Slashdot Mirror
Blogging as Press Freedom in Repressive Places
museumpeace writes "CNN is carrying an AP story from France on the release of guidelines to help bloggers working under threat of suppressive governments to get out their stories without getting caught. "Reporters Without Borders' 'Handbook for Blogger and Cyber-Dissidents" is partly financed by the French government and includes technical advice on how to remain anonymous online.' Makes me proud to be a developer of communication software."
I just realised that I wasn't nearly harsh enough in my previous reply.
... stop allowing people like Bill O'Idiot of Fox News to have air time."
We have here a post about a very important subject - freedom of the press - and we get this retarded Canadian communist monkey saying "We need to
Freedom of the press includes freedom for people who disagree with you. It's not a difficult concept. Freedom means you don't get to say who gets airtime. Freedom means people get to vote for the other guy if they decide you suck.
And *WHAP* with a dead fish to whoever modded this tripe "Insightful".
Excuse me for replying to trolling flamebait, but I'm not a communist, nor a monkey although maybe I do look like one, so I can understand your confusion.
"Freedom of the press includes freedom for people who disagree with you."
I'm sorry, but "disagree" does not mean "provide lies". Bill O'Idiot provides what he calls facts to an unsuspecting and easily swayed audience, when in fact his facts are complete BS or outright lies. It's not hard to verify this, just do a search through google and you'll find video clips of documented Bill-lies. But perhaps you didn't notice because you didn't KNOW what the real facts were when he's presented his versions.
I have no problem with a dissenting opinion in the media on missle defence, troop strength in Iraq, or the effectiveness of FEMA, etc. I might not agree and think someone else is wrong if they have another opinion they can't support how I'd like, but when they LIE to support their position, they've ruined their journalistic integrity ON AIR, and can't be trusted again. It's not that Bill doesn't look up the facts, he just doesn't care to! He isn't getting the facts wrong, because he never knows the facts, and if he does, he won't say them if it hurts his twisted ultra-conservative agenda.
Me: Truth good even if it hurts
Bill: Truth bad especially if it hurts.
That's the difference, and you're clearly part of the problem since you think:
Canadian = communist monkey who couldn't offer helpful advice on the state of American media from a more dispassionate outside view.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Excuse me for replying to trolling flamebait, but I'm not a communist, nor a monkey although maybe I do look like one, so I can understand your confusion.
... abridging the freedom of speech."
a rbouring-dangerous-totalitarian-instincts friend, don't get to decide.
Sure, you're excused.
I'm sorry, but "disagree" does not mean "provide lies".
Actually, it does. But anyway:
Bill O'Idiot provides what he calls facts to an unsuspecting and easily swayed audience, when in fact his facts are complete BS or outright lies.
Cite.
It's not hard to verify this, just do a search through google and you'll find video clips of documented Bill-lies.
Cite.
But perhaps you didn't notice because you didn't KNOW what the real facts were when he's presented his versions.
Cite.
And I'll match you, cite for cite, with lies from the New York Times and the BBC.
I might not agree and think someone else is wrong if they have another opinion they can't support how I'd like, but when they LIE to support their position, they've ruined their journalistic integrity ON AIR, and can't be trusted again.
Like the New York Times did in 1932? Oh, yeah, they WON A PULITZER for that lie.
It's not that Bill doesn't look up the facts, he just doesn't care to! He isn't getting the facts wrong, because he never knows the facts, and if he does, he won't say them if it hurts his twisted ultra-conservative agenda.
Cite.
Me: Truth good even if it hurts
Bill: Truth bad especially if it hurts.
The truth? You can't handle the truth!
That's the difference, and you're clearly part of the problem since you think:
Canadian = communist monkey who couldn't offer helpful advice on the state of American media from a more dispassionate outside view.
No. I have actual friends in Canada. It's just that you're a dingbat.
Look, I have no brief for Bill O'Reilly. I've never seen his show. From what I've heard, I suspect he really is an idiot.
But if you think that the CBC is a reliable news source, if you think that Jon Stewart isn't spinning stuff at least as hard as O'Reilly, then you are completely and utterly clueless.
And more to the point, you just don't get the fundamental concept. That's what makes you a dingbat. (Or alternately, being a dingbat to begin with, you are unable to get the concept.)
Freedom of the press means freedom of the press. It means that you don't get to choose who goes on the air and who doesn't. Because the press is free.
Got it now?
What the Constitution says is "Congress shall make no law
No ifs, no buts. No "except for Bill O'Reilly". No law. None.
If the people decide they don't like him and ratings drop, off he goes.
If he's actually exposed in fraud like Dan Rather, then the network will likely ditch him to cover their asses.
That's fine. He's still free to get another job with another network, or pay for his own airtime.
But you, my not-communist-but-clearly-desperately-naive-and-h