You don't want to even see the email(s) sent by the reporter?
Yeah, I suspect that, even if she was being annoying (as many reporters can be), her conduct was PROBABLY not harassing, unless we hear some more facts. But all we have is the report of ANOTHER REPORTER (WHIO TV) telling essentially the subject reporter's side of things.
Reporters are not magical creatures who can do no wrong. They can be just as obnoxious and sleazy as the worst government official, and it's silly how often I see that people want to treat reporters as somehow incapable of doing wrong when in pursuit of the "truth".
I'd like a few more facts before I'd be willing to say there was a "clear" case of anything here.
Not sure that there was a need for laws about distracted stagecoach driving. Horses are generally smart enough to pay attention themselves, regardless of their oblivious rider/driver.
The issue is not whether it's dangerous for these people to wear headphones in situations in which they can get themselves run over. The issue is to see that it happens before they pass on their stupid genes to future generations.
While some believe that you have tolerate the crap speech in order to make sure there's room for beneficial speech, I disagree.
Just like your proverbial right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose, your right to free speech should end at the personal life of another individual.
Free speech is, in a way, merely an expression of the more fundamental right of being left alone. THAT is what the Bill of Rights is all about - the right to be left alone. To be left alone in what you say, how you worship, who you associate with, in your personal papers, etc., etc., etc. That is the core - the only, really - truly fundamental right we can lay claim to. And why should your right to be left alone in expressing yourself trump MY right to just be plain left alone? If the two are really in conflict, it seems the one who is treading upon the privacy of the other shuld be the one who gets pulled up short.
More people in our society should engage in some free thinking before they engage in free speech. The latter is cheapened without a healthy dose of the former.
Why do you need to define "famous" in order to have the right to be left alone and not have your private business publicized to the world?
If the victim can show that the facts being publicized do not seem to have anything to do with the thing that makes him famous (e.g., for an actor, it didn't happen while on the set, or at a publicity event, etc.), then the burden should shift to the "reporter" to explain why the victim's fame somehow overrides his right to privacy.
Not the current state of the law, I know. Just the way it oughta be. I think a citizen's privacy should generally trump someone else's freedom of speech, if the two are actually in conflict.
What would that (secret child sex fantasies) have to do with the ability to fulfill the office of President?
No, it doesn't seem newsworthy to me. I imagine just about everyone has some fantasy that's gross and disgusting to someone else. Not to condone anything having to do with victimizing children, but what does it matter? Some people look on gay fantasies in that way. Should it be newsworthy if the President were to be known to have harbored a same-sex fantasy? Again, what does it matter?
If said President actualy ACTED on those child sex fantasies, THEN perhaps we've got a newsworthy issue. A President charged with enforcing our laws would then have broken them. That's a different story.
I don't care (nor should anybody else) if the President dresses up in Edwardian-era women's clothes and near-asphyxiates himself by hanging from a silk sash tied to a closet bar in the Lincoln Bedroom while jerking off to Gregorian chants and muttering about performing carnal acts with goats. Unless he does it on company time. And I, for one, am willing to give him a few hours free time in the evening to pursue personal interests.
And it certainly doesn't seem "newsworthy" to me. Merely because small-minded people love to wallow in the feeling of looking down upon an embarassed celebrity does not make the failings of these celebrities "newsworthy".
And the thing of it is, it's celebrities today. It's you and me tomorrow. We already see how everyday people are humiliated by the fact that they were unlucky enough to do something embarassing in range of a camera held by someone ready to blast it around the world. I don't see that gettin' any better any time soon.
Our society has an unhealthy interest in the lives of celebrities.
We go WAY overboard in our voyeurism of celebrities, and it really should be ratcheted back quite a few notches.
My thought is that "public figures" (for whom privacy protections are generally weakened in the public interest of promoting free speech) should only be considered such when they are actually doing the thing that makes them a public figure. So, the dashing movie star would be fair game for pictures, etc. when he is on the set, attending a gala debut, etc., BUT, should be considered strictly a private citizen and left alone when walking his dog in the park or trying to go grocery shopping or have a quiet meal out with the dining partner of his choice.
