This entire situation also proves that in the US we basically have no free press anymore. Besides the Times and a few other news organizations, the US news media is entirely bought and sold by corporations and the government itself.

The government really has succeeded at the impossible by all but completely subverting the Free Press in this country and the outrage over Wikileaks by many of the major news outlets just goes to show how everything they say is controlled by the corporations that own them. Most of the 'news' we have today is just sensationalism and subversion. The title of this very video is an example of that. Just like with the Pentagon Papers, which exposed that the pentagon had provoked an attack on US vessels by the North Vietnamese and then lied about saying the attack was unwarranted in an attempt to swing public favor to those who wanted a war. Sound familiar?

>> ^Payback:

I thought the Constitution only protected American citizens. Assange isn't American.


True that he isn't American, but I would've hoped that a government of a country that has a constitutionally-enshrined free press wouldn't seek to censor a press source from any other country that comes into posession of leaked documents. In other words, one would hope that the American government would respect their own constitution enough to consider its fundamental protections to be universally applicable.

*sarcasm-switch-on* Well that was informative, I've learned that weapons get traded, that Chinese aren't open towards free press, that some people want to shoot other people so the latter people wear nice-looking armor, that African people scam people on the Internet, and that there are two crazy individuals in Black Metal.

*sarcasm-switch-off* Well that was superficial, I've not learned why the USA is dominated by the military industrial complex, why weapons are sold to anyone who can pay for them, why the very high gun-ownership around the world is a danger to even Steven Seagal, whom we all love, why it is allowed for a tailor to shoot someone, even in armor, why Ghana is so poor its children poison themselves on the "first world's" garbage, why the "first world" just dumps it there and finally why a report about Black Metal focusses on two extreme and/or crazy individuals only.

>> ^EMPIRE:

ig·no·rant/ˈignərənt/Adjective
1. Lacking knowledge or awareness in general;
It doesn't say "lacking knowledge by choice". An ignorant is still an ignorant, doesn't matter if forced to it or by choice. Uganda has a high illiteracy rate, which I'm sure says a lot about this.
Lack of education is at the root of all problems.

>> ^robbersdog49:
>> ^EMPIRE:
Uganda... another country in the list of "mostly made up of ignorants"

No. Another country on the list of countries run by closed circles of people. We live in coutries with free press, where we get to hear the other point of view. Just think of how much of your world view is formed by what you see in the press. You now have a good idea of how things are in Uganda, but I'm betting you've never been there and seen it with your own eyes. Your view is from what you see/hear in your free press.
Now imagine you live in a country without a free press. How do you know it's not free? You're being told it is. Your world view is being shaped every step of the way. You're being told what to think, but here's the worst bit: You probably don't realise you're being told what to think.
The people in power are constantly shaping the way a nation thinks. It isn't fair to say the people are ignorant. They aren't given the chance to ignore anything. You make your comment because you don't like the way a group of people are being so obviously discriminated against. And yet your comment is discriminating against Ugandans who you've never met and who's views you don't know.
Discrimination like this is a bad thing, let's all stay away from it.
To be clear, I'm not saying this guy is right in any way at all. I'm just saying that all we know is that these are his views. You don't know what is going on in Uganda, so don't tar all Ugandans with the same brush.



Ok, I mistook the feeling behind your original post. You should know though that in general use, ignorant is not a neutral term, it's derogative. It usually implies a negative feeling toward the person being described as ignorant. You are entirely correct that the dictionary definition you've found is right, but you must understand the context. Maybe you should explain yourself better in the future when using terms that could be misleading or give people the wrong idea.

Please don't claim you don't understand that the word ignorant is usually used as an insult, we're all cleverer than that here.

>> ^robbersdog49:

Now imagine you live in a country without a free press.

We don't really have to imagine it, so much as realize we're already there...

ig·no·rant/ˈignərənt/Adjective
1. Lacking knowledge or awareness in general;

It doesn't say "lacking knowledge by choice". An ignorant is still an ignorant, doesn't matter if forced to it or by choice. Uganda has a high illiteracy rate, which I'm sure says a lot about this.

Lack of education is at the root of all problems.


>> ^robbersdog49:

>> ^EMPIRE:
Uganda... another country in the list of "mostly made up of ignorants"

No. Another country on the list of countries run by closed circles of people. We live in coutries with free press, where we get to hear the other point of view. Just think of how much of your world view is formed by what you see in the press. You now have a good idea of how things are in Uganda, but I'm betting you've never been there and seen it with your own eyes. Your view is from what you see/hear in your free press.
Now imagine you live in a country without a free press. How do you know it's not free? You're being told it is. Your world view is being shaped every step of the way. You're being told what to think, but here's the worst bit: You probably don't realise you're being told what to think.
The people in power are constantly shaping the way a nation thinks. It isn't fair to say the people are ignorant. They aren't given the chance to ignore anything. You make your comment because you don't like the way a group of people are being so obviously discriminated against. And yet your comment is discriminating against Ugandans who you've never met and who's views you don't know.
Discrimination like this is a bad thing, let's all stay away from it.
To be clear, I'm not saying this guy is right in any way at all. I'm just saying that all we know is that these are his views. You don't know what is going on in Uganda, so don't tar all Ugandans with the same brush.

