View Full Version : Freedom of the press
Just for all you who thought the US was sooo free....
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=4116
just proves the USA really isn;t as free as you all like to believe. :nuts:
ummbikes
02-19-2005, 07:41 PM
We are worse than Canada, but better than England. What this means? I have no idea. Our media sucks.
Silver
02-19-2005, 07:42 PM
Maybe guessing it has something to do with the libel laws in the UK? That's a completely out of my ass guess though...
It is because we often arrest reporters who leak things that they shouldnt be saying. Like the incident with the FBI agent.
"The poor ranking of the United States (17th) is mainly because of the number of journalists arrested or imprisoned there. Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court. Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings."
So it isnt as bad as JMAC would like it to be!
valve bouncer
02-20-2005, 04:56 AM
A few nice ones in there. The Palestinian Authority rates higher than Israel. Ouch. Still a survey from 2 and a half years ago is to be taken with a grain of salt.
valve bouncer
02-20-2005, 05:02 AM
Maybe guessing it has something to do with the libel laws in the UK? That's a completely out of my ass guess though...
Probably, as well as some of the rules governing Northern Ireland. I'm not really up with current developments but the Poms did have some pretty draconian regulations covering that situation a while back.
fluff
02-21-2005, 08:43 AM
Probably, as well as some of the rules governing Northern Ireland. I'm not really up with current developments but the Poms did have some pretty draconian regulations covering that situation a while back.
Silver was right. You can now hear Gerry Adam's voice rather than simply see his lips moving and some one doing an impression of him. Totally pointless rules they were.
Our libel laws are ****e, if you cannot prove what you written you can be sued for gazillions.
Changleen
02-21-2005, 05:00 PM
Silver was right. You can now hear Gerry Adam's voice rather than simply see his lips moving and some one doing an impression of him. Totally pointless rules they were.
Our libel laws are ****e, if you cannot prove what you written you can be sued for gazillions.Actually I think the UK libel laws are pretty good. They serve their purpose and on the whole are well respected and enforced. I am fairly knowledgable about these laws as I had to train others how to spot violations of them. At the end of the day if someone does tarnish your reputation or your businesses reputation without just cause you should be able to claim recompense from that person.
fluff
02-22-2005, 03:50 AM
Actually I think the UK libel laws are pretty good. They serve their purpose and on the whole are well respected and enforced. I am fairly knowledgable about these laws as I had to train others how to spot violations of them. At the end of the day if someone does tarnish your reputation or your businesses reputation without just cause you should be able to claim recompense from that person.
You're talking bollocks mate. For an example of how ****e our libel laws are look at Jeffrey Archer or Robert Maxwell.
The problem is that the onus is on the accused to prove that what they have said is true, which can be extremely difficult. This leads to huge expense, regardless of whether you are right or wrong. This in turn leads to the press being afraid to tell the truth because they know that they will be sued and they can't afford to be sued.
If you're rich you're fine, but if you're not you screwed. That is what is wrong with the UK libel laws.
Changleen
02-22-2005, 01:05 PM
You're talking bollocks mate. For an example of how ****e our libel laws are look at Jeffrey Archer or Robert Maxwell. Or look at the thousands of ordinary people who are quite well protected by it every year in much more normal and mundane sitautions. A few high profile cases don't mean the whole system is screwed.
The problem is that the onus is on the accused to prove that what they have said is true, which can be extremely difficult. This leads to huge expense, regardless of whether you are right or wrong. This in turn leads to the press being afraid to tell the truth because they know that they will be sued and they can't afford to be sued.Ha. The press being afraid? Really? The Sun actually regularly calculates the likely fine it will recieve for libel against the sales breaking a certqain 'story' will generate. Again, these multi-million pound lawsuits (and the ending of justice that often occurs around them) are the tip of the iceberg. There are thousands of much more boring libel cases brought every year, often by recently divorced couples and local businesses.
If you're rich you're fine, but if you're not you screwed. That is what is wrong with the UK libel laws.That's not 100% true. While I would agree it is probably on the expensive side of things to take any matter to the courts these days (and I have personal experience of this) you shouldn't judge the whole system on a few high profile cases. Sounds to me like you're suffering from good old British cynicism - Time for a holiday, Fluff - Just be sure not to fly back into Heathrow. That'll negate the effects of any holiday in seconds flat.
fluff
02-23-2005, 06:31 AM
Or look at the thousands of ordinary people who are quite well protected by it every year in much more normal and mundane sitautions. A few high profile cases don't mean the whole system is screwed.
