Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Youtube

YouTube Removal Highlights Media Self-Censorship 488

Posted by Zonk
from the power-to-the-people-marty dept.
jamie writes "On 'Larry King Live' Wednesday night, Bill Maher said many of 'the people who really run the underpinnings of the Republican Party are gay... Ken Mehlman, OK, there's one I think people have talked about. I don't think he's denied it.' When CNN re-aired the interview, the mention of Mehlman was edited out with no indication anything was missing. When a minute-long video of the original vs. censored clips was posted on YouTube, a DMCA takedown removed it (the original poster plans to resubmit a shorter clip he hopes will qualify as fair use — good luck, since the DMCA doesn't recognize fair use). Relatedly, the Washington Post today was caught silently editing its published stories to make them less informative. Unnamed GOP officials are also saying that Mehlman will step down from his post when his term ends in January."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

YouTube Removal Highlights Media Self-Censorship

Comments Filter:
  • WTF (Score:5, Insightful)

    by coolgeek (140561) on Friday November 10, 2006 @02:47PM (#16796632) Homepage
    Why should any politician step down because they are gay? It's ridiculous.
    • Re:WTF (Score:5, Funny)

      by heauxmeaux (869966) on Friday November 10, 2006 @02:49PM (#16796670)
      Because I refuse to take it in the ass twice from the government.
    • Who said anything about that?
    • Re:WTF (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 10, 2006 @02:59PM (#16796828)
      He isn't stepping down because he's gay, he's moving to Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign.
      • Re:WTF (Score:4, Informative)

        by Fear the Clam (230933) on Friday November 10, 2006 @04:27PM (#16798124)
        Yeah, good luck with that one.

        Some of us still remember that Rudy was a complete douchebag who was going out in a wave of scandal before a couple of airplanes distracted the media. Elephant dung, anyone? Mistress in the mansion?

        Giuliani handled 9/11 well, but he's still an ass.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Lol.
          In the wake of a highly unethical and unpopular war, war profiteering, deaths of hundreds to thousands of people in New Orleans and a laundry list of scandals from (mostly) republicans all over the place in washington ranging from pedophelia to corruption to traiterous acts such as leaking the identity of field operatives in the CIA, are you seriously telling me you have the audacity to sit there and post this drivel of "scandals" about infedelity and elephant crap?

          I was ac
    • by DavidinAla (639952) on Friday November 10, 2006 @03:00PM (#16796832)
      You might not have noticed, but he's the head of a political party that just lost a huge election. It's natural that he'd be resigning because of the defeat. The absurd notion that he's resigning because of this random (and wholly unsubstantiated) comment on CNN is totally stupid. You're jumping to conclusions that aren't necessarily warranted.

      David
    • Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GreatBunzinni (642500) on Friday November 10, 2006 @03:04PM (#16796896)
      Why should any politician step down because they are gay?

      Because the party he belongs to has a strong anti-gay agenda and a strong anti-gay electorate. Politicians may not mind being blatantly hypocritical but once their election chances are jeopardized then they will scramble to avoid that.

    • Ken Mehlman is NOT stepping down because he is gay.

      Looking at the the history [wikipedia.org] of RNC chairmen, the RNC gets a new chairman every one or two election cycles.

      Ken Mehlman says he was stepping down at the end of the election cycle, regardless of the outcome.

      If you want to speculate, the "thumpin" the Republicans took increased the likelihood the RNC would switch leadership.

      Not that it is particularly important, Ken Mehlman has denied being gay. Just because Bill Maher says something, doesn't make it is t

    • Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tji (74570) on Friday November 10, 2006 @03:22PM (#16797152)
      The way the article here on /. was worded, it sounds like the two things are related.. But, I don't know that this is true.

      I thought his resignation had more to do with the Republicans getting their collective asses handed to them in the recent midterm elections.

