I'm not trying to sound intelligent. I'm applying logic; which seems to be difficult for an art nerd such as yourself to understand.
The moment art is consumed by an audience it becomes subject to the opinion(s) of the audience, and the artists intent immediately becomes less important (to the audience if not to the artist himself).
Intent is, in the end, meaningless. Sure, from an academic perspective the artists intent might have some value, but art is all about how it affects the audience (this includes movies, music, and the written word). The artist can say whatever they damn well please, but what matters in the end is what the audience thinks.
Any time an artist is asked what their intent was they should respond with, "My intent was to affect my audience." When asked what kind of effect they wanted to have on their audience, they should respond with, "I can't answer that. the only person who can answer that is the person experiencing my art."
The artist only has so much control over how their work is perceived, and because of this their intent becomes irrelevant (in time, if not immediately).
Congratulations on the birth of your new baby! [[insert name of baby]] is a wonderful name. We're sure your child will accomplish great things and provide you and your family with years of joy and love.
Now that your child has been born, the State of Maryland has created several social media and email accounts for their use over the course of your child's life.
Until they are old enough to use these services themselves, we encourage you to create posts to share your child's experiences with your friends and family.
Facebook, twitter, Hotmail, Yahoo!, and gmail account information is listed here:
Facebook: [[insert user id]]
twitter: [[insert user id]]
Hotmail: [[insert user id]]
Yahoo!: [[insert user id]]
gmail: [[insert user id]]
The current password for all 5 accounts is your baby's name followed by their date of birth in the format MMDDYY. Please login to the accounts and change the passwords as soon as possible to protect your child's identity.
Please keep in mind that any password changes are transmitted to FICO, Experian, Equifax, TransUnion, and the Maryland Departments of Revenue, Justice, and Motor Vehicles. This is to aid in future credit reporting and background checks and prevent your child's identity from being stolen.
We assure you that any user account information will be completely secure and will be obscured from any state, federal, or private employee.
Warmest regards on this happy occasion,
[[insert name of current governor]]
[[insert digital signature of current governor]]
Governor, State of Maryland
The point of the lawsuit could be more about punishing Breitbart than Sherrod making any sort of financial gain. If she wins, then, sure, she'll probably get some money, but either way it costs him money AND time. Forcing him to deal with the lawsuit in the first place is punishing him to some extent.
While her name may have been cleared, Breitbart got off with a, "shame on you and don't do it again." For somebody in his position, that is pretty meaningless, and he gets off scot-free. The lawsuit, right or wrong, adds incentive for him to be more careful about making the same errors in the future.
It wasn't just the reporting of the riots Mubarak's government was trying to stop. I'd say that wasn't even the primary purpose. The internet is was being used to organize and advertise the demonstrations so it got shut down. Preventing the internal reporting on the web was sort of a bonus (obviously the lack of internet connectivity hasn't stopped reporting).
As for Obama and a good number of Republicans...really? You think they're salivating over this? You didn't think they knew this was possible to begin with after the telcos rolled over on warrantless wiretaps, etc.?
The supposed additional value is that it will be ad-free and laid out in a "useful" format closer to a traditional paper layout. so that means multiple columns and, according to Ongo, will require no, or at least less scrolling. They think that hasn't been done before. Somebody should probably tell them about Huffingtonpost and Dailly Caller (among others).
Perhaps "Nogo" would be a better name for the new site/company...
I agree completely, and your opening paragraph actually sparked another thought: many (most?) police cars a have a video camera (and mic) recording what's happening. I certainly didn't consent to that monitoring.
I also don't consent to speed or other traffic cameras recording me when I'm driving. Sounds almost like an instant out to red-light cameras to me...
1) If a press conference is held, then does the press corps need to ask every speak if they can record them before asking a question (and recording it)?
1a) Does members of the press corps have to ask each other if they can record each other?
2) If a reporter walks up to somebody on the street and has a camera man with them (or a voice recorder in hand), then are they automatically breaking the law when they start pelting their target with questions?
