Found by Cinàedh.
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
#28–Ah Yea==wrong. I’m aware of a distinction in pop culture between “straight new” versu commentary but I don’t think the court does, or not much of one, in free speech cases. I’m also aware that in complaining about bias in journalism, many knuckle draggers do confuse the difference between news and journalism. You seem to confuse both and get it wrong to boot. Ha, ha. Have you worn all the hair off your knuckles?
I’m a lefty lib and I like Ann Coulter mostly because 90% of the complaints against her start with false premises–more than just not recognizing sarcasm that she employs heavily. I took her at face value when she said that Darwin had “no facts” to support his theory. The context didn’t call for sarcasm==unless that is done by wearing special underwear before arriving at her interviews.
But “jail more journalists.” Sounds sarcastic to me without even any context. N’est pas?
Without context the blurb meant nothing.
Hey Alfie, it’s easy to say journalists should be jailed, when you’re not as journalist.
Does this site have mods?
# 36 Floyd –Bachman was the laughingstock of Minnesota–
I hear she’s preparing to pull a Palin and run for Prez? That would be fun. Ooooh imagine a Palin/Bachman ticket! There wouldn’t be a newcaster alive who wouldn’t suddenly become an unintentional standup comic.
Alfie said “Ann makes you drool, wish your women were as good looking and smart…and sassy…”
I guess some men like “boney” and ball busting. Must be a Republican.
Salma Hayek should be making you, uhm, drool. Drool must be a right wing code word for something, but I don’t like the visual.
I hope Alfie didn’t hurt anything twisting around logic to say what’s needed is less speculation but not regulation. How? Asking nicely?
– – – – –
# 15 lynn said:
“Does she just have this one black dress?”
I picture a closet full of the exact same outfit, just like Seth Brundle’s in The Fly.
– – – – –
# 28 Ah_Yea said:
“Journalism is protected under the 1st amendment. “Commentary” such as we see today certainly is not.”
Um, incorrect.
What is protected is speech. By definition, that includes “Commentary.” including the hate Miss Stick Figure and most of the commentators here spew.
– – – – –
# 24 1873 Colt says “the left hates powerful women with a mind.”
Not at all. Eleanor Roosevelt, Barbara Jordan, Bella Abzug, Ann Richards, Coretta Scott King, Amy Klobuchar, Blanche Lincoln, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, all well-regarded powerful women. Who have you got? Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Michele Bachmann? Scary…
All Ann Coulter does is call people names. Alfie and Pedie here completely follow her playbook. Their best “arguments” are things like “You are an abomination,” “You hate America” and “All progressives are E-E-E-E-E-VIL!!!!!”
Uncle Patso.
I knew if I would find some idiot who would be dumb enough to dispute me.
Libel: Libel is defined as defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures. Guess what, Pasto, Libel ISN’T protected free speech.
Pretty much everything that comes out of the mouth of liberals is libel.
54 Yea.
commentary ≠ libel
ah_yea = idiot
Like I said, “Pretty much everything that comes out of the mouth of liberals is libel.”
See above.
‘Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements. The plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the plaintiff was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff’s reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault.’
For example, just look up any Olbermann “Worst Person” segment.
On the other hand, if I were to say you were an idiot, dog-faced moron, it wouldn’t be libel because it’s all true.
Ah Yea–Ha, Ha. Getting more dogmatic as you demonstrate the error in your understanding of the law. Ambiguous though just exactly “how” you are wrong. Do you think speech is verbal while libel is written? Speech is verbal slander while libel is written slander. Libel is worse than verbal because it is in writing and considered to have a “long life” whereas speech is ephemeral.
Olbermann hasn’t been sued to prevent his speech because it is protected: no prior restraint. And he hasn’t been sued for what he has already said (film being more like libel I think than verbal) because written slander/libel that is TRUE is also protected free speech.
Actionable libel is a LIE–very akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire==ie, a LIE.
