• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CNN Host Calls for Crackdown on 'Bloggers' in Wake of Sherrod Incident:

jujuman13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Continuation of thread Title.
'Something’s Going to Have to be Done Legally'

Link
http://www.debatepolitics.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=130

Quote(Should there be a "gatekeeper" regulating internet bloggers? In the aftermath of the Shirley Sherrod incident, that's what CNN promoted on July 23.

Anchors Kyra Phillips and John Roberts discussed the "mixed blessing of the internet," and agreed that there should be a crackdown on anonymous bloggers who disparage others on the internet.)

I can think of a couple of reasons why people especially in the 'News' industry might suppose this to be a good idea and one that the administration might think of instituting.
1) It would remove at a stroke one of the Constitutions main points.
Right to FREE speech.
2) It would remove any news item being disseminated except by those who are in the 'News' industry, thus perpetuating their jobs and freeing them from any competition.
3) It would muzzle any criticism of CNN and others of similar ilk.
I am certain there are many other reasons why these two 'clowns' would think it a good idea.
There are already sufficient laws in this country to protect anyone who might feel they are being abused online.
I wonder how other bloggers feel about these proposals,, are they in favor or against?
 

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
32,304
Reaction score
36,348
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Free Speech is one thing, but when its used to, essentially destroy someones life, wrongfully, then something has to be done, but I believe there are already options for recourse in these cases. Something needs to be done legally, but between the individuals involved in this matter.

Having said that, the damage people can do to each other over the internet is becoming immeasurable, and sometimes once that damage is done, its hard to reverse.
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
22,252
Reaction score
9,867
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There is free speech and their is libel.

When a blogger cross's over to libel, the blogger's should be punished like any other
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
It's no joke.They are chipping away at free speech.
Here are some clues off the top of my head
REMEMBER WHEN
Obama told his administration not to go on Drudge
Obama told us to read Huffington post
Obama told us to stop watching cable news
The WH was asking you to report any "misrepresentations" of the HC bill to them
The fairness doctrine kept being brought up
They changed that to "localization and diversity"
Glenn Beck boycotts
Goldline being brought before Congress
The journolist talking about ways the government should get Fox off the air
The TSA ? being told they weren't allowed to go to any "controvertial" websites
Now, if I'm not mistaken, Obama has the Power to completely shut down the internet in case of a "crisis"
 

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Free speech for everyone, unless you're a conservative.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Free Speech is one thing, but when its used to, essentially destroy someones life, wrongfully, then something has to be done, but I believe there are already options for recourse in these cases. Something needs to be done legally, but between the individuals involved in this matter.

Having said that, the damage people can do to each other over the internet is becoming immeasurable, and sometimes once that damage is done, its hard to reverse.

Dan Rather should face criminal charges?
 

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
11,626
Reaction score
4,189
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Free Speech is one thing, but when its used to, essentially destroy someones life, wrongfully, then something has to be done, but I believe there are already options for recourse in these cases. Something needs to be done legally, but between the individuals involved in this matter.

Having said that, the damage people can do to each other over the internet is becoming immeasurable, and sometimes once that damage is done, its hard to reverse.

It's akin to identity theft...once compromised it's very difficult to correct it or recover from the damage inflected. Still, I think the only true recourse as far as "journalism" is concerned is for the media to simply check their sources and verify the accuracy of the information being reported. If proved to be inaccurate, the individual being wrongfully accused has the right to file a liable lawsuit to recoup damages. Might take awhile for the suit to be taken up in court, but if a large enough settlement is set it just may set a precedent whereby others will think twice about what they claim is factual before posting it online or anywhere else for that matter. Otherwise, I don't think one will ever be about to set very many legal controls on blogging, if any, due to the 1st Amendment.
 
Last edited:

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
29,961
Reaction score
17,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
They have always had difficulty figuring out who qualifies as a blogger and who qualifies as a journalist, and the ethics surrounding it.
That being said, a great deal of the time, it would be helpful if the mainstream media would be more reluctant to grab onto internet headlines and rumors.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Seems that the only damage done was the amazing incedible rush by the Obama Administration to fire this woman based on nothing but a rumor. Their failure to ascertain the facts before acting is typical of this gang, except when rapid action is needed, like when a million gallon oil spill is in progress in the Gulf of Mexico. For some strange reason, when something real happens, something that causes real harm to the United States, it's economy, and it's people, the Obama people have as much urge to move rapidly as a barnacle.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It's already been said but I'm pretty sure libel laws are in place to let people take action if someone has crossed the line, but even then it's up to the individual to take action. I wholeheartedly disagree that blog laws need to be created anymore than I think free speech laws need to be created.

And on another note, this is why I am completely against government and corporation regulation of the internet. Once one group gains control, then it is susceptible to public outcries and policy formations. The internet should remain FREE and NEUTRAL. If someone is badmouthing you, then sue them!

