Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: How free should a 'free press' be?
The Fée Verte Absinthe Forum - The Oldest, Largest, Most Authoritative Absinthe Forum. > The Monkey Hole > The Newgate Calendar
Pages: 1, 2
hobgoblin
In the light of the News International revealations over here, leading to the closure of one of Britains oldest newspapers (The News of The World), how free should a 'free press' actually be? Is this lack of regulation being used by the press to prevent them being 'muzzled' from publishing important revealations that are in the national interest, or is the lack of regulation being used by the press to enable them to dig the dirt on individuals and allow them to show callous disregard for any damage they may do?

Hacking the mobile phone of a missing (murdered girl) and deleting messages to enable people to add more, thus giving false hope to parents that their daughter may be alive, is a pretty callous thing to do (and making payments to police for information during ongoing investigations into her disappearance and murder). Phoning up Gordon Brown to tell him that they were going to reveal to the nation that his son had cystic fibrosis, when Brown and his wife were just reeling from the shock of this themselves. Hacking the phones of the familes of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hacking the phones of the families of the victims of the London Al-Qaeda bombings…. etc. etc. All of the above is currently alleged.

Can the press be trusted with 'self-regulation'? If they cannot be trusted then surely legal regulation of their activities is required? What other business is allowed to regulate itself in this way? If you and I have our freedom to act as we please regulated, in order to protect the freedom of others, then why should the press be immune from this? Or will the public feeling (over here) of revulsion of the alleged activities of Rupert Murdoch's press end up being used by politicians to overly muzzle the press in order to prevent any nefarious activities of their own from ever being revealed?
Provenance
The press should never be regulated. Sure there are a very few extreme exceptions (kiddie porn, etc.) but not beyond that. Unlike banks, the press should not have to be responsible.

If I remember correctly, this sort of thing has been going on for a while. Didn't someone hack/intercept/whatever a call from the future King of England telling his mistress that he wanted to be her tampon? I don't recall massive outrage over that. Not even from Kotex. What's the real outrage, hacking the phones or hacking the phones of people who weren't part of the celebrity set?

Don't misunderstand, I strongly disapprove of the phone hacking and other privacy invasions and support criminal prosecution where existing laws have been broken. But I also know that as long as there are famous people, there will be masses that want to know the dirt on them and people who will supply it. I also know that there will be plenty of politicians and other celebrities who will try to use this to prevent the press from reporting unauthorized information about themselves. Funny how many of those people who are now reveling in their outrage bought the papers carrying the stories they now object to.
hobgoblin
QUOTE(Provenance @ Jul 14 2011, 09:56 PM) *
But I also know that as long as there are famous people, there will be masses that want to know the dirt on them and people who will supply it.
Are the public entitled to know something, just because they might want to know it? Should the press be free to damage and hurt anyone they wish, just so that they can make more money?

QUOTE(Provenance @ Jul 14 2011, 09:56 PM) *
What's the real outrage, hacking the phones or hacking the phones of people who weren't part of the celebrity set?
Hacking the phone of Milly Dowler and in the process giving the family false hope that she may be alive is in a different league from a bit of tittle-tattle gained from a phone converastion between Prince Charles and Camilla. And Gordon Brown hardly counts as a non-celbrity, and there is public disgust about the callous way in which Rebekah Brooks allegedly rang him up to say they were going to break a story about his son's cystic fibrosis at a time when Gordon Brown and his wife were trying to come to terms with it.

Provenance
There is a tremendous difference between whether the public has the right to know something and whether the press has the right to publish it. For example, in the US the public has no right to know classified information but the press has the right to publish even if it's illegally leaked/obtained.

As for the hacking of Miss Dowler's phone, such action was illegal and should be vigorously prosecuted.

The issue though isn't whether a given illegally-obtained conversation is or is not a bit of tittle-tattle; it is whether publishing illegally-obtained calls is (or should be) legal. Moreover, it's the attitude that of, "oh, well that stuff doesn't matter so it's ok" that's at the root of the controversy.

The British public have been scarfing up this muck for years. The current scandal is the nothing but the logical progression of that tittle-tattle story buying.

There seems to be more than a bit of hypocrisy here. The same public that has been paying to read the results of illegal interception/hacking now can feel so wonderfully self-righteous that they are outraged, just outraged, that someone is continuing to supply what they demand.

If the British public wants to get the bottom of the issue and hold the responsible parties accountable, they should ignore the press and look in the mirror.
hobgoblin
QUOTE(Provenance @ Jul 14 2011, 10:44 PM) *
For example, in the US the public has no right to know classified information but the press has the right to publish even if it's illegally leaked/obtained.
Does this also apply to Wikileaks?
QUOTE(Provenance @ Jul 14 2011, 10:44 PM) *
As for the hacking of Miss Dowler's phone, such action was illegal and should be vigorously prosecuted.
The press break the law all the time with impunity. Staying with Milly Dowler, a case had to be thrown out relating to her killer and the attempted abduction of another girl because the press had tried and convicted him themselves, and it was deemed that he wouldn't receive a fair trial. And then there's the case of that Chris Jeffries who was questioned by the police in connection with the murder of Joanna Yates; the press had him tried, convicted, and vilified, only for another man to be arrested and convicted later on. And as for English libel laws, they're worth nothing unless you are very wealthy, as most people don't have many tens of thousands of pounds to spend on trying to take action against a newspaper for libel.