3) If I get pulled over and tell the cop that I'm recording everything that is said in the traffic stop, then can he give me a ticket? :-p
(Yes, I know the answer to #3, but it would be fun to try...somewhere other than Chicago.)
Except that getting any phone to record is more than simply flipping a switch. If it was just pulling a phone out and clicking a button and putting it down then I might agree that it wasn't obvious. Only it's at least three operations to make a phone record (turn on screen, open recording app/function, click record button). I don't buy that they didn't know she started recording until a few minutes later (or longer)
The IA officers had every right to stop talking after they saw her pull out the phone, and they didn't. the phone wasn't concealed and, by the sound of it, she placed it on the desk. they kept talking. That sounds like consent to me.
She should argue that she was planning to turn the tape over to a local news organization (better yet: all of them) and that they were infringing on the 1st Amendment. Every news organization in Chicago should file a request for access to the phone and run a story on what she did manage to record.
Would members of the press still be breaking the law? Doubtful, and if they were, then I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court would have something to say about the Constitutionality of this particular law; even the current Supreme Court.
I can so no way in which this has anything to do with a fear of lawsuits from players. The NFL already mandates that its players wear protective gear, and its understood that it will not prevent injury. It will certainly lessen the possibility of injury, but nobody thinks it will prevent it entirely. The same goes for helmets, and if it didn't, then we'd have already seen hundreds of lawsuits by players (more likely the NFLPA) against the NFL.
No, this is the NFL trying to save face with the public because of the abysmal response and whitewashing of the concussion problem. The NFL could simply mandate the type of helmet players use as part of standard equipment, but they haven't and probably won't. And this is why they freaked.
An executive order would hold no legal weight on a corporation; especially since there would be no penalty contained in an executive order. And any law passed by congress would be struck down by the Supreme Court ins about three second. Well, maybe not this Supreme Court, but it would be clearly unconstitutional.
You seemed to ignore the rest of my reply though.
I can't disagree strongly enough that the press shouldn't be limited by statute when reporting on the government. Should the press carefully consider the repercussions of publishing certain stories? Absolutely, but they already do.
Just because the press knows something doesn't mean anybody else does (especially an enemy in another country). In fact, I'd say that, usually, if the press nows something, then most of the rest of the country, if not the world, probably doesn't.
I don't believe anybody is saying that having a free press and freedom of speech doesn't require them to take on a huge amount of personal responsibility and to think before speaking. Should the press have held the story back?
Probably, but what if the American public didn't want the invasion to happen in the first place? Should they have held the story back then? would have still been irresponsible if they were trying to prevent what was coming? Maybe the writers and editors discussed and argued about publishing the story for hours days?) or maybe they didn't, but I'm fairly certain that they didn't stand up and say, "hey, y'know what? we should publish this because it will make it easier for the enemy to defend themselves."
And I said something similar when Geraldo published an examination of the geology of the background in videos when the USA first went into Afghanistan. After that, every video had a sheet or some other device blocking the view of where the enemy was hiding. Should he have run the report? Probably not, but he dind't do it to make things more difficult for our armed forces or to put them in greater danger (the report, arguably, did both). And I still supported him running the report even if I called him a dumb ass every time he opened his mouth.
Saying that the press should never report on military movements is far too encompassing. The free press is an important part of defending our rights. Limiting the press means drawing a line, but who gets to decide where the line sits? And how is would the line be to move?
I remember hearing about some survey of American high school students conducted, I believe, shortly after the Iraq "War" began (maybe a year or two after). The big question in the survey was whether the press should have to get permission from the government to print articles, and the answer was, frighteningly, "Yes."
I wonder how many of those kids had this same kind of visit to the Reagan Library.