It should never be the place of nanny government to censor websites on your behalf. I don't care how damaging the material is. Take care of it yourself.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
77,280
Reaction score
32,873
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Free Speech is one thing, but when its used to, essentially destroy someones life, wrongfully, then something has to be done, but I believe there are already options for recourse in these cases. Something needs to be done legally, but between the individuals involved in this matter.

Having said that, the damage people can do to each other over the internet is becoming immeasurable, and sometimes once that damage is done, its hard to reverse.

Now really...isnt that just a little bit dramatic? How was the internet used to destroy her life? Hell...on our happy little patch of internetland we had several people here saying woah...easy...not so fast...its not that big a deal and wasnt 'racist'. But the NAACP...who had access tot he whole tape...just barged right out there and condemned the woman without reviewing anything. Without conducting ANYTHING even REMOTELY resembling due dilligence the administration kneejerk fired the woman (ok...demanded she retire). How do you blame the internet for the andministration and NAACP acting stupidly? Hell...at work we have investigations if there are allegations of wrongdoing. The parties involved were in the wrong...and have blamed everyone else.
 

Vader

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
8,260
Reaction score
1,064
Location
Whitewater, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Continuation of thread Title.
'Something’s Going to Have to be Done Legally'

Link
http://www.debatepolitics.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=130

Quote(Should there be a "gatekeeper" regulating internet bloggers? In the aftermath of the Shirley Sherrod incident, that's what CNN promoted on July 23.

Anchors Kyra Phillips and John Roberts discussed the "mixed blessing of the internet," and agreed that there should be a crackdown on anonymous bloggers who disparage others on the internet.)

I can think of a couple of reasons why people especially in the 'News' industry might suppose this to be a good idea and one that the administration might think of instituting.
1) It would remove at a stroke one of the Constitutions main points.
Right to FREE speech.
2) It would remove any news item being disseminated except by those who are in the 'News' industry, thus perpetuating their jobs and freeing them from any competition.
3) It would muzzle any criticism of CNN and others of similar ilk.
I am certain there are many other reasons why these two 'clowns' would think it a good idea.
There are already sufficient laws in this country to protect anyone who might feel they are being abused online.
I wonder how other bloggers feel about these proposals,, are they in favor or against?

That CNN correspondent needs to be fired.
 

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
56,837
Reaction score
24,005
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
You're free to be a lying sack of **** right/left winger. I'm free to get my lawyer and sue the living **** out of your lying right/left winger ass.
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
You're free to be a lying sack of **** right/left winger. I'm free to get my lawyer and sue the living **** out of your lying right/left winger ass.

But there was no lie. She said those things. They were just taken out of context .Besides, her life wasn't ruined. I'm sure she'll sue somebody anyway. She has a history of doing that.
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It's no joke.They are chipping away at free speech.
Here are some clues off the top of my head
REMEMBER WHEN
Obama told his administration not to go on Drudge
Obama told us to read Huffington post
Obama told us to stop watching cable news
The WH was asking you to report any "misrepresentations" of the HC bill to them
The fairness doctrine kept being brought up
They changed that to "localization and diversity"
Glenn Beck boycotts
Goldline being brought before Congress
The journolist talking about ways the government should get Fox off the air
The TSA ? being told they weren't allowed to go to any "controvertial" websites
Now, if I'm not mistaken, Obama has the Power to completely shut down the internet in case of a "crisis"

Hold on, Glen Beck boycotts are violating free speech? Since when it a violation of free speech to boycott something, I thought was one of the big reasons to have it :/

So people boycotting Glen Beck are violating your free speech rights? Or Glen Beck's rights? Or perhaps their own since they are no longer free to be spoken to?
 
Last edited:

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Hold on, Glen Beck boycotts are violating free speech? Since when it a violation of free speech to boycott something, I thought was one of the big reasons to have it :/

So people boycotting Glen Beck are violating your free speech rights? Or Glen Beck's rights? Or perhaps their own since they are no longer free to be spoken to?

Just don't buy any gold...
 

jujuman13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
But there was no lie. She said those things. They were just taken out of context .Besides, her life wasn't ruined. I'm sure she'll sue somebody anyway. She has a history of doing that.

Quote(She has a history of doing that)

Please eiither supply a link to prove your accusation or appologize for a false accusation.
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Hold on, Glen Beck boycotts are violating free speech? Since when it a violation of free speech to boycott something, I thought was one of the big reasons to have it :/

So people boycotting Glen Beck are violating your free speech rights? Or Glen Beck's rights? Or perhaps their own since they are no longer free to be spoken to?

No boyctting is a form of free speech. However in this case they were trying to silence free speech by using a boycott. Ain't America great?
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Continuation of thread Title.
'Something’s Going to Have to be Done Legally'

Link
http://www.debatepolitics.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=130

Quote(Should there be a "gatekeeper" regulating internet bloggers? In the aftermath of the Shirley Sherrod incident, that's what CNN promoted on July 23.