It's nobody's business who celebrities are sleeping with, whether they've cheated on their spouses, if they got sloppy drunk at a party and said something embarassing, or whatever. It's not even clear to me that the public has a legitimate interest in publicizing a celebrity who gets arrested (they certainly currently have the legal right to publish/read such reports, but it's not what I would call "legitimate" in it's not clear what public interest this serves - a warning to stay off the road when Lindsay Lohan is driving?). Certainly arrest records are public, but most of us don't have to worry that someone is going to pick our mug shot out for plastering on the front page of a checkstand gossip rag or posting on some cheezy blog. There's a difference between a public record and a publicized record.
... if the slant here counteracts the slant there such that we get to some neutral ground in the middle?
The press is not made up of magical creatures who act only out of noble purposes. They are people who have bills to pay, bosses to satisfy, egos to feed and all sort of other things that are also apt descriptors of the evil government and corporate people that get complained about here.
I certainly do not trust that the press is acting in my best interest, especially since I don't get to vote for them, or call them onto any sort of official carpet when they act irresponsibly. You can't impeach a reporter or vote him out of office at the next election. Indeed, we are often told that we have to put up with the extremes of the press in order to preserve the ability of the more responsible members of that profession to do their job (I don't really buy this).
I think the press should be viewed with at least as much skepticism as the government they are reporting on.
Well, I find the whole "peek or grope" system offensive, likely ineffective and going too far down a slippery slope (what happens when the bad guys start forming explosives into suppositories?).
However, it really only stands to reason that, if you make an overt effort to avoid a security measure (putting aside the question of whether the security measure is reasonable in the first place), you will then be subject to greater scrutiny.
No, I think I got the point very clearly, but I think the point is a misguided one. Well-intentioned and politely stated, of course, but misguided.
It is premature to talk about "we" having stuck to our side of the bargain in providing Larson with a monopoly until that monopoly has actually been given its full run. With people posting the comics without Larson's permission "we" are actually the ones who are reneging. We're taking public possession of his works too soon, shortening the monopoly the societal bargain entitles him to.
Tearing the comic out of the newspaper or book and posting it on your fridge or cubicle is clearly protected by the first sale doctrine. It's not copying and distribution.
Arguably, making one copy of the same comic to post it may be protected as a fair use.
However, scanning and posting that same comic to a web site where it is availble for copying/download by the entire world is quite a step beyond posting your own single copy where it may be observed by those physically present.
Why isn't it Larson's choice to make as to whether he wants exposure to that sort of publicity? Sounds like the actress in your analogy got to do so.
If he dies a pauper because he stubbornly refused to do what was good for him, who are we to rescue him? He gets to make his own decisions, whether we like them or not.
Politely and respectfully said, but premature. The copyrights on Larson's works still have a long time to run before they go to the public domain.
He hasn't gotten his part of the bargain yet, so why should "we" be looking for our payoff yet?
I also note that Mike's analogy of taping a page of a Far Side calendar to his PC is not reallly apt. Larson wasn't complaining about acts protected by the first sale doctrine or, arguably, fair use (for copies actually made). What he was complaining about was the further distribution of his protected works without his permission.
So, "Teh interwebs" should be prepared to wait another few decades and not present the bill for Larson's payment on the bargain until it is actually due.
These are people who wanted more than just the music tracks or text of a book. So they paid for it.
I'm not sure how this demonstrates that people don't merely want stuff for free. There are a whole bunch of people who don't care about the extras and merely want the tracks/text for free. Showing a few people who step up to buy some extras doesn't "debunk" this at all.
However, on a slightly different track, I do agree that this demonstrates one way of providing incentive to get consumers to open their wallets.
On the post: Sheriff Files Criminal Complaint Against Reporter For Asking Questions He Didn't Like
"Clear abuse"???
Yeah, I suspect that, even if she was being annoying (as many reporters can be), her conduct was PROBABLY not harassing, unless we hear some more facts. But all we have is the report of ANOTHER REPORTER (WHIO TV) telling essentially the subject reporter's side of things.
Reporters are not magical creatures who can do no wrong. They can be just as obnoxious and sleazy as the worst government official, and it's silly how often I see that people want to treat reporters as somehow incapable of doing wrong when in pursuit of the "truth".