      I don't know/care whether he's gay, and would certainly not count Bill Maher as a credible source. But, if he were in fact gay, he would almost surely be pushed out of that position very quickly. The Republicans have done their best to whip up anti-gay sentiment, to "energize their base". Although flaming hypocrisy does seem to be the norm in D.C., a bogey man is more effective when you don't also provide a counter example to discredit your own claims. So they would have to push him out of the public eye.
      • Remember when John Kerry brought up a mention of Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter? That kind of backfired.

        FOX News link -- too lazy to do better [foxnews.com]. IMHO the hypocracy of the Republicans is one problem, but the farce of "family values" when your dad is actively legislating against your life is even more astonishing.

        Of course, they definitely kept Mary Cheney out of the public eye. In fact, the Cheneys overall seem to be kept in a locked box somewhere and only unleashed when it's time to sling some serious shi
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by coaxial (28297)
      You're right. It is ridiculous, but that's what you get when you court the bigot vote.
    • Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)

      by finkployd (12902) * on Friday November 10, 2006 @04:08PM (#16797854) Homepage
      Why should any politician step down because they are gay? It's ridiculous.

      Not if your party's primary "get out the vote" effort focuses on "we have to stop gay marriage from destroying this country". It is stupidity like that has driven so many (myself include) far away from that party, the results of which we saw this week. Sadly it DOES galvanize a lot of voters (see the last presidential election), but not enough this last time.

      Finkployd
  • by dsanfte (443781) on Friday November 10, 2006 @02:47PM (#16796648) Journal
    Censorship and speech issues aside, should we really be encouraging gay witch-hunts like this?
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It's republican bigotry that is making him leave, and it should surprise noone.

      And is exposing blatant hipocrisy really a witch hunt?
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Yusaku Godai (546058)
      It's not so much that they're gay. Many people who run the Democratic party are gay too, and nobody cares. In the case of Republicans it's just worth pointing out considering the overall anti-gay stance of the party as a whole. I don't think there should be a witch-hunt--they have their right to to their privacy. But the incredible hypocrisy and self-hatred of it should be pointed out for the sake of those who have, in the past, voted Republican against their economic self-interest just because they hat
  • Actually... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Otter (3800) on Friday November 10, 2006 @02:50PM (#16796682) Journal
    When a minute-long video of the original vs. censored clips was posted on YouTube, a DMCA takedown removed it (the original poster plans to resubmit a shorter clip he hopes will qualify as fair use -- good luck, since the DMCA doesn't recognize fair use).

    This all seemed unlikely to me, and reading the original letter:

    1) The only mention of the DMCA is in the return address. They're not claiming any DMCA violation

    2) DMCA or not, there's no fair-use right to be able to put content on YouTube. The guy isn't being sued.

    • Re:Actually... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by kalidasa (577403) on Friday November 10, 2006 @02:54PM (#16796732) Journal
      Actually, if the fellow who posted the content to YouTube carefully edited the video clips just enough to demonstrate that there had been an edit by CNN, and had added his own content explaining what this showed and why, it would probably fit under the Fair Use requirements for scholarship or criticism - but IANAL.
    • by milamber3 (173273)
      IANAL but the guy who posted the clip IS a lawyer. He states that there is a fair use right which protects short (8-10 sec) news clips. So I'm going to have to believe him over you on that one.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by SEAL (88488)
        I'm not a lawyer either but I can tell you that he's still likely to run into trouble. See: Beastie Boys, Paul's Boutique [wikipedia.org] and the comments on how sampling has been heavily restricted in the music industry.
      • by jfengel (409917)
        Unless he's a copyright lawyer, he may be out of his depth. Fair use law is incredibly messy, with a whole stack of conflicting precedents.

        In general, however, I gather that brevity is insufficient. To be fair use it has to be incorporated into a larger work, with significant value added. If he'd used the clip as part of a documentary he'd be on more solid ground.
    • Re:Actually... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by thebdj (768618) on Friday November 10, 2006 @03:01PM (#16796846) Journal
      1) The only mention of the DMCA is in the return address. They're not claiming any DMCA violation

      Actually, it mentions 17 USC 512, which is part of the copyright law, which was amended in part from the DMCA. So, yes, this does involve the DMCA.

