acesandates

Comments

This used to be the land of free speech. Today, we are witnessing, perhaps for the first time in history, in the open, the old established press corps and its once secret, unmitigated contempt and fear of the People, flushed out into full view. Both the local newspapers and their sources in the local government have been spoiled by the moral hazard of one-way dissemination of information. Knowing we no longer trust them, and with good reason cannot trust them, they've resorted to cutting off critical feedback.

But their credibility is finished!

Witness the open unmitigated fear of democratic influence, of People enabled, especially in the face of government officials that consistently demonstrate a belief they were elected not to represent the People, but rule them. They were wrong and social media will prove them wrong. Gone are the days in which the People were simply pawns to be manipulated by propaganda techniques and biased slants on news developments ambiguously geared to distort.

Here the logic is simple enough. Where else ya gonna get your news? the flaw in the logic is that there are other places, other forums in which to post and critique both the Times' biased coverage and its news sources. There are other sources.

April 07, 2013 8:33 pm on EDITORIAL: Vitriolic words online merit a time out
invite you to review the list of "The Times" Editorial Advisory Board to see who is on the "most favored" status, and to see why the paper supports certain issues over others.

Very good point. Purely elitist centrism. The privatization of the public. Were are the prophets?

April 07, 2013 1:18 pm on EDITORIAL: Vitriolic words online merit a time out
Sure appears that way.

April 07, 2013 1:11 pm on EDITORIAL: Vitriolic words online merit a time out
Precisely.

April 07, 2013 1:10 pm on EDITORIAL: Vitriolic words online merit a time out
Pot calling the kettle black. I've tried to listen to you on the radio. Talk about fatuous. Simply because ur on the radio doesnt mean ur interestin or knowledgeable

April 07, 2013 11:17 am on EDITORIAL: Vitriolic words online merit a time out
Talk about vitriol. This is rampant ideological posturing, if not ignorance about well-established separation of powers doctrine and law. Nuff said.

April 07, 2013 9:19 am on WILLIAM NANGLE: Make judges follow merit selection law
Don't be fooled. This is a corporate injunction against the People, a commercial form of prior restraint; censorship of free speech. A corporate gag order. Here the Fourth Estate has finally come into its own. Welcome to the agent-in-chief of Big Brother: Pravda-like central control of public opinion. This truly demonstrates the totalitarian corporate small-mindedness of the Times. Instead of perhaps discontinuing anonymity, it immediately throws the baby with the bathwater. Amateurs! The Times like to dish it out, but its is the subject of discourse or coverage - oh no, suddenly there is too much vitriol. Please...

Consider Justice William O. Douglas's view in the majority opinion of Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949): “Accordingly a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea.”

Prior restraint (also referred to as prior censorship or pre-publication censorship) is censorship imposed, USUALLY by a government, on expression before the expression actually takes place. Prior restraint prevents the censored material from being heard or distributed at all.

Prior restraint can be effected in a number of ways. For example, the exhibition of works of art or a movie may require a license from a government authority (sometimes referred to a classification board or censorship board) before it can be published, and the failure or refusal to grant a license is a form of censorship as is the revoking of a license. It can also take the form of a legal injunction or government order prohibiting the publication of a specific document or subject. Sometimes, a government or other party becomes aware of a forthcoming publication on a particular subject and seeks to prevent it: to halt ongoing publication and prevent its resumption. These injunctions are considered prior restraint because potential future publications are stopped in advance.

Now consider Ross' attempt at argument ostensibly jusitifying:

It should be no surprise that increasingly we have received reports critical of allowing people to comment without identifying themselves. It’s argued that to do so is simply unfair, unkind.

Well, we have come to the conclusion that those objecting to comments posted anonymously are right.

As a result, starting Monday we will discontinue the comments function of nwi.com.
-------

Let the readers be sure of one thing. It isn't about unfairness. It is about anti-democratic control of public opinion. It is corporately-enforced central control of perspective on public information from the top down. The Times writers and their sources couldn't handle being critiqued on their coverage, veracity or their intelligence. Especially Ross. Unfair unkind, vitriolic? Lol. Read the comments on Washington Post, New York Times, Huffington Post, Indy Star.

In Patterson v. Colorado (205 U.S. 454) the US Supreme Court held: “In the first place, the main purpose of such constitutional provisions is 'to prevent all such previous restraints upon publications as had been practiced by other governments,' and they do not prevent the subsequent punishment of such as may be deemed contrary to the public welfare.” (quoted in the Near decision). The Near decision was the first time that it was held that even alleged untruth or malicious intent would not be sufficient reason to impose prior restraints.

Prior restraint is often considered a particularly oppressive form of censorship in Anglo-American jurisprudence because it prevents the restricted material from being heard or distributed at all. Prior restraint, on the other hand, takes an idea or material completely out of the marketplace. Thus it is often considered to be the most extreme form of censorship. The United States Supreme Court expressed this view in Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart by noting:

The thread running through all these cases is that prior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.

Again, discontinuing the comment section is bad faith on the Times.

April 07, 2013 9:11 am on EDITORIAL: Vitriolic words online merit a time out
Being forced to walk, with no one allowed to give Channell a ride, violated the unwritten code that requires the department to make sure firefighters return to the station safely.
___________

lol. you're gonna invoke that maxim here in this situation? If it is all applicable it was intended as something to honor those who batlled the blaze, despite any adversity. It is the honor recognizing heroic exertion.

Another miscue from the mind of Doug Ross.

April 06, 2013 7:58 am on EDITORIAL: Fire flap merits external investigation
“A woman drove up to the hotel in a beautiful ’54 Chevy taxi. I have lots of chutzpah, so I asked her if I could take it around the block. She said ‘no’ but I got in anyway,” Steinberg said. “I gave her three bars of soap to drive it around the block. It was gold to her.”

Bars of soap, bottles of shampoo and Cuban cigars he bought also got Steinberg photos of the people of Havana. Cuban cigars are plentiful, but most Cubans can’t afford them, he said.

sounds a lot like Post WWII Berlin

April 06, 2013 7:37 am on Only 41 minutes from Miami sits Cuba, a Third World country
Yeah right.

April 05, 2013 6:55 pm on DOUG ROSS: Just bombastic, or will he use bombs?