The press need to be regulated, not to comply with additional laws, but to ensure that they comply with current laws, because as it stands they seem to have the power to disregard current laws, laws which are very difficult to enforce against a very powerful, very wealthy and fast moving, fluid press. Its not simply good enough for the press to hide behind the banner of "freedom of the press" as some form of justification for their activities, and promise to 'regulate' themselves (as they clearly do not properly regulate themselves). An independent body with teeth (not the lapdog that is the PCC) is needed with the power to impose punitive sanctions against the press for transgressions. They also ought to have the power to compel the press to at least publish apologies for their transgressions against individuals on the front page (not hidden away deep in the paper).
Jaded Prole
A regulated press publishes regulated "news." I can see laws against publishing racism, slander and hate-mongering but I prefer a free press. One of the best things about the internet is that secrets have become impossible because anyone can post them anonymosuly. This makes the official press have to keep up. I hate tabloid trash but there is a demand and so it sells and commercially dependent papers prefer it to publishing news or views that might not be approved of by the folks that they sell ads to.
Tibro
Ask anyone in a communist or formerly communist country about state regulation of news agencies and see what they say. In fact, introducing objective, fact-based news reporting in former communist countries is a long, slow process as reporters don't have experience in trying to obtain quotes and dig up facts that represent both sides of an issue.

Too much of what passes for news these days is really entertainment. Biased, unsupported opinions masquerading as objective news coverage.
hobgoblin
QUOTE(Tibro @ Jul 15 2011, 12:08 PM) *
Biased, unsupported opinions masquerading as objective news coverage.
And these biased opinions are lifted wholesale by much of the public who haven't got the time or the brainpower to read facts and form their own opinions. Much of the opinions, held by much of the public, have been delivered to them like fast food by the media.
Tibro
People want to read opinions they agree with and then be able to cite a source so they look like an informed person. It sells more copy than balaced reportage. Selling more copies pays the bills. It's a business decision. Especially in an increasingly non-competitive field such as journalism. Fewer and fewer hard-news sources with less diversified ownership. Pick a market segment and pander to it, no need to compete.
Provenance
QUOTE(hobgoblin @ Jul 14 2011, 10:21 PM) *
Does this also apply to Wikileaks?

Yes. The New York Times was one of the papers reviewing and publishing that illegally-leaked material. The US does not have the equivalent of an Official Secrets Act.

QUOTE
The press need to be regulated, not to comply with additional laws, but to ensure that they comply with current laws

Wrong. Aside from the silliness of the notion of creating new laws to try and obtain compliance with old laws, any regulation of media content by the government will be primarily aimed at protecting the government, not children. There is no free country without a free press. The extent to which the press abuses that freedom in repugnant ways, such as the case of Miss Dowler, is directly proportional to the public's appetite for such garbage.

Again, what the public should be repulsed by is not the media but themselves. Anyone who find's "juicy" gossip obtained through illegal or unethical means enjpyable/acceptable should not complain when those same techniques are used in other instances.
Tibro
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
Jaded Prole
I'll drink to that!

Jack Batemaster

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Mais on n'a pas soutenir la liberté d'expression

Tibro
The NSA is going to have to build another gianormous building just to house and archive your posts.

Good werk!
OCvertDe
Jesus tap-dancing Christ.
Tibro
The French are so colourful in their outrage.
Jaded Prole
If only he were French,

or had something to say worthy of translation.
Tibro
Laurent Fabius isn't French? Nor articulate?
Jaded Prole
I thought you were referring to Bater.
Tibro
Bater's outrageous. I referred to outrage. It took a few months, but I think the French have finally found the courage to face up to the invader.
Jaded Prole
You mean that little schoolgirl they were deporting?
Tibro
The World knows about French discretion.
Jaded Prole
Ah, like Brazil, and Germany, and Mexico, and, well every country and every person. We should all be outraged if we could just look up from our screens for a few minutes.
Tibro
I find the irony is thicker than what fiber optiks can hold. It is inkreasingly klear that "finding the terrorists" is a patsy for these aktivities in the name of Amerikan sekurity. Amerikan sekurity lies in its ekonomik sekurity, which is a shambles. So the government is engaging in a lot of korporate-ekonomik espionage and still kan't dig itself out of its hole with the illicit business spying it kondukts. The terrorists are not going to take down the nation. They're just not kapable of that kind of attack. Except as a result of the rot from within as the US pours resources in stopping them. Ha! The resources are spent to bolster an ekonomy that kan't be propped up legitimately because the only interpersonal kommerce and interkourse that's happening is virtual. The next generation doesn't expekt privacy bekause it's never had it, doesn't know the meaning of it and kan't komprehend what the problem is. They kan understand not being able to afford the newestest, fastestest, mostest powerfulest mobilest technology on the market. The NSA is massaging our thought processes through anal rape.
Jaded Prole
True butt ekonomik sekurity for whom -- and even that's an illusion because the seas are dying and warming which means they will soon be unloading a whole lot o' Methane.