Whoever put that exercise together ought to be ashamed, but we all know they're not...
it's about perspective (and fear), and i think it comes down to the definition of the word, "journalist" (or "news organization" if you prefer).
many of the opponents of Wikileaks (politicians, pundits, etc) have repeatedly said that Wikileaks isn't a news organization and Assange isn't a journalist. why he, specifically, needs to be a journalist escapes me (the head of the NYT doesn't need to be), but their belief that Wikileaks isn't journalism allows them to spout off about it without (much) fear of reprisal. additionally it provides cover to corporations that distance themselves from Wikileaks.
by contrast, the NYT is a well established new organization and is therefor protected by the 1st Amendment. making similar threats and claims against the Times would earn all of the opponents a public lashing. they can get away with saying that the Times is being reckless or should be more thoughtful, but any criticisms more severe would make the Times a victim. it would be a political disaster. Assange and Wikileaks do not enjoy the same protections (both 1st Amendment and political) as the Times, so that's why they're being attacked int he way they are.
aside from the fear thing (cowards), i think it comes down to a lack of understanding about how the very nature of journalism is changing; and citizen journalism in particular. of course, i think that misunderstanding is based in fear as well, but perhaps that's a different discussion.
On the post: Do We Really Want Judges Determining What Art 'Says'?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Do We Really Want Judges Determining What Art 'Says'?
Re: Re: Re:
The moment art is consumed by an audience it becomes subject to the opinion(s) of the audience, and the artists intent immediately becomes less important (to the audience if not to the artist himself).
It's not a terribly difficult concept to grasp.
On the post: Do We Really Want Judges Determining What Art 'Says'?
Re:
Any time an artist is asked what their intent was they should respond with, "My intent was to affect my audience." When asked what kind of effect they wanted to have on their audience, they should respond with, "I can't answer that. the only person who can answer that is the person experiencing my art."
The artist only has so much control over how their work is perceived, and because of this their intent becomes irrelevant (in time, if not immediately).
On the post: PayPal Cuts Off Account For Bradley Manning Support
Soooo...
On the post: Maryland Corrections Agency Demanding All Social Media Passwords Of Potential Hires
State of Maryland form letter to new parents...
Congratulations on the birth of your new baby! [[insert name of baby]] is a wonderful name. We're sure your child will accomplish great things and provide you and your family with years of joy and love.
Now that your child has been born, the State of Maryland has created several social media and email accounts for their use over the course of your child's life.
Until they are old enough to use these services themselves, we encourage you to create posts to share your child's experiences with your friends and family.
Facebook, twitter, Hotmail, Yahoo!, and gmail account information is listed here:
Facebook: [[insert user id]]
twitter: [[insert user id]]
Hotmail: [[insert user id]]
Yahoo!: [[insert user id]]
gmail: [[insert user id]]
The current password for all 5 accounts is your baby's name followed by their date of birth in the format MMDDYY. Please login to the accounts and change the passwords as soon as possible to protect your child's identity.
Please keep in mind that any password changes are transmitted to FICO, Experian, Equifax, TransUnion, and the Maryland Departments of Revenue, Justice, and Motor Vehicles. This is to aid in future credit reporting and background checks and prevent your child's identity from being stolen.
We assure you that any user account information will be completely secure and will be obscured from any state, federal, or private employee.
Warmest regards on this happy occasion,
[[insert name of current governor]]
[[insert digital signature of current governor]]
Governor, State of Maryland
On the post: If The Whole World Knows A False Statement Was Made About You... Why Still Sue For Defamation?
While her name may have been cleared, Breitbart got off with a, "shame on you and don't do it again." For somebody in his position, that is pretty meaningless, and he gets off scot-free. The lawsuit, right or wrong, adds incentive for him to be more careful about making the same errors in the future.
On the post: Al Jazeera Offers Up Egypt Coverage To Anyone Who Wants To Use It Under Creative Commons License
On the post: A Look At How Egypt Shut Down The Internet
Re: Re:
As for Obama and a good number of Republicans...really? You think they're salivating over this? You didn't think they knew this was possible to begin with after the telcos rolled over on warrantless wiretaps, etc.?
On the post: How Cute: NY Times, WaPo & Gannett Build Their Own Walled Garden Most People Will Ignore
Additional value
Perhaps "Nogo" would be a better name for the new site/company...