I'd like a few more facts before I'd be willing to say there was a "clear" case of anything here.
HM
On the post: Nanny State: More Politicians Against Pedestrians Listening To Headphones Or Texting
Re: Politicians aren't some mythical beast
HM
On the post: Nanny State: More Politicians Against Pedestrians Listening To Headphones Or Texting
Re: Before banning head phones...
HM
On the post: Nanny State: More Politicians Against Pedestrians Listening To Headphones Or Texting
Wrong approach...
HM
On the post: Max Mosley Says Newspapers Must Alert Famous People Before Writing Stories About Them
Re: Re: Re:
CORRECTED TRANSMISSION.
Privacy > Free Speech
END CORRECTED TRANSMISSION.
While some believe that you have tolerate the crap speech in order to make sure there's room for beneficial speech, I disagree.
Just like your proverbial right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose, your right to free speech should end at the personal life of another individual.
Free speech is, in a way, merely an expression of the more fundamental right of being left alone. THAT is what the Bill of Rights is all about - the right to be left alone. To be left alone in what you say, how you worship, who you associate with, in your personal papers, etc., etc., etc. That is the core - the only, really - truly fundamental right we can lay claim to. And why should your right to be left alone in expressing yourself trump MY right to just be plain left alone? If the two are really in conflict, it seems the one who is treading upon the privacy of the other shuld be the one who gets pulled up short.
More people in our society should engage in some free thinking before they engage in free speech. The latter is cheapened without a healthy dose of the former.
HM
On the post: Max Mosley Says Newspapers Must Alert Famous People Before Writing Stories About Them
Re:
If the victim can show that the facts being publicized do not seem to have anything to do with the thing that makes him famous (e.g., for an actor, it didn't happen while on the set, or at a publicity event, etc.), then the burden should shift to the "reporter" to explain why the victim's fame somehow overrides his right to privacy.
Not the current state of the law, I know. Just the way it oughta be. I think a citizen's privacy should generally trump someone else's freedom of speech, if the two are actually in conflict.
HM
On the post: Max Mosley Says Newspapers Must Alert Famous People Before Writing Stories About Them
Re: Re:
No, it doesn't seem newsworthy to me. I imagine just about everyone has some fantasy that's gross and disgusting to someone else. Not to condone anything having to do with victimizing children, but what does it matter? Some people look on gay fantasies in that way. Should it be newsworthy if the President were to be known to have harbored a same-sex fantasy? Again, what does it matter?
If said President actualy ACTED on those child sex fantasies, THEN perhaps we've got a newsworthy issue. A President charged with enforcing our laws would then have broken them. That's a different story.
I don't care (nor should anybody else) if the President dresses up in Edwardian-era women's clothes and near-asphyxiates himself by hanging from a silk sash tied to a closet bar in the Lincoln Bedroom while jerking off to Gregorian chants and muttering about performing carnal acts with goats. Unless he does it on company time. And I, for one, am willing to give him a few hours free time in the evening to pursue personal interests.
And it certainly doesn't seem "newsworthy" to me. Merely because small-minded people love to wallow in the feeling of looking down upon an embarassed celebrity does not make the failings of these celebrities "newsworthy".
And the thing of it is, it's celebrities today. It's you and me tomorrow. We already see how everyday people are humiliated by the fact that they were unlucky enough to do something embarassing in range of a camera held by someone ready to blast it around the world. I don't see that gettin' any better any time soon.
HM
On the post: Max Mosley Says Newspapers Must Alert Famous People Before Writing Stories About Them
Re: Re: Re:
HM
On the post: Max Mosley Says Newspapers Must Alert Famous People Before Writing Stories About Them
Re:
HM
On the post: Max Mosley Says Newspapers Must Alert Famous People Before Writing Stories About Them
Re:
HM
On the post: Max Mosley Says Newspapers Must Alert Famous People Before Writing Stories About Them
Our society has an unhealthy interest in the lives of celebrities.
My thought is that "public figures" (for whom privacy protections are generally weakened in the public interest of promoting free speech) should only be considered such when they are actually doing the thing that makes them a public figure. So, the dashing movie star would be fair game for pictures, etc. when he is on the set, attending a gala debut, etc., BUT, should be considered strictly a private citizen and left alone when walking his dog in the park or trying to go grocery shopping or have a quiet meal out with the dining partner of his choice.