>> ^EMPIRE:

Uganda... another country in the list of "mostly made up of ignorants"


No. Another country on the list of countries run by closed circles of people. We live in coutries with free press, where we get to hear the other point of view. Just think of how much of your world view is formed by what you see in the press. You now have a good idea of how things are in Uganda, but I'm betting you've never been there and seen it with your own eyes. Your view is from what you see/hear in your free press.

Now imagine you live in a country without a free press. How do you know it's not free? You're being told it is. Your world view is being shaped every step of the way. You're being told what to think, but here's the worst bit: You probably don't realise you're being told what to think.

The people in power are constantly shaping the way a nation thinks. It isn't fair to say the people are ignorant. They aren't given the chance to ignore anything. You make your comment because you don't like the way a group of people are being so obviously discriminated against. And yet your comment is discriminating against Ugandans who you've never met and who's views you don't know.

Discrimination like this is a bad thing, let's all stay away from it.

To be clear, I'm not saying this guy is right in any way at all. I'm just saying that all we know is that these are his views. You don't know what is going on in Uganda, so don't tar all Ugandans with the same brush.

Adrian Chen, is that you?
>> ^chilaxe:

@Asmo, @Gallowflak
1. Why lead on the groupies we fuck to believe we care about them, and then knowingly lie that their accusations originated from the Pentagon?
2. As the head of an organization, isn't there some responsibility to not be an asshole to our subordinates, even if they're powerless to do anything about it except quit our organization?

The idea that journalists shouldn't keep people honest if we happen to like the person seems to go against the idea of a free press.

@Asmo, @Gallowflak

1. Why lead on the groupies we fuck to believe we care about them, and then knowingly lie that their accusations originated from the Pentagon?

2. As the head of an organization, isn't there some responsibility to not be an asshole to our subordinates, even if they're powerless to do anything about it except quit our organization?


The idea that journalists shouldn't keep people honest if we happen to like the person seems to go against the idea of a free press.

>> ^marinara:

i would respect the judge more, but he's 100% against net neutrality. he loves turning over my internet connection over to abc/disney so they can profit off my tube.


Would your rather the government control that tube? I assure you, they would be far more restrictive, ask Howard Stern. I would like to see what his take on it is if you had any links on that I would love it

I think a better cure would to let other providers into these non-compete zones so people can have real consumer choice instead of governments legislating people into these horrible situations in the first place. >> ^NetRunner:

"At least [newspapers] go out of business when they don't tell the truth."
Uh, it's a little rich for someone on Fox News to say that truth has anything to do with the business model of modern press organizations.
For example, that's not part of the quote from Jefferson...


To me, it was rather clear that was his own attribution, not part of the quote. He was also (Jefferson) big on reading, by which I mean, having a free press doesn't matter if most of the population is illiterate. He is usually seen as the champion of small government, but it was mainly he who made the push for public education. In that, if the public was smart enough, it would be able to see that Fox and other news companies are more interested in news that leads and bleeds than gauges the pulse of history.

It's really very simple... Reporters as majority today are a bunch of lazy, stupid cowards that are in the tank for Obama.

Remember a few weeks ago when a SINGLE security guy managed to browbeat an entire cadre of White House reporters away from protestors that chained themselves to the White House fence? It was bad press for the man-child President. So the vaunted courage of our so-called free press was cowed like a bunch of sheep by a single, lone, elderly security guard until they were over 100 yards into the park across the street. All the while they are whining into their cell phones about how bogus it is. But not a single one took it on themselves to ignore the guard and do their freaking JOB as journalists.

But why should they? That particular story only involved the suppression and oppression of gay activists by a Democrat controlled administration. How does reporting on that fit the media template of Obama being a great president?

Why does the video title and description imply that the filming was prohibited when the video (vaguely) implies that they just weren't allowed to be on the beach? (Edit: or in a boat near the contaminated area)

If the beach is closed to everyone, for whatever reason, then I can only assume that includes journalists. Nothing in the video was said about telling them to stop filming, just to leave the area. If a truck turns over and spills oil on a highway they let people film it, but they don't let them stand in close proximity to the oil.

It's very likely true that BP is doing everything they can to minimize the PR damage from the spill, and that certainly isn't helping matters, but this seems like less of a free press issue and more of a debate over whether the beach should be closed.

I like the Jedi mind trick he does on them at the very end of the video.

In the US, firearm ownership is supposed to be a right. If something is a right, how can it ever be illegal?

One day soon some free speech will be outlawed... it starts with hate speech.

One day soon your religious rights will be regulated... it starts with the same sex marriages being outlawed.

One day soon your right to free press will be infringed... it starts with the outlawing of cameras.