LIES are not protected and even LIES are protected speech under different scenarios. I don’t know what little reading you have done Ah Yea==but you need to do some more.
#2 “For example, Obama’s czars stop oil drilling via not granting permits…oil speculators notice…oil goes up in price…progressives blame big oil, capitalism, democracy and work to end the latter…”
Wow! You really believe that THIS is what drives oil prices up and down? So you have evidence of this administration denying a new permit EVERY WEEK? You should get a job in the finance dept of Exxon-Mobil. It would change your view entirely.
>I don’t know what little reading you have done Ah Yea==but you need to do some more.
As should you. You really shouldn’t be correcting others’ understanding of the law with your own erroneous one. You might start with a dictionary.
Alfred Persson
So you think the press should be jailed for their crimes? what crimes? Is it any different from the bullshit spewed by Fox news or any other media outlet that says thing you agree or disagree with?
You might as well move to Communist China if you hate the press, and freedom of speech. Good luck finding porn on the internet there, buddy.
Uh-Oh Alfred’s rounding people up and advocating violence again.
Nothing like winning a debate by silencing the opposition.
Don’t disagree with him, you could be next.
Ah_Yea said, on February 13th, 2011 at 2:39 pm
What a bunch of dolts here at DU.
Every time I drop by you’re here.
Of course more “Journalist” should be jailed.
Spoken like a true ‘Mercan.
It’s simple, but for your benefit I will go slow.
It is a common defense here in this blog to defend the rants of Olbermann and Maddow’s as “Commentary”. (The same goes for Beck and O’Reily, etc.)
The right to speak does not remove my right to criticize that speech.
Journalism is protected under the 1st amendment. “Commentary” such as we see today certainly is not. What passes for “Journalism” today is what the National Enquirer did yesterday.
No, it doesn’t. This is what happens when ‘Mercans start imagining what the Constitution really says.
If I were a lawyer, I would get together everyone Olbermann slandered under his “Worst person in the world” segment and hit his ass with a multi-million dollar class action lawsuit.
Not if you were a real lawyer. Maybe if you had of attended Liberty University or Oral Roberts University you might. But a real law school would teach you why you can’t. (HINT, being publicly embarrassed can not be grounds for damages)
Making these “Journalist” accountable for everything they say would raise the standard of reporting across the board.
Say what??? I guess you are totally unaware of “libel laws”. “Journalists” enjoy the same protections from liable as does everyone else. But, of course, you didn’t know that.
Alphie,
Get a life.
Alfred: “Ann makes you drool, wish your women were as good looking and smart…and sassy…”
She’s relatively good looking, but given the things she says, I’d sue her doctor for malpractice for inserting a breast implant into her head. She, like many Foxie men and women, is a master at twisting the truth. I can’t listen to people like her, Michael Savage and so on because of the contortions they go through to take one thing and rearrange it to their purposes. Why they feel the need to do so is beyond me. Just tell the truth and let it speak for itself. They’re kind of like creationists who twist and distort physical evidence because it doesn’t fit with their preconceived ideas of how things really are. Not saying some on the left don’t do the same, but the numbers on the right who do it are considerable.
Ah_Yeah: “Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements. The plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the plaintiff was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff’s reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault.”
Ah, yes, there’s the rub. The information was false. The reason people like Olberman haven’t been sued as you’d like is because they are telling the truth. They may overblow minor things and do some Ann-level twisting of their own, but you can’t sue and win when what they say are not lies.
Alfred: “Ann makes you drool, wish your women were as good looking and smart…and sassy…”
Really? I think she’s a scrawny woman…not attractive at all, though that’s not a big deal.
Her thought processes are too rigid, which makes her unelectable (Most successful candidates of either party can change their opinions when confronted with new information).
floyd, Alfie doesn’t like Salma Hayek. He’s a homo.
Apparently CPAC is this magical place where you can stand on stage and say pretty much anything now matter how stupid and people will clap and cheer.