Re: Using ad serving software for censoring news stories

[Drsolly <drsollyp () drsolly com>]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Brian Loe wrote:

> On 8/30/06, Drsolly <drsollyp () drsolly com> wrote:
> > > Didn't get what right the first time around? The First Amendment WAS
> > > our first time - after kicking our "lords" (your king) out. The first
> > > ten "Amendments" are called the Bill of Rights and were written to
> > > guarantee the passage of the Constitution.
> >
> > Ah, right. This is your theory that "to amend" doesn't mean "to correct"
> > and that an "amendment" isn't a "correction".
>
> I see you have been to lazy to go read up on this since the last time
> we had this conversation.

You're right, I can't be bothered to learn your particular dialect and the 
meanings you assign to words, because I doubt that I'd find a use for it, 
other than talking to you, because to everyone else bar you, "amendment" 
means "correction" or "change for the better, or improvement".

http://www.answers.com/amendment&r=67

> We have only ONE "Consitution". The Articles of Confederation for a
> stop-gap measure employed before the Constitution was ratified -
> basically, before we had a form of government. For someone who claims
> to know so much about my country, you seem to know very little.

Actually, I know very little about foreign countries and their particular 
legal systems, and the particular names given to the various documents in 
the collection that you collectively call your "Constitution" (or maybe 
you don't), isn't that big a deal to me.
 
> > In US law, does the right to a fair trial trump freedom of the press, or
> > is the press allowed to try and convict anyone who they think would give
> > them a boost in sales?
>
> No, it does not. As I said, you're free to have your own opinion - and
> share it as you wish. Has your beloved King crushed all of the blogs
> that may or may not be calling these people terrorists yet?

We don't have a king. And even if we did, that wouldn't be his job. 
The way it works, is that the defence counsel assembles all the evidence 
that he can to show that his client isn't guilty, while the prosecution 
tries to prove guilt. One of the possible defences is that the accused 
cannot have a fair trial, as the case has already been prejudged in the 
media; if that defence succeeds, then the accused walks free, since his 
guilt cannot be proved.

Since any responsible journalist doesn't want to be the cause of a 
terrorist walking free, they're very careful what they say in print.

Possibly US journalists are more concernedd about a story that sells 
papers and less about justice being done, but in the UK, we want to 
arrest, prosecute and imprison the terrorists.

And it's very good that a foreign newspaper (was it the New York Times? I
forget, I don't tend to read foreign newspapers) makes an effort not to
provide a defence to the alleged terrorists that have now been arrested
and charged.

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.