      2) DMCA or not, there's no fair-use right to be able to put content on YouTube. The guy isn't being sued.

      You are missing the point. He is being asked to take it down by CNN (through YouTube). They are claiming copyright violation. He is claiming his clip falls under fair use, a concept only really defined in courts, not in the law, and not very well at that. He might not have a right to post it to YouTube, but if he doesn't have a place to host from himself and his post doesn't violate Copyright Law, then he can argue Fair Use. Fair use is at the heart of the matter here since the request for removal came from the copyright holder.
    • ...this is really a censorship issue. CNN has also edited the written transcripts to reflect the new censored version as if Maher never mentioned Mehlman at all.
  • DMCA confusion (Score:5, Informative)

    by Spazmania (174582) on Friday November 10, 2006 @02:54PM (#16796730) Homepage
    a DMCA takedown removed it (the original poster plans to resubmit a shorter clip he hopes will qualify as fair use -- good luck, since the DMCA doesn't recognize fair use)

    You're confusing two very different parts of the DMCA.

    One part deals with circumvention of copy protection devices. That part does not recognize a fair use exemption. It doesn't apply here since the content was not copy-protected.

    The other part deals with take-down notices. The way it works is:

    Entity A posts some content to service C.
    Entity B alleges that he is the copyright owner, that the content A posts infringes his copyright and that he wants C to remove it.
    C removes it. C renders no opinion on this; he simply removes it as required by the DMCA.
    A files a counter-notice with C that he believes the content does not infringe the copyright because of fair use or any other reason. The reason doesn't matter: having received the counter-notice, C is required to restore the content.
    C then restores the content and provides B with the name and address of A (required in the counter-notice).
    B then sues A under the old pre-DMCA copyright infringement laws.
    A and B go to court.

    • by nmb3000 (741169)
      1) A and B go to court.
      2) ???
      3) Lawyers L profit!
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MobyDisk (75490)
      If this is correct, then I actually like the DMCA! Based on reading Slashdot, I've always assumed it was:

      Entity A posts some content to service C.
      Entity B alleges that he is the copyright owner, that the content A posts infringes his copyright and that he wants C to remove it.
      C removes it. C renders no opinion on this; he simply removes it as required by the DMCA.
      The End.

      How come I hear all these stories about "oh, they DMCA'd me and now my content is gone and there is nothing I can do!" stories, when it s
      • Re:DMCA confusion (Score:5, Informative)

        by Spazmania (174582) on Friday November 10, 2006 @04:16PM (#16797978) Homepage
        http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID 132 [chillingeffects.org] Emphasis mine. It doesn't even require that you state a reason; you need only assert that your material doesn't infringe. The DMCA is really a mixed bag. This is one of the things they got pretty close to right.

        Question: What are the counter-notice and put-back procedures?

        Answer: In order to ensure that copyright owners do not wrongly insist on the removal of materials that actually do not infringe their copyrights, the safe harbor provisions require service providers to notify the subscribers if their materials have been removed and to provide them with an opportunity to send a written notice to the service provider stating that the material has been wrongly removed. [512(g)] If a subscriber provides a proper "counter-notice" claiming that the material does not infringe copyrights, the service provider must then promptly notify the claiming party of the individual's objection. [512(g)(2)] If the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit in district court within 14 days, the service provider is then required to restore the material to its location on its network. [512(g)(2)(C)]

        A proper counter-notice must contain the following information:

                * The subscriber's name, address, phone number and physical or electronic signature [512(g)(3)(A)]
                * Identification of the material and its location before removal [512(g)(3)(B)]
                * A statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed by mistake or misidentification [512(g)(3)(C)]
                * Subscriber consent to local federal court jurisdiction, or if overseas, to an appropriate judicial body. [512(g)(3)(D)]

        If it is determined that the copyright holder misrepresented its claim regarding the infringing material, the copyright holder then becomes liable to the OSP for any damages that resulted from the improper removal of the material.[512(f)]

  • by gklinger (571901) on Friday November 10, 2006 @02:55PM (#16796752)
    Towards whom am I suppose to direct my geek anger here, YouTube, the DMCA or the Republicans? I'm looking forward to being indignant, I just want to make sure I'm on the same page as everyone else.
    • You should be aiming your anger at CNN, for using the DMCA to remove commentary critical of it from the Net.
    • I'd direct it towards CNN for censoring themselves in the first place.
  • You mean the press might not be giving us the honest scoop? I cant believe it.

