Sorry i was gone for a bit and didnt get a chance to respond till now.
If you think guilt is THAT powerful of a motivator, you obviously don't live in the same society as i do. Media giants blatantly smear people all the time, and they put the twist on the news that is good for their parent organizations, they are slow to make retractions and admit mistakes, and cite "anonymous" sources whenever they want to turn an editorial into news. These are all things that would make me guilty, but it doesnt seem to bother them.
Despite being flamed as baby killers and puppets, immoral ruthless murderers and sadists, the military still distributed information to the news media during vietnam because they don't have a real choice. The people want news, and the only reasonable way to get it to them is through the media outlets.
Furthermore, after some thought i don't think the government should step in and say "don't report this and that" but i do think there need to be some restrictions somehow applied. I cannot and will not rely on the so called "consciences" of mass corporations.
Innocent until proven guilty my friend. Its funny that you think its ok to have this information gathered and leaked against their will, but not your phone records.
Haha right, so congress only became spineless when Bush took office? Gaffaw! My bias meter is going crazy, i suppose when Clinton was in office and his agenda was getting pushed, congress was doing just fine right? Please congress let him off the hook for the most blatant case of perjury i have ever seen because it was a tough issue. Congress has been spineless since about 1950.
I would appreciate it if you would stop taking my remarks, which i said that i am torn on, as some sort of absolute fact that i believe in. I didnt say i beleived the govt was looking out for me. I think the govt is looking out for itself, it just so happens it is in its best interest to protect me in this case.
The press has no interest IN protecting me, im not saying they wouldnt, just noting the difference between the two agencies. But i am reminded of Geraldo in Iraq, "Here i am with the (unit name here) standing right outside (town here) about to launch an attack." All that is missing is GPS coordinates.
Gee! I would sure love to be in litigation, and have partial information on the case in progress leaked out to the public, and then not even be able to defend myself from it since i am gagged by the judge.
The people here who are saying that Wired is upholding free speech, wouldn't feel that way if it was their day in court. They are circumventing standard operating procedures.
"True, just like your fellow soldiers may make only ONE mistake before you get killed."
And those soldiers have trained by me, and lived by me, and have a similar code of ethics as mine, and also quite frankly have a rather large reason to keep my alive - "They need my firepower." They let me die, thats one less person shooting back.
The press will see NO immediate impact from this action and therefore doesnt have the same mental and moral restrictions on them as the soldier in your example does.
But you may have missed the point of my first post, im not neccessarily for one side of the other, i know risk is important, and i know its neccessary, and i am worried that the government is the one stepping in to tell the press when and which risks they can take. AT the same time, i appreciate that SOMEONE is looking out for me.
And i agree and respect that. However in this fun little situation, the press may only get to make ONE mistake before i'm killed.
However who is "the press" the article says "Journalists" is a blogger a journalist? Am i a journalist because i post news on slashdot? What defines a person? A press badge?
I am im the military, and i am a little bit torn on this issue due to some reasons i will disclose in a second, but first i have to beg everyone to stop using the example of screaming fire in a crowded theatre, its fucking obnoxious.
I can certainly see how its a terrible thing to limit the press, and their ability to report information to the general public. Furthermore i believe as well that its not a great idea to let the agency that will most likely be reported on (the govt) make the rules restricting the people reporting on them. There seems to be very few checks and balances in that system. I don't think that the government should be able to arrest a reporter who reports information the government deems "classified". In my eyes all this can lead to is the government labeling everything as classified and to hell with the press's ability to report on them.
At the same time, as a soldier, if somehow information on my location gets leaked to the press and the press reports it, and i get blown up for it, well thats just not right, and that reporter has done a horrible thing. I guess it is hard for me to decide where i stand simply because i can see both sides of this issue in my life.
We, the american people, need to get congress to craft a very clear and precise amendment on what exactly the govt wants to claim as "un-reportable" information.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry i was gone for a bit and didnt get a chance to respond till now. If you think guilt is THAT powerful of a motivator, you obviously don't live in the same society as i do. Media giants blatantly smear people all the time, and they put the twist on the news that is good for their parent organizations, they are slow to make retractions and admit mistakes, and cite "anonymous" sources whenever they want to turn an editorial into news. These are all things that would make me guilty, but it doesnt seem to bother them.
Despite being flamed as baby killers and puppets, immoral ruthless murderers and sadists, the military still distributed information to the news media during vietnam because they don't have a real choice. The people want news, and the only reasonable way to get it to them is through the media outlets.
Furthermore, after some thought i don't think the government should step in and say "don't report this and that" but i do think there need to be some restrictions somehow applied. I cannot and will not rely on the so called "consciences" of mass corporations.
Innocent until proven guilty my friend. Its funny that you think its ok to have this information gathered and leaked against their will, but not your phone records.
Haha right, so congress only became spineless when Bush took office? Gaffaw! My bias meter is going crazy, i suppose when Clinton was in office and his agenda was getting pushed, congress was doing just fine right? Please congress let him off the hook for the most blatant case of perjury i have ever seen because it was a tough issue. Congress has been spineless since about 1950.
I would appreciate it if you would stop taking my remarks, which i said that i am torn on, as some sort of absolute fact that i believe in. I didnt say i beleived the govt was looking out for me. I think the govt is looking out for itself, it just so happens it is in its best interest to protect me in this case. The press has no interest IN protecting me, im not saying they wouldnt, just noting the difference between the two agencies. But i am reminded of Geraldo in Iraq, "Here i am with the (unit name here) standing right outside (town here) about to launch an attack." All that is missing is GPS coordinates.
Gee! I would sure love to be in litigation, and have partial information on the case in progress leaked out to the public, and then not even be able to defend myself from it since i am gagged by the judge. The people here who are saying that Wired is upholding free speech, wouldn't feel that way if it was their day in court. They are circumventing standard operating procedures.
"True, just like your fellow soldiers may make only ONE mistake before you get killed." And those soldiers have trained by me, and lived by me, and have a similar code of ethics as mine, and also quite frankly have a rather large reason to keep my alive - "They need my firepower." They let me die, thats one less person shooting back. The press will see NO immediate impact from this action and therefore doesnt have the same mental and moral restrictions on them as the soldier in your example does. But you may have missed the point of my first post, im not neccessarily for one side of the other, i know risk is important, and i know its neccessary, and i am worried that the government is the one stepping in to tell the press when and which risks they can take. AT the same time, i appreciate that SOMEONE is looking out for me.
And i agree and respect that. However in this fun little situation, the press may only get to make ONE mistake before i'm killed. However who is "the press" the article says "Journalists" is a blogger a journalist? Am i a journalist because i post news on slashdot? What defines a person? A press badge?
I am im the military, and i am a little bit torn on this issue due to some reasons i will disclose in a second, but first i have to beg everyone to stop using the example of screaming fire in a crowded theatre, its fucking obnoxious. I can certainly see how its a terrible thing to limit the press, and their ability to report information to the general public. Furthermore i believe as well that its not a great idea to let the agency that will most likely be reported on (the govt) make the rules restricting the people reporting on them. There seems to be very few checks and balances in that system. I don't think that the government should be able to arrest a reporter who reports information the government deems "classified". In my eyes all this can lead to is the government labeling everything as classified and to hell with the press's ability to report on them. At the same time, as a soldier, if somehow information on my location gets leaked to the press and the press reports it, and i get blown up for it, well thats just not right, and that reporter has done a horrible thing. I guess it is hard for me to decide where i stand simply because i can see both sides of this issue in my life. We, the american people, need to get congress to craft a very clear and precise amendment on what exactly the govt wants to claim as "un-reportable" information.