Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 09-25-2019, 07:58 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,681
We are up to OP 0, everyone else one million and four.

But, the number of rolleyes smileys has come down recently, so there's hope for this thread yet.
  #252  
Old 09-25-2019, 08:39 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
We are up to OP 0, everyone else one million and four.

But, the number of rolleyes smileys has come down recently, so there's hope for this thread yet.
  #253  
Old 09-25-2019, 11:18 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Isn't the government telling the media what they can and cannot air the definition of censorship?
The FCC and courts disagree.

and again, it should be voluntary. Just that the FCC can leverage the broadcast media.
  #254  
Old 09-25-2019, 11:29 AM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Just outside of Titletown
Posts: 22,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
The FCC and courts disagree.
Some censorship is legal, but it's still censorship.
  #255  
Old 09-25-2019, 11:31 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
The FCC and courts disagree.

and again, it should be voluntary. Just that the FCC can leverage the broadcast media.
Will you please make up your mind? You talk about this being done voluntarily half the time, and the government being about to control what the media says the other half. What exactly are you promoting in this thread?
  #256  
Old 09-25-2019, 11:34 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
The FCC and courts disagree.

and again, it should be voluntary. Just that the FCC can leverage the broadcast media.
"Volunteer to do this or we'll force you to do this"-there is a word for this tactic and it isn't "voluntary".
  #257  
Old 09-25-2019, 12:51 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
Some censorship is legal, but it's still censorship.
Laws vs kiddy porn, copyright violations, slander, Libel, and Plagiarism are all infringements on the 1st Ad. So?
  #258  
Old 09-25-2019, 12:54 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Will you please make up your mind? You talk about this being done voluntarily half the time, and the government being about to control what the media says the other half. What exactly are you promoting in this thread?
You could, you know, read the cites and my posts.
  #259  
Old 09-25-2019, 12:56 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
You could, you know, read the cites and my posts.
I did-that is what is causing my confusion. Which solution are you proposing?
  #260  
Old 09-25-2019, 01:22 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Just outside of Titletown
Posts: 22,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Laws vs kiddy porn, copyright violations, slander, Libel, and Plagiarism are all infringements on the 1st Ad. So?
You said it's not censorship, but you're wrong. It may be Constitutional, it may be legal, it may be the right thing to do, but it's still censorship. Copyright violations, slander, libel, and plagiarism have no prior restraint, and are all civil offenses.

Are you saying as long as CNN is willing to pay a fine they can publish the names? Who would levy the fine and under what authority? They're on cable so you can't pull their license. What do you propose the government should do to them?
  #261  
Old 09-25-2019, 04:51 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
You said it's not censorship, but you're wrong. It may be Constitutional, it may be legal, it may be the right thing to do, but it's still censorship. Copyright violations, slander, libel, and plagiarism have no prior restraint, and are all civil offenses.

Are you saying as long as CNN is willing to pay a fine they can publish the names? Who would levy the fine and under what authority? They're on cable so you can't pull their license. What do you propose the government should do to them?

https://www.kent.edu/it/civil-and-cr...copyright-laws
CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAWS
KentInformation TechnologyCivil And Criminal Penalties For Violation Of Federal Copyright Laws
Copyright infringement is the act of exercising, without permission or legal authority, one or more of the exclusive rights granted to the copyright owner under section 106 of the Copyright Act (Title 17 of the United States Code). These rights include the right to reproduce or distribute a copyrighted work. In the file-sharing context, downloading or uploading substantial parts of a copyrighted work without authority constitutes an infringement.

Penalties for copyright infringement include civil and criminal penalties. In general, anyone found liable for civil copyright infringement may be ordered to pay either actual damages or "statutory" damages affixed at not less than $750 and not more than $30,000 per work infringed. For "willful" infringement, a court may award up to $150,000 per work infringed. A court can, in its discretion, also assess costs and attorneys' fees. For details, see Title 17, United States Code, Sections 504, 505.

Willful copyright infringement can also result in criminal penalties, including imprisonment of up to five years and fines of up to $250,000 per offense.


What does the Government do to those who name rape victims?
  #262  
Old 09-25-2019, 06:39 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Actually quite a few have agreed it shoudl be tried.
Just to make it clear, several people, including me, have said we'd be perfectly fine with news providers voluntarily choosing not to report shooter names, and/or exclusively refer to them as worthless idiots. However not one of us -not a single one of us- has stated that we think this would solve mass shootings.

Honestly it would be like using a band-aid to treat a broken leg.

(Full disclosure: The above sentence is an analogy.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Nor is it censorship.
Depends on whether the government forces them to do it or not. Which leads us to...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
You could, you know, read the cites and my posts.
Your posts to date are not illuminating on this subject, and your cites are not a reliable source for your opinion (what with them saying that guns are a major factor, and all). So how about you actually state the proposal you're putting forth? Here, I'll make it easy:

A: The government uses laws or regulations to censor news providers regarding details that identify mass shooters.

B: No laws or regulations are employed to force news providers to play along.

