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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
http://The cash award acknowledges racial discrimination on the part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the years 1981-85. (President Reagan abolished the USDA Office of Civil Rights when he became President in 1981.) New Communities is due to receive approximately $13 million ($8,247,560 for loss of land and $4,241,602 for loss of income; plus $150,000 each to Shirley and Charles for pain and suffering). There may also be an unspecified amount in forgiveness of debt. This is the largest award so far in the minority farmers' law suit (Pigford vs Vilsack).Quote(She has a history of doing that)
Please eiither supply a link to prove your accusation or appologize for a false accusation.
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.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?
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?