I Disagree With Shutting Down the Soapbox
-
I wonder why nearly every country is seeing their scores get worse year by year? If I were a betting man, I'd say Reporters Without Borders has an agenda. ;)
Nah, the climate is getting worse. And if the "Big protector of Freedom" doesn't give a shit anymore...
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
Litigation lawsuits are pretty common for example. They don't need any substance to take out a business, they just need to be expensive enough.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
Nah, the climate is getting worse. And if the "Big protector of Freedom" doesn't give a shit anymore...
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
Jörgen Andersson wrote:
And if the "Big protector of Freedom" doesn't give a sh*t anymore...
The US? Since when is it our responsibility to protect your freedom?
It isn't. But if no one cares that's what you get.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
We do as most countries do. But the system is that every newspaper (or other media) has a person that has personal responsibility over the content. And personally takes the punishment in case of breaking laws. But the newspaper remains in business.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
I wonder why nearly every country is seeing their scores get worse year by year? If I were a betting man, I'd say Reporters Without Borders has an agenda. ;)
Agenda? They're a french organization. Not possible to exist without an agenda. In a country where, if you use a non-french word and a french one exists, you get fined. In an EU that's let's the middle east mullah's censor their press. Ooops - sounds just like the soapbox!
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
It isn't. But if no one cares that's what you get.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
I'm going to disagree. The press (the US press anyway) has become more politically / socially biased over the last couple decades. The rise of the internet and decline of print media has lowered the bar in several ways. Anybody with a PC who can figure out how to blog calls themselves a journalist. For the sake of clicks (and advertising) they publish stories with no corroboration and no real evidence. Editorials and opinion pieces have become 80% of the content instead of the 20% they used to be. The public's opinion of the "news" media has been (deservedly) fading for a long time.
-
We do as most countries do. But the system is that every newspaper (or other media) has a person that has personal responsibility over the content. And personally takes the punishment in case of breaking laws. But the newspaper remains in business.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Jörgen Andersson wrote:
But the newspaper remains in business.
Many newspapers in the US have gone out of business but I have to believe that it was due to a decline in readers and advertisers as well as people getting more of their "news" from the internet and social media. I can't think of a newspaper that was sued out of business.
-
Jörgen Andersson wrote:
But the newspaper remains in business.
Many newspapers in the US have gone out of business but I have to believe that it was due to a decline in readers and advertisers as well as people getting more of their "news" from the internet and social media. I can't think of a newspaper that was sued out of business.
Peter Thiel vs Gawker is the first one that comes to mind.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
I'm going to disagree. The press (the US press anyway) has become more politically / socially biased over the last couple decades. The rise of the internet and decline of print media has lowered the bar in several ways. Anybody with a PC who can figure out how to blog calls themselves a journalist. For the sake of clicks (and advertising) they publish stories with no corroboration and no real evidence. Editorials and opinion pieces have become 80% of the content instead of the 20% they used to be. The public's opinion of the "news" media has been (deservedly) fading for a long time.
There you definitely have a point. But why isn't it affecting all countries?
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
Peter Thiel vs Gawker is the first one that comes to mind.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
There you definitely have a point. But why isn't it affecting all countries?
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Because in a lot of countries, the news is (and always has been) carefully controlled. The US is simply catching up to the status quo - state-run news media...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
There you definitely have a point. But why isn't it affecting all countries?
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Jörgen Andersson wrote:
But why isn't it affecting all countries?
I think it is or will very soon. The US just shines it's spotlight a little brighter at times. If you're lucky the US press/media/quasi-journalists will serve as a "what not to do" for y'all before it's too late.
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Neither does yours
Wrong.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
you think the American way of doing things is the only way of doing things.
Wrong.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Different countries have different legal structures and just because one country doesn't exactly mimic your legal structure doesn't mean they don't have your rights.
Thank you Captain Obvious.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
You don't even understand your *own* laws,
Wrong.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
yet you are attacking the laws of other countries?
Wrong.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Why should you need laws that tell you what you *can* do?
That shows your ignorance. :wtf: It's to protect the rights. :doh:
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
your implication that the US law protects your freedom of speech is an incorrect assumption on your part,
Wrong.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
No-one has created a law saying we can't speak freely, ergo we have protected freedom of speech
It's adorable that you believe that. Just the other day OG pointed out that his neighbor got ticked for calling his other neighbor a name. Ya, you have free speech. :laugh: :laugh: Boy, that was a wasted post. :zzz:
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other. Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
Nice attempt at deflecting away from the argument - now you know we do indeed have legal protections that guarantee free speech :thumbsup: Not that that's going to change what you post on here one iota.
-
Nice attempt at deflecting away from the argument - now you know we do indeed have legal protections that guarantee free speech :thumbsup: Not that that's going to change what you post on here one iota.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
now you know we do indeed have legal protections that guarantee free speech
No. I asked you for an example and you couldn't provide one. :doh:
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other. Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
now you know we do indeed have legal protections that guarantee free speech
No. I asked you for an example and you couldn't provide one. :doh:
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other. Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
I gave you two. Let me know how simply ignoring what people say when it proves you wrong works out for you.
-
I gave you two. Let me know how simply ignoring what people say when it proves you wrong works out for you.
Quote:
No-one has created a law saying we can't speak freely, ergo we have protected freedom of speech.
The problem is we clearly have different opinions on what free speech means.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other. Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
-
Quote:
No-one has created a law saying we can't speak freely, ergo we have protected freedom of speech.
The problem is we clearly have different opinions on what free speech means.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other. Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
No, we don't.
-
ZurdoDev wrote:
Show me another constitution that protects free speech.
Neither does yours :) Again this is your problem, you think the American way of doing things is the only way of doing things. Different countries have different legal structures and just because one country doesn't exactly mimic your legal structure doesn't mean they don't have your rights. You don't even understand your *own* laws, yet you are attacking the laws of other countries? Why should you need laws that tell you what you *can* do? Laws are for saying what you *can't* do and your 1st Amendment says the government *can't* impeded your right to speak - your implication that the US law protects your freedom of speech is an incorrect assumption on your part, the very premise of your argument is incorrect but I'll continue with the spirit of your argument. In the UK we have a common law "negative right" to free speech. No-one has created a law saying we can't speak freely, ergo we have protected freedom of speech. In addition to those century old rights we also have the more modern Human Rights Act which does explicitly grant freedom of speech, so we have both a "positive right" and a "negative right" to free speech.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
we also have the more modern Human Rights Act which does explicitly grant freedom of speech
Ask Tommy Robinson how his freedom of speech is going.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
We do as most countries do. But the system is that every newspaper (or other media) has a person that has personal responsibility over the content. And personally takes the punishment in case of breaking laws. But the newspaper remains in business.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Jörgen Andersson wrote:
But the newspaper remains in business.
Because a part of a newspaper's business is to understand local laws regarding publication and to adhere to them. No different from any other company....you have to know the laws that affect you. Newspapers generally stick within those laws, and while they have been sued occasionally it is generally an editorial piece, or something where they did blatantly disregard the law such as the reporting over the Covington kids. The extreme left newspapers think that faux outrage places them above the law.