A or B? All you have to type is a single character.
  #263  
Old 09-25-2019, 07:17 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,024
This is where he says:

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
*I* am not proposing anything, scientists are. Argue with them.
Even though no scientists are proposing the government uses laws to censor broadcast news providers.
  #264  
Old 09-25-2019, 07:35 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
A or B? All you have to type is a single character.
I predict a rolleyes.
  #265  
Old 09-28-2019, 05:38 AM
galen ubal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Central VIC Australia
Posts: 2,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by galen ubal View Post
DrDeth, you've said that the reason that mass shootings haven't been an issue in the developed world*, is because the rest of the world does not have the same 24/7/365 coverage, or the same social media presence, as the United States. May I ask how you came to that conclusion, and by what metrics you are measuring?
*comparing apples to apples as much as one can
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Just to make it clear, several people, including me, have said we'd be perfectly fine with news providers voluntarily choosing not to report shooter names, and/or exclusively refer to them as worthless idiots. However not one of us -not a single one of us- has stated that we think this would solve mass shootings.

Honestly it would be like using a band-aid to treat a broken leg.

(Full disclosure: The above sentence is an analogy.)

Depends on whether the government forces them to do it or not. Which leads us to...
Your posts to date are not illuminating on this subject, and your cites are not a reliable source for your opinion (what with them saying that guns are a major factor, and all). So how about you actually state the proposal you're putting forth? Here, I'll make it easy:

A: The government uses laws or regulations to censor news providers regarding details that identify mass shooters.

B: No laws or regulations are employed to force news providers to play along.

A or B? All you have to type is a single character.
DrDeth, there are a couple of questions that have been sitting about for a couple of days now. Are you at any point going to answer them?
  #266  
Old 09-28-2019, 12:17 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by galen ubal View Post
DrDeth, there are a couple of questions that have been sitting about for a couple of days now. Are you at any point going to answer them?
I have already done so. Read the thread.
  #267  
Old 09-28-2019, 04:56 PM
galen ubal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Central VIC Australia
Posts: 2,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I have already done so. Read the thread.
Okay - I'm not seeing you having done so. Has anyone else?

Seriously - other than a flat "other countries aren't the same", I don't see that you have done so.

Last edited by galen ubal; 09-28-2019 at 04:58 PM.
  #268  
Old 09-28-2019, 05:05 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by galen ubal View Post
Okay - I'm not seeing you having done so. Has anyone else?

Seriously - other than a flat "other countries aren't the same", I don't see that you have done so.
Look, hes been piled on so hard that hes maybe trying to let the thread die. We should just take our victories as they come and let this thread sink down to the bottom of the forum, where the scavengers and bacteria can consume it and poop it out, thereby increasing its value.
  #269  
Old 09-28-2019, 07:17 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
You said it's not censorship, but you're wrong. It may be Constitutional, it may be legal, it may be the right thing to do, but it's still censorship. Copyright violations, slander, libel, and plagiarism have no prior restraint, and are all civil offenses.
Interesting distinction, and I gave it some thought. You can violate copyright and engage in slander and libel and plagiarism and get away with it if nobody complains about it, in these cases the copyright holder or the person being insulted or the artist being copied. If they don't notice your action, or choose not to bother, the government will not go after you.

Kiddie porn and the OP's proposed media name-blackout, though, invite the state to act without a specific victim complaint.
  #270  
Old 09-28-2019, 08:10 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,901
1) Studies that show that articles which teach good vaccination information against anti-vaxxers helps to increase anti-vaxxer count.
2) When Donald Trump does something bad, he works to increase awareness of it, pushes the media to promote it (as bad), and drives up his approval rating.

There is no such thing as bad publicity.

Gun homicides, in America, get a lot of publicity.

In Switzerland, everyone has a gun. No publicity.

Spree killers are, at heart, attention-seekers and they know how - in modern day America - to get it.

The media would almost certainly save all of those lives by stopping giving the killers what they want.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 09-28-2019 at 08:11 PM.
  #271  
Old 09-29-2019, 05:01 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
.

Kiddie porn and the OP's proposed media name-blackout, though, invite the state to act without a specific victim complaint.
So does saying "fuck" on broadcast TV, along with (with a few exceptions) Nudity. The FCC has lots of rules for broadcasters, including the Equal-time rule and at one time- political fairness.

In general, the FCC does wait for a complaint, but with so many viewers...
  #272  
Old 09-30-2019, 12:39 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
1) Studies that show that articles which teach good vaccination information against anti-vaxxers helps to increase anti-vaxxer count.
2) When Donald Trump does something bad, he works to increase awareness of it, pushes the media to promote it (as bad), and drives up his approval rating.

There is no such thing as bad publicity.

Gun homicides, in America, get a lot of publicity.

In Switzerland, everyone has a gun. No publicity.
From here. Only about a quarter of homicides in Switzerland were done with guns. If we had such a low homicide rate, we might not have the publicity either. And our guns are not getting publicized, just our murders. Suicides don't get publicized, but they still happen, at a higher rate than murders.
Not that half the homicides in Switzerland are committed by foreigners. Are they doing it for publicity?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017