One day soon your protection from quartered troops in your home will be abolished... it starts with the Patriot Act.

One day soon your right to due process will be done away with... it also starts with the Patriot Act.

One day soon your right to protection from cruel punishment will be replaced with routine "advanced interrogation techniques"... another one that starts with the Patriot Act.

Throughout history, the only blood to be spilled has been done at the hands of the religious? Does that make sense?

In public, there should be caps on speech. In the US, the principle of shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater is on well known restriction on free speech. The line is also drawn on public hate speech that incites immediate violence. I think that we should also restrict speech that leads to violence, as many countries do. I don't care too much about what a person does or says in their home, if it doesn't harm me.

Run that buy me again? Hang on, one more time I didn't quiet believe my eyes! I, wait I can't say anything because of the new caps on freedom of expression. Oh wait, this website is now gone because of the new international laws that stop us from free speech. Guess what Longde, your speech on this website would be capped just as everyone else would be.

Welcome to the world were no one can speak without being beheaded because "someone might get offended." Hang on, while we're at it lets go ahead and hang:

• George Carlin Posthumously


• Howard Zinn Posthumously


• Noam Chomsky


• Theo van Gogh (film director)- Oh wait, they got him already.


• Frank Zappa


• Saad Eddin Ibrahim

Wait, here is a whole list you can start with; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_speech_activists.

Hell while we are being politically correct lets go ahead and enact a law that will make mandatory executions for all independent investigative journalists. I mean while we are going all out here, why don't we go ahead and make it a crime to be anything independent.

I think someone said this before me, "There can be no freedom without free speech."Free Press. You know what they say? If you don't like it don't read it! If you don't like it don't watch it! If you don't like it don't eat it! If you don't like it go back to your protective bubble!

Hypberbole aside where I come from it is an inalienable right to speak your mind even if it offends someone. It is that offended persons right to think you are a douche bag. But as soon as there is violence both parties are in the wrong. Justice is properly blind but in most cases she is not stupid; she doth not tread across that line to become a tyrant.

Quotes from one John Stuart Mill speaking on the Harm Principle.

If the arguments of the present chapter are of any validity, there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered. (1978, 15)

John Stuart Mill quote on the Harm Principle, again:

In "On Liberty" (1859) John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered."[28] Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.[28]

What do these quotes mean to you and I? Well they mean simply; that a person can speak their mind so long as the argument presented is valid even if it is embarrassingly immoral. That means, as it is already a statute the US, that hate crime is not free speech. But the prosecuting party has the burden of proof. They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person had the intention of causing harm with said speech. Then we enter the realm of Libel and Slander. A person has to proven knowingly lieing about someone in order to be charged with Libel or Slander.

I have for you, sir or mam a quote from Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, this quote is often confused with Samuel Johnson's "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Hell is paved with good intentions." Even earlier than that, it's been attributed to Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153)

Human Meddling in the process of natural selection disgusts me to no end.

Natural selection is a hard thing.

I feel that if an animal cannot live long enough to reproduce, humans included, then it obviously does not pass on it's genes ergo; it does not pass the test of nature.

My opinion of selective breeders is, they disgust me on both a guttural and rational level. These hoity toity rich white people base their whole breeding on outdated and unscientific opinion on how a dog should look

I see a strong working dog as the peek of its breed. I see a show dog as a farce of nature.

Pure breeding is not something to be liked. Biodiversity and Genetic Diversity is something that nature naturally seeks, and it is proven time and again that breeding with a small gene pool with no diversity will ultimately lead to extinction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

I also find the Eugenicist argument about Pure Bred people completely warped.

My knowledge of biology is only as a hobby, and maybe a slight obsession. It was my favorite class in High School, and would probably have been in college had I majored in it.

On a more sentimental note an old German Shepard or Deutscher Schäferhund of mine died of complication that resulted from Hip Displasia. Here is a quote from the wikipedia on German Shepards:

In 1899, Von Stephanitz was attending a dog show when he was shown a dog named Hektor Linksrhein. Hektor was the product of many generations of selective breeding and completely fulfilled what Von Stephanitz believed a working dog should be. He was pleased with the strength of the dog and was so taken by the animal's intelligence and loyalty, that he purchased it immediately.

A genetic disease that is so common in German Shepherds that one could, speculatively argue that it is the cause of selective breeding. After watching the dog degrade into dragging it's own hind legs around for weeks, and then shitting on herself regularly, because she couldn't lift herself up to shit properly, it was time to euthanize the dog. I can't help but wonder what the breed would look like if it had a bit of diversity.

It is wondrous to think what the world would be like if humans had no developed the current human brain, and still only had the reptile brain.

For a unique understanding of evolution and natural selection read some of these:


The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1976. ISBN 0-19-286092-5.
he Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Free Press (United States), Transworld (United Kingdom and Commonwealth). 2009. ISBN 0-593-06173-X.
The Blind Watchmaker. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. 1986. ISBN 0-393-31570-3.


The Blind Watchmaker was the most complicated read in my opinion.