On the post: Woman Arrested For Recording Attempt To Report Police Officer Who Sexually Assaulted Her
Re: Re: Questions
I also don't consent to speed or other traffic cameras recording me when I'm driving. Sounds almost like an instant out to red-light cameras to me...
On the post: Woman Arrested For Recording Attempt To Report Police Officer Who Sexually Assaulted Her
Questions
1a) Does members of the press corps have to ask each other if they can record each other?
2) If a reporter walks up to somebody on the street and has a camera man with them (or a voice recorder in hand), then are they automatically breaking the law when they start pelting their target with questions?
3) If I get pulled over and tell the cop that I'm recording everything that is said in the traffic stop, then can he give me a ticket? :-p
(Yes, I know the answer to #3, but it would be fun to try...somewhere other than Chicago.)
On the post: Woman Arrested For Recording Attempt To Report Police Officer Who Sexually Assaulted Her
Re: Re: Free press
On the post: Woman Arrested For Recording Attempt To Report Police Officer Who Sexually Assaulted Her
Free press
She should argue that she was planning to turn the tape over to a local news organization (better yet: all of them) and that they were infringing on the 1st Amendment. Every news organization in Chicago should file a request for access to the phone and run a story on what she did manage to record.
Would members of the press still be breaking the law? Doubtful, and if they were, then I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court would have something to say about the Constitutionality of this particular law; even the current Supreme Court.
On the post: Why Would The NFL Force Toyota To Pull An Ad About Protecting Players From Concussions?
Re: Typical NFL response
No, this is the NFL trying to save face with the public because of the abysmal response and whitewashing of the concussion problem. The NFL could simply mandate the type of helmet players use as part of standard equipment, but they haven't and probably won't. And this is why they freaked.
On the post: Indoctrinating Children To Hate Freedom Of The Press?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe this explains it
You seemed to ignore the rest of my reply though. I can't disagree strongly enough that the press shouldn't be limited by statute when reporting on the government. Should the press carefully consider the repercussions of publishing certain stories? Absolutely, but they already do.
On the post: Indoctrinating Children To Hate Freedom Of The Press?
Re: Re: Re: Maybe this explains it
Just because the press knows something doesn't mean anybody else does (especially an enemy in another country). In fact, I'd say that, usually, if the press nows something, then most of the rest of the country, if not the world, probably doesn't.
On the post: Indoctrinating Children To Hate Freedom Of The Press?
Re: Re: Maybe this explains it
On the post: Indoctrinating Children To Hate Freedom Of The Press?
Maybe this explains it
I wonder how many of those kids had this same kind of visit to the Reagan Library.
Whoever put that exercise together ought to be ashamed, but we all know they're not...
On the post: Will Visa, MasterCard, Paypal, BofA & Apple Terminate Relationships With The NYTimes For Revealing Military Secrets?
cc came closest
many of the opponents of Wikileaks (politicians, pundits, etc) have repeatedly said that Wikileaks isn't a news organization and Assange isn't a journalist. why he, specifically, needs to be a journalist escapes me (the head of the NYT doesn't need to be), but their belief that Wikileaks isn't journalism allows them to spout off about it without (much) fear of reprisal. additionally it provides cover to corporations that distance themselves from Wikileaks.
by contrast, the NYT is a well established new organization and is therefor protected by the 1st Amendment. making similar threats and claims against the Times would earn all of the opponents a public lashing. they can get away with saying that the Times is being reckless or should be more thoughtful, but any criticisms more severe would make the Times a victim. it would be a political disaster. Assange and Wikileaks do not enjoy the same protections (both 1st Amendment and political) as the Times, so that's why they're being attacked int he way they are.
aside from the fear thing (cowards), i think it comes down to a lack of understanding about how the very nature of journalism is changing; and citizen journalism in particular. of course, i think that misunderstanding is based in fear as well, but perhaps that's a different discussion.
On the post: More & Bigger Mistakes Discovered In Homeland Security's Domain Seizures
guilty until proven innocent
that's so last decade...
Next >>