    And somewhat related: Who cares what someones sexual preference is? If you need to know, perhaps you need to get a life. Judge a person on his job performance, not what he/she does on their own time, which is really none of your business anyway.
    • You're absolutely right, and you should be telling that primarily to Mehlman's gay-hating colleagues.

      As for his job performance, you may have noticed that Republicans just lost pretty badly in the midterm elections. As chair of the RNC, it was his job to prevent that from happening. He's one of the many people who are taking a fall as a result of this.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by milamber3 (173273)
      And somewhat related: Who cares what someones sexual preference is? If you need to know, perhaps you need to get a life. Judge a person on his job performance, not what he/she does on their own time, which is really none of your business anyway.

      That's a very nice sentiment and would be fine if the person in question did almost anything except politics. In the case of politics, specifically republican politics, there is a platform of most things gay being "wrong, bad, perverted, or evil, etc." If a top me
    • Re:Im shocked! (Score:5, Informative)

      by killjoe (766577) on Friday November 10, 2006 @03:32PM (#16797338)
      "And somewhat related: Who cares what someones sexual preference is?"

      The republicans do. They want to limit what rights you have if you are gay. These rights include serving in the military, teaching, joining civic organizations and marriage amongst others.
  • by twfry (266215) on Friday November 10, 2006 @02:57PM (#16796794)
    That outing gay repulicans is good because they are all evil.

    Outing anyone else though is a hate crime and the democrates will see to it that you will go to jail if you do so.
    • Outing gay Republicans who have been activly fighting for and pushing an agenda of hate toward gays, however, I have NO problem with. Hypocrisy on a level that influences the law and well-being of Americans certainly has a place as a national story, needs discussion, and warrents this.
  • I really don't see this as much of a big deal. Bill Maher was talking out of his ass. The Media company made the edit without anyone truly complaining. This is typical of big media. Oh yeah....just TRY pullingit off of YouTube.....it will continue to show again and again like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwWZFG6k8QM [youtube.com]

  • Rewrite fullwise (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Tackhead (54550)
    > jamie writes
    >
    >On 'Larry King Live' Wednesday night, Bill Maher said many of 'the people who really run the underpinnings of the Republican Party are gay... Ken Mehlman, OK, there's one I think people have talked about. I don't think he's denied it.' When CNN re-aired the interview, the mention of Mehlman was edited out with no indication anything was missing. When a minute-long video of the original vs. censored clips was posted on YouTube, a DMCA takedown removed it (the original poster plans t
  • by Slipgrid (938571) on Friday November 10, 2006 @03:02PM (#16796868) Homepage Journal
    Being gay is a non-issue. Being a hypocrite should be huge issue in politics. Censorship is even a bigger issue.

    Here's the clip [crooksandliars.com]. Note in the comment section of that post, they mention a few other hypocrites.

    Here's the image [1fp.us] that CNN showed on their censored rebroadcast of their 9/11 footage. I guess they didn't want people to wonder why their were reports of bombs in the building, and start doing research [google.com].

    Fact is censorship is everywhere. We only get half the story, if that.

  • News organizations have a great deal of editorial discretion in what they include an interview, what they don't include etc... Interviews are edited all the time for all kinds of reasons! Obviously some editors at CNN didn't think it was informative to include Bill Maher's weirdo comments that he thinks the head of the RNC is gay. Maybe they wanted to keep the interview focussed on Maher's other topics.