As my mother-in-law used to say, I've lived beyond my time, butt then
we all have so drink up.
Jack Batemaster
Je ne dis rien au sujet de Jaded Prole, mais je soupçonne que Jaded Prole est irrité parce qu'il a dű lire cette message avec un traducteur quand il a vu le nom « Jaded Prole .» Comme c'est drôle !
Jaded Prole
Whatever . . .
QUOTE
or had something to say worthy of translation


when you post in English I'll bother to read it
G&C
Indeed.
Jack Batemaster
QUOTE(Jaded Prole @ Oct 23 2013, 04:38 AM) *

quand tu écris ça en anglais je le lira



menteur !
Jaded Prole
瞎說 瞎說 瞎說
Jack Batemaster
Pravděpodobné, že příběh!
Tibro
Fuck you all. I defend the right to publish whatever you want in whatever language it makes sense to you to publish it in. I don't give a fuck if it makes a "worthy" contribution. I admit to loving senseless poetry. Senselessness in general makes sense to me. That's the world we live in. And the forum we post on here. Porkchops or no, the bone of contention must be shared in its shards and shredded meat. There's nutrition there that even dogs can find god in.

I refuse to live in a world where the senselessness of friendship implodes and the eyeballs of those I've eyeballed take a Fine turn at two fingers Howard'd in their eyes. Slapstick aside, the only ones left standing here K)no(w each other in ways that can accommodate humor and need not comment adversely, perversely particularly personally. Can you justify cannibalizing the little intelligence left in the virtual world?
Tibro
There was a time in my life when my son was born that the burden seemed more than I could bear. My mother, whose support I needed most, it seemed, took that opportunity to deflect her insecurity against my sister-in-law. Suddenly, expectedly, I was a parent and my parent a child. The dynamic was unsustainable. I was hung up on. I was hung up to become adult. Family turns, turns inside and out. Life arises and life hangs on to a vitality it can no longer claim and own. We move on. Family is family. It is love and it is blood.

But it is never stable.
Provenance
Though he pretends to write in sorta French, Jack Batemaster = a wannabe toff.

So, Jackie, time to turn your head and cough.
Jaded Prole
He can cough, he can sputter, he can mince, he can smack me down in classic fashion but the bad French has become stale and tiresome. I liked his former incarnations much more.
Jack Batemaster
toux…er…
Jaded Prole
and furthermore, we all know Jack is a poseur. I've always enjoyed and even defended that as performance art. It's just that this particular exhibition has worn thin. It's time for something new.
poke.gif
Jack Batemaster
Alors, je dois apprendre le flamand ?
OCvertDe
QUOTE(Jaded Prole @ Oct 23 2013, 02:11 PM) *

瞎說 瞎說 瞎說
Oh, nonsense!
Absomphe
QUOTE(Tibro @ Oct 23 2013, 11:35 AM) *

Fuck you all.


What he said. LARS!.gif
Tibro
Always trying to get in on a good kluster-fuck, aren't you?

Okay, me too.

I mean, fuck me.

Butt leave the phlegmish behind. Behind the DQ. Or maybe at The Lounge, if they're not actually one and the same.

What's worn thin is the in-fighting.

Where's Shabba hiding?
Jaded Prole
In-fighting?
No fighting, just a friendly, well meant poke.

poke.gif

poke.gif
Kirk
The pidgin French has not made it more difficult to keep up with Jack.
Tibro
Elle est toujours Incendié™.
Jack Batemaster
Brűlé aussi
Provenance
QUOTE(Kirk @ Oct 24 2013, 06:13 AM) *
pidgin French

G&C
QUOTE(Jaded Prole @ Oct 24 2013, 06:06 AM) *
In-fighting?
No fighting, just a friendly, well meant poke.

poke.gif

poke.gif

What he said.


Tibro
Donc, plus comme la consanguinité?

Putain de pervers.
Tibro
At the risk of being relevant to the topic, here's a story about an investigative reporter having her personal, professional notes confiscated during a raid on her home that was focused on her husband's activities and possible gun possession. The warrant was for material totally unrelated to what they took. Should I add that she's a DC reporter that's been critical of Homeland Security's veracity under oath? That she's fearful her confidential sources inside the government may have been discovered? None of the documents she had was obtained illegally or was illegal for her to have. But she had interviewed whistle-blowers that are still in the employ of Homeland Security.
Jaded Prole
I'm not surprised given Obama's crackdown and persecution of journalists. Not surprised that it was a "pre-dawn" raid either. That's how the pig-state works. They don't bother to knock on your door during waking hours but prefer to kick it in swat style between 2 and 4 a.m. It's the application of Shock doctrine.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2018 Invision Power Services, Inc.