Anchors Kyra Phillips and John Roberts discussed the "mixed blessing of the internet," and agreed that there should be a crackdown on anonymous bloggers who disparage others on the internet.)

I can think of a couple of reasons why people especially in the 'News' industry might suppose this to be a good idea and one that the administration might think of instituting.
1) It would remove at a stroke one of the Constitutions main points.
Right to FREE speech.
2) It would remove any news item being disseminated except by those who are in the 'News' industry, thus perpetuating their jobs and freeing them from any competition.
3) It would muzzle any criticism of CNN and others of similar ilk.
I am certain there are many other reasons why these two 'clowns' would think it a good idea.
There are already sufficient laws in this country to protect anyone who might feel they are being abused online.
I wonder how other bloggers feel about these proposals,, are they in favor or against?

Personally, I don't think this incident shows the need for government regulation of bloggers. Rather, I think this incident shows the need for 24-hour news channels to self-regulate on blogger sources they use and investigate the legitimacy of the blogs before they use them as a source.
 
Last edited:

deltabtry

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
4,023
Reaction score
2,799
Location
MA.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Continuation of thread Title.
'Something’s Going to Have to be Done Legally'

Link
http://www.debatepolitics.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=130

Quote(Should there be a "gatekeeper" regulating internet bloggers? In the aftermath of the Shirley Sherrod incident, that's what CNN promoted on July 23.

Anchors Kyra Phillips and John Roberts discussed the "mixed blessing of the internet," and agreed that there should be a crackdown on anonymous bloggers who disparage others on the internet.)

I can think of a couple of reasons why people especially in the 'News' industry might suppose this to be a good idea and one that the administration might think of instituting.
1) It would remove at a stroke one of the Constitutions main points.
Right to FREE speech.
2) It would remove any news item being disseminated except by those who are in the 'News' industry, thus perpetuating their jobs and freeing them from any competition.
3) It would muzzle any criticism of CNN and others of similar ilk.
I am certain there are many other reasons why these two 'clowns' would think it a good idea.
There are already sufficient laws in this country to protect anyone who might feel they are being abused online.
I wonder how other bloggers feel about these proposals,, are they in favor or against?
So the fox wants to watch the hen house CNN and the rest of these clowns can go pound sand.
 

Hicup

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
9,081
Reaction score
2,709
Location
Rochester, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Continuation of thread Title.
'Something’s Going to Have to be Done Legally'

Link
http://www.debatepolitics.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=130

Quote(Should there be a "gatekeeper" regulating internet bloggers? In the aftermath of the Shirley Sherrod incident, that's what CNN promoted on July 23.

Anchors Kyra Phillips and John Roberts discussed the "mixed blessing of the internet," and agreed that there should be a crackdown on anonymous bloggers who disparage others on the internet.)

I can think of a couple of reasons why people especially in the 'News' industry might suppose this to be a good idea and one that the administration might think of instituting.
1) It would remove at a stroke one of the Constitutions main points.
Right to FREE speech.
2) It would remove any news item being disseminated except by those who are in the 'News' industry, thus perpetuating their jobs and freeing them from any competition.
3) It would muzzle any criticism of CNN and others of similar ilk.
I am certain there are many other reasons why these two 'clowns' would think it a good idea.
There are already sufficient laws in this country to protect anyone who might feel they are being abused online.
I wonder how other bloggers feel about these proposals,, are they in favor or against?

Hehe.. Those mediatards should be careful for what they wish for. Maybe he, or she didn't know that the 1st amendment covers not only indivudual speech, but freedom of the press. What is the press? What, network news... ROTFLMAO. It would get laughed out of ANY district court in the United States. I wonder if they would have thought Paine a blogger or a legitimate member of the press.. :)


Tim-
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,987
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
If people REALLY believe that a BLOGGER is the same as a news-journalist or a reporter (both of which are held to a specific standard and held accountable for the result of their words and actions) then we're so far gone down the ****ter there's no coming back. . . we're doomed as a society.

I would NEVER - in a million years - consider hiring or firing someone BECAUSE of what a BLOGGER, FORUM or TWITTER feed tells me because it's NOT REAL NEWS, NOT REALLY RELIABLE and has no NEED FOR TRUTH OR FACTS. Blogs are just opinions - people's random thoughts and beliefs - it's *NOT* NEWS and should *NOT* be a key role in anyone's career or persona.

Everyone should be responsible and mature enough to understand and realize this is FACT. . . and grow up a bit.
 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,847
Reaction score
33,760
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Regardless of whether it is a blog or "real" journalism, we have the right to freedom of speech, all of us. In fact, if we don't all have freedom of speech, then none of us do.

The remedy for damaging someone by irresponsible use of freedom of speech is called libel, and is taken care of in civil, not criminal court.
 
Top Bottom