It's nobody's business who celebrities are sleeping with, whether they've cheated on their spouses, if they got sloppy drunk at a party and said something embarassing, or whatever. It's not even clear to me that the public has a legitimate interest in publicizing a celebrity who gets arrested (they certainly currently have the legal right to publish/read such reports, but it's not what I would call "legitimate" in it's not clear what public interest this serves - a warning to stay off the road when Lindsay Lohan is driving?). Certainly arrest records are public, but most of us don't have to worry that someone is going to pick our mug shot out for plastering on the front page of a checkstand gossip rag or posting on some cheezy blog. There's a difference between a public record and a publicized record.
HM
On the post: Indoctrinating Children To Hate Freedom Of The Press?
I wonder...
The press is not made up of magical creatures who act only out of noble purposes. They are people who have bills to pay, bosses to satisfy, egos to feed and all sort of other things that are also apt descriptors of the evil government and corporate people that get complained about here.
I certainly do not trust that the press is acting in my best interest, especially since I don't get to vote for them, or call them onto any sort of official carpet when they act irresponsibly. You can't impeach a reporter or vote him out of office at the next election. Indeed, we are often told that we have to put up with the extremes of the press in order to preserve the ability of the more responsible members of that profession to do their job (I don't really buy this).
I think the press should be viewed with at least as much skepticism as the government they are reporting on.
HM
On the post: TSA Warns That If You Wear Scanner Resistant Clothing, They'll Have To Grope You
Not really passive-aggressive
However, it really only stands to reason that, if you make an overt effort to avoid a security measure (putting aside the question of whether the security measure is reasonable in the first place), you will then be subject to greater scrutiny.
HM
On the post: Rock & A Hard Place: Will Google Dropping H.264 Lead To Antitrust Questions?
Re:
HM
On the post: Dear Gary Larson: Your Kids Go Out At Night; Let Them Be
Re: Re: Re: Dear Mr. Larson
It is premature to talk about "we" having stuck to our side of the bargain in providing Larson with a monopoly until that monopoly has actually been given its full run. With people posting the comics without Larson's permission "we" are actually the ones who are reneging. We're taking public possession of his works too soon, shortening the monopoly the societal bargain entitles him to.
HM
On the post: Dear Gary Larson: Your Kids Go Out At Night; Let Them Be
Re: Re: Re:
In order to put it up on your web site, you necessarily made a copy of it. And it's then available for everyone in the world to make their own copy.
That is the far side of the line.
HM
On the post: Dear Gary Larson: Your Kids Go Out At Night; Let Them Be
Re:
Arguably, making one copy of the same comic to post it may be protected as a fair use.
However, scanning and posting that same comic to a web site where it is availble for copying/download by the entire world is quite a step beyond posting your own single copy where it may be observed by those physically present.
HM
On the post: Dear Gary Larson: Your Kids Go Out At Night; Let Them Be
Re: To be Noticed or Forgotten?
If he dies a pauper because he stubbornly refused to do what was good for him, who are we to rescue him? He gets to make his own decisions, whether we like them or not.
HM
On the post: Dear Gary Larson: Your Kids Go Out At Night; Let Them Be
Re: Dear Mr. Larson
He hasn't gotten his part of the bargain yet, so why should "we" be looking for our payoff yet?
I also note that Mike's analogy of taping a page of a Far Side calendar to his PC is not reallly apt. Larson wasn't complaining about acts protected by the first sale doctrine or, arguably, fair use (for copies actually made). What he was complaining about was the further distribution of his protected works without his permission.
So, "Teh interwebs" should be prepared to wait another few decades and not present the bill for Larson's payment on the bargain until it is actually due.
HM
On the post: Debunking The 'But People Just Want Stuff For Free' Myth
How does this debunk anything?
I'm not sure how this demonstrates that people don't merely want stuff for free. There are a whole bunch of people who don't care about the extras and merely want the tracks/text for free. Showing a few people who step up to buy some extras doesn't "debunk" this at all.
However, on a slightly different track, I do agree that this demonstrates one way of providing incentive to get consumers to open their wallets.
HM
Next >>