack - or did he stay back (just taunting Officer Wilson from a distance after the first attack).
That is the key issue to be decided - and I was not there (so I do not know).
Yay! I convinced people to let me on longer... I can be on for at east 30 Mins a day over the week.
nation=the_united_oman/detail=factbook/id=292650
Also regarding the poll I think the freedom to press is to win here because the guy is already dead and the family should not be able to control what the public sees.
The poll is clearly freedom of the press. The family is not being forced to watch those videos. The public needs to know what ISIS and Co are really all about.
Not that it will motivate Obama to do anything about it.
You probably didn't do anything. There are numerous trolls running around here that will dislike anything posted here or dislike anything posted by certain people.
I could post "have a nice day" and get at least four dislikes. Think of it as the cowards way to slap at you without getting slapped back.
I'm going to disagree with you Oman. The news story is that the journalist was beheaded and killed by the extremists who kidnapped him. The showing of the video is nothing but sensationalism to score viewers and web traffic for ad money. The family has a right to privacy and there is not a single journalist who is prevented from reporting on this story by withholding the actual video. The Freedom of the Press is not being infringed by keeping the video unseen. This issue falls in line for Right to Privacy to me.
Thank You, Bro.
In regards to the poll's subject, I would say that the issue here is the belief that freedom of speech applies to privately owned websites. After a quick Google search, I think Lifehacker says it fairly well:
http://lifehacker.com/5953755/what-exactly-is-freedom-of-speech-and-how-does-it-apply-to-the-internet
Now, it's definitely oriented towards Americans, but since the sites in question are US based, US law would apply.*
Basically, speech is generally protected from goverment censorship. If a guest in my house began to play videos of beheadings in front of young family members, they would find themselves sitting on the curb, censored.
(*If I'm wrong here, I'm sure you good people will correct me posthaste.)
I apologize for my absence in the last few weeks, real life events have taken a great amount of time away from my online activities. I would be more than okay if I were to be replaced and apologize for any disappointment or lack of results. I've never was able to get my head around the API system to send out telegrams.
If you wish for me to resign, that's fine, I haven't had time to be on as often as I liked.
Nothing to correct. You are dead on right. Free speech does not extend to free speech on private property. Anyone that disagrees with that should try waling around inside a shopping mall with a political or protest sign.
Sooo... Would you favor the government ordering these videos removed from the internet, forbid them from broadcast and stop publication of still frames from the video?
That isn't what is happening though and it's a different subject. This is the family having their legal representation having the videos taken down which is a right to privacy issue for the family. But to answer your question, it would come down to what the government was trying to remove. In this case, yes I would agree as it's protecting the rights of the family. If the government was trying to take it the next step and stop the entire story then that's a different issue. No one has told a single reporter that they couldn't write or broadcast as many stories as they want about the death of the reporter, merely that they not use the video. I don't see how actually seeing the head come off adds anything to the story what so ever.
I didn't find anything wrong with your statement Until you said.
That fact has an impact on what happens because if it was to show maybe him getting whacked around it wouldn't be that big of a deal but because he is getting his head cut off it is way more violent.
Sorry for the lack of RP on the newspaper guys, I've been busy. I'll try to get an article uploaded tomorrow but not promises
And after a brief hiatus, I'm back from my vacation in the Stone Age. How is everybody doing these days?
Has anyone ever had someone try to get into your account and you see the thing say how many attempts were made?
hello hows it hanging?
Great! You?
Nothing different about it. Having your lawyers go to court to have something that you do not own the rights to removed from the internet (or anywhere else) is the government doing it. Who do you think runs the court system and enforces the judge's decision?
Ok. Let us run with that idea. I think we can all agree that video is not something we are going to show at the next office Christmas party. I think we can all agree it is painful for the family to know the video is out there.
But once we start drawing lines, where do you think those lines will stop and who do you trust to draw those lines? So we drop that video because it offends the family. Then what?
Do we now have to drop every video and web page speaking out against Islam, Mohammad and Sharia Law because it mortally offends Muslims? Using your logic they would have far more standing then the family if for no other reason than there are several orders of magnitude more Muslims.
I would really be interested to hear who you think should be charged with making the decision of what you can and cannot see, read or listen to. I personally would not trust anyone Obama appointed to make that choice for me. Nor would I like to see any religious leader or civil activist making those choices for me. I'm certain there are those reading this that would cringe at the thought of having a Republican making the call for them as well.
So who do you chose?
Really? Can you point to the right you think is being violated? Please show us where that right appears within federal law or the US Constitution.
Every tome the matter comes up, the US Supreme Court consistently rules that government is specifically forbidden by the First Amendment from exercising any editorial control over content. Content is the product you see on the air, listen to over the radio or read in the paper (or on line). It seems to me the Commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission were the last group of federal bureaucrats to receive a collective tail kicking from the high court over trying to influence editorial control and content in broadcast news and talk radio.
What that means is this: If the management and staff of a news organization feel they need to run that video to get ratings... Errr... I meant to say "effectively tell the story," that is their call. No government entity or official may exercise any editorial control or pressure over that decision.
The bottom line is that we either have freedom of speech and freedom of the press or we don't. So far, we still have it. The upside to that freedom is there is no subject that is off the table, no view that can be officially shut down and no limit as to how far and wide one may carry their message.
The down side to that freedom is there are those that are going to use it irresponsibly. But we cannot have it both ways. We cannot muzzle the irresponsible and still have free speech and a free press. If we try that, eventually someone is going to get their feelings hurt and call it irresponsible when it is really nothing more then the truth.
The RMB is considerably less active than I remember it being. Is everyone on vacation, or what?
It's summer time. It always slows down in the summer.
Yup, but now its school....
School will help. Everyone knows that students routinely use Nation States to ignore their school works.
Darn right!
Ciao! How is everyone?
If the United States was serious about the First Amendment it would get rid of the FCC - it has been promoting a certain point of view (first on the radio then on television) since the 1930s. For example, in the early 1960s there was a rule change by the FCC (the Orwellian defence of it was to "defend creative freedom") forbidding outside companies "dictating" the content of the shows they funded (supposedly coal companies would produce entertainment shows with coal company executives as the heros - or whateve). This de facto handed over the television entertainment industry to a handful of people at ABC, CBS and NBC (all with the same narrow view of he world). Regulations supposedly to promote "freedom" and "diversity" actually do the opposite.
«12. . .824825826827828829830. . .2,1812,182»
Advertisement
