| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
 Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 6:51 pm Post subject: Congress Adds Bloggers To Press Protections |
 |
|
|
|
Great .. except if Bush pondered bombing Aljazeera, who's safe anyway ...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
major.tom
Macho Business Donkey Wrestler
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Location: BC, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 12:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
I thought the Al Jazeera station in Bagdad was actually hit. There was a station in Afghanistan (Kandahar?) that was, I recall. But your point is still valid.
At least bloggers are now entitled to the same legal protections as mainstream journalists. Sounds like progress. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| I've never felt the need for laws to tell me it's ok to say anything. I've paid the price for saying the wrong thing plenty of times right enough... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| major.tom wrote: | I thought the Al Jazeera station in Bagdad was actually hit. There was a station in Afghanistan (Kandahar?) that was, I recall.
|
Yep, above were in a war zone, and a number of press have been shot in war zones where the Americans claimed it wasn't deliberate {of-course, we believe them. they have never lied}.
I meant the leaked memo about Bush planning to bomb Aljazeera head office in Bahrain, a supposed ALLIED COUNTRY. I wonder if they would have said Iran (or Al-Qaeda) did it [or a stray Saddam missile, like the one which hit a Kuwait shopping center]
They have been found guilty :
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Mandy - what's that got to do with the topic? That's about the quickest agenda change in history! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| faceless wrote: | | Mandy - what's that got to do with the topic? That's about the quickest agenda change in history! |
Thanks 
The original article was that bloggers should be protected (freedom of speech, 1st amendment), but then I said that even people like Al-Jazeera who should have this protection as journalists were targeted outside a war zone, and hence the report about the leaked memo and the trial, but if you just read the BBC report, you would have no idea the issue was about deliberately targeting Journalists outside a war zone because you don't like what they are reporting. What do we expect from the Bush & Blair Corporation.
On that analogy, anti-war bloggers could be "targeted", and the memo provides an insight into the morality of Bush. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| wasn't aljazeera hit twice? in two different places? or was it only the once and the other one was just talked about? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 1:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| luke wrote: | | wasn't aljazeera hit twice? in two different places? or was it only the once and the other one was just talked about? |
From memory, I think major.tom was right that their Bagdad and Afghanistan offices were both hit.
The leaked memo was about a discussion to hit a third location : their CENTER in "friendly" Bahrain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| The original article only relates to internal US law though - it's not connected to how they might blow up Al Jazeera as a result of foreign policy. So stick that up your jumper! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 2:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Which jumper? I have a few.
Though faceless you do raise an interesting point : does the protection offered by the constitution extend overseas to where US has "control". I think Congress said it did (re Guantanamo).
The original report should strengthen (at least morally) bloggers all over the world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 2:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| It's an internal law - its repercussions only affect Americans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
major.tom
Macho Business Donkey Wrestler
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Location: BC, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 2:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| faceless wrote: | | It's an internal law - its repercussions only affect Americans. |
Very good point. Any U.S. law should be interpreted as protecting the rights of American citizens or "interests" (ie. corporations)
In the interest of balance, I should caveat that the U.S. is not unique in selective application of the law... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| major.tom wrote: | | faceless wrote: | | It's an internal law - its repercussions only affect Americans. |
Very good point. Any U.S. law should be interpreted as protecting the rights of American citizens or "interests" (ie. corporations)
In the interest of balance, I should caveat that the U.S. is not unique in selective application of the law... |
I hate to be the one who is disagreeing. If you are not an America. but passing through American territory, then US laws apply. Therefore if you were extradited to US (as UK is very willing to do), you would be protected by these laws.
US laws applies to all people once they are on US controlled territory (including Guantanamo).
The US likes to apply "extra-territoriality", i.e. they have a tendency to extend their law to other countries (e.g. via free-trade / or bilaterial agreements).
The new US law also sets a powerful precedent, i.e. bloggers the world over can now more easily say they are Press (which is bound to be referred to in China or other countries which imprison non-conforming bloggers) , so it is a PR bonanza for bloggers. I might even print badges, "I am a Blogger, watch be roar" (c) WRH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Mandy - you can argue the point all you like, but there is no connection between a normal person writing a blog and a government employee revealing secrets about military actions. No government will allow that - and I wouldn't expect them to. By comparison it would be like someone posting details of when you go out to the shops on a site for burglars and not getting trouble from it - it's just free information after all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Maybe worth opening a thread on where freedom of information, whistle-blowing, and government secrecy intersect.
I believe the leak was embarrassing, rather than endangering military lives, and bloggs are the natural place for getting round mass-media control to publicize embarrassing items. Too many governments round the world are keen to use the "secrets" excuse to regulate and shut down bloggers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