Ha. The press being afraid? Really? The Sun actually regularly calculates the likely fine it will recieve for libel against the sales breaking a certqain 'story' will generate. Again, these multi-million pound lawsuits (and the ending of justice that often occurs around them) are the tip of the iceberg. There are thousands of much more boring libel cases brought every year, often by recently divorced couples and local businesses.That's not 100% true. While I would agree it is probably on the expensive side of things to take any matter to the courts these days (and I have personal experience of this) you shouldn't judge the whole system on a few high profile cases. Sounds to me like you're suffering from good old British cynicism - Time for a holiday, Fluff - Just be sure not to fly back into Heathrow. That'll negate the effects of any holiday in seconds flat.
Basically you said the same that I did, if you can afford it the libel laws mean ****, if you can't afford it you gotta keep your trap shut. If I were to say something about a millionaire that I can prove I could be bankrupted before I even got to court. Is that fair? (The answer is no, btw.)
In the context of freedom of the press it means that poor people will be libelled left right and centre but rich corporations can issue threats that keep the truth out of the papers. The British libel laws are the only reason that the UK comes as low as it does on this list. That it comes so low on this list is evidence of the basic truth of what I am saying.
And I have personal experience of what I am saying so I see your anecdotal experience chav-boy, and raise you one circular logical statement.
Edit: - And is there any single airport in the world that is not depressing?
Most depressing airport - Sheremateyeva (misspelled I know).
Silver
02-23-2005, 10:32 AM
I like Vancouver's airport.
$tinkle
02-23-2005, 01:51 PM
Tibet isn't even ranked - someone call the beastie boys!
Tibet isn't even ranked - someone call the beastie boys!
Isn;t Tibet run by China anyway???
fluff
02-23-2005, 03:50 PM
Isn;t Tibet run by China anyway???
It's generally seen as part of China now. Sadly.
$tinkle
02-23-2005, 03:54 PM
It's generally seen as part of China now. Sadly.ah, yes, but so is taiwan, which is #35 on the list.
i can't sort it out, that's why i said it's a tall order for adam horowitz, & adam yauch, & mike d (not ours).
fluff
02-23-2005, 03:59 PM
ah, yes, but so is taiwan, which is #35 on the list.
i can't sort it out, that's why i said it's a tall order for adam horowitz, & adam yauch, & mike d (not ours).
You're a lot funnier than you used to be, what happened? You went away for a while and came back funny...
$tinkle
02-23-2005, 04:16 PM
ummm....i listen to more ward churchill (http://www.ward-churchill.com/wc/feb21.mp3) than i used to???
sanjuro
02-24-2005, 02:28 AM
Basically you said the same that I did, if you can afford it the libel laws mean ****, if you can't afford it you gotta keep your trap shut. If I were to say something about a millionaire that I can prove I could be bankrupted before I even got to court. Is that fair? (The answer is no, btw.)
The libel laws favor the defendent. Think about the Larry Flynt vs Jerry Falwell. Flynt called Falwell a drunk who sleeps with his mother. And Flynt won.
As for the rest of it, thousands of writers publish unflattering articles about real life subjects. I cannot think of one which someone went bankrupt or even lost unless it was a blatant lie.
fluff
02-24-2005, 02:53 AM
The libel laws favor the defendent. Think about the Larry Flynt vs Jerry Falwell. Flynt called Falwell a drunk who sleeps with his mother. And Flynt won.
As for the rest of it, thousands of writers publish unflattering articles about real life subjects. I cannot think of one which someone went bankrupt or even lost unless it was a blatant lie.
In the US or the UK? It's the UK libel law we're talking about.
sanjuro
02-24-2005, 11:03 AM
Side topic then. I hear the UK libel laws are much stricter, although that has not stopped the most rabid gossip press from plying their trade.
MikeD
02-24-2005, 11:08 AM
It is because we often arrest reporters who leak things that they shouldnt be saying. Like the incident with the FBI agent.
Except, say, Robert Novak? Wonder why HE wasn't hauled into a courtroom...hmmmmm...
MD
dan-o
02-24-2005, 11:29 AM
ummm....i listen to more ward churchill (http://www.ward-churchill.com/wc/feb21.mp3) than i used to???
LOL. I had that idiot for a few classes at CU. Such a wannabe revolutionary.
$tinkle
02-25-2005, 10:43 AM
LOL. I had that idiot for a few classes at CU. Such a wannabe revolutionary.and a wanna-be artist, too: check these out:
ward churchill's "original art" from 1981:http://images.viacomlocalnetworks.com/images_sizedimage_055200441/xl
thomas e. mails truly original art from years prior:
http://images.viacomlocalnetworks.com/images_sizedimage_055200404/xl
he's having a meltdown: check out the story behind this, as well as his "reponse" in a video link at the following site: http://news4colorado.com/topstories/local_story_055200531.html
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.