    It's not like CNN is run by some right wing conspiracy. I think you have to be pretty far out on the

  • by DavidinAla (639952) on Friday November 10, 2006 @03:05PM (#16796910)
    If random Person A goes on a live show and makes a COMPLETELY UNSOURCED accusation that Person B is gay, it would be completely unethical and irresponsible for CNN to leave it in a subsequent broadcast of the show. I used to be a journalist, and I guarantee that most reasonable (non-ideological) journalists would make the same decision. It's not censorship. It's a responsible editorial decision regarding an completely unsubstantiated charge. The guy may or may not be gay. I haven't a clue (and don't care), but you don't broadcast something like that without having some reasonable basis for believing it's TRUE.

    David
    • by xenocide2 (231786) on Friday November 10, 2006 @03:13PM (#16797024) Homepage
      Journalists have an obligation to present to the public a factual depiction of events. Here, the event is the interview. Bill Maher is not the host of this show, and is not depicted as a reporter on events within the context of the show. If he was the host or depicted as a reporter, this would be a sound decision. But Larry King Live is an interview show; is it ethical to edit an interview to remove statements someone made?

      Also, can they still call themselves Live? ;)
      • by DavidinAla (639952) on Friday November 10, 2006 @03:26PM (#16797224)
        That is a terribly naive statement. If a journalist just presented whatever interview subjects told them -- without regard to what's fair or accurate -- they would be terribly irresponsible. When I was a journalist, I was routinely told things about people I covered. Almost all of what I heard was unfair and inaccurate rumor. A responsible journalist tries to make sure what he is putting out there is factual. Otherwise, there is even less credibility than there already is (for the news media).

        David
    • by dgatwood (11270) on Friday November 10, 2006 @03:14PM (#16797036) Journal

      Bill Maher is a political satirist. Assuming that anything he says is factually precise is going to get you into a world of trouble.

      Besides, for public political figures, the standards for proving libel/slander are very high. They would have to prove that CNN knew that the statement was not true and that it was published in a deliberate attempt to malign them. Short of deliberate lies by the media organization itself (not by an interviewee), there is very little harm that this material could do to CNN if re-aired.

      • by DavidinAla (639952) on Friday November 10, 2006 @03:23PM (#16797172)
        You seem to be missing the point. It's not about CNN not getting sued. It's about being RESPONSIBLE with an explosive charge when CNN doesn't know the facts.

        David
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by dgatwood (11270)

          It's not an explosive charge by any stretch. It's a guy being funny.

          Also, this isn't a news show. It's an interview show. Different rules can and should apply. I mean, if you tried to censor every lie the average Republican guest on that show spouts, you'd end up reairing two of the episodes back to back in the same time slot as one. You can't fact check every random thing an interviewee says on an interview show, and if you start picking and choosing which pieces of an interview to air based on your

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Stalyn (662)
      But why is calling someone gay such a terrible declaration? People on TV accuse others of all kinds of things but they rarely get censored for it. Yet when someone suggests someone else is gay they censor it? Also can you really "accuse" someone of being gay? Normally "accuse" is attached to doing something wrong. It just reflects society's judgment that being "gay" is wrong or odd. Imagine someone "accused" someone else of being straight would there be the same reaction?
    • Two comments:

      1. There's a big difference between not including something in print or TV segment and removing it in later copies.
      2. It is deceptive and therefore unethical to change the content of a piece after the fact and not acknowledge you've done so.

      Plenty of print publications and some of the more responsible TV and radio news outlets (e.g. NPR) give retractions, corrections, or apologies when they say something incorrect or inappropriate. That's a good thing. I can even see editing something bef

  • by dgatwood (11270) on Friday November 10, 2006 @03:05PM (#16796912) Journal

    The struggle between news writers/reporters and their management chain and the tendency of the management to cover their backsides and not publish anything unfavorable to {advertisers, the legal department, the higher-ups} has been ongoing ever since the invention of the newspaper. Indeed, in some form, it probably dates back even farther. This is nothing new, happens every day, and should be criticized when it occurs (particularly internally within the organization), but it's not particularly newsworthy.

    The best way to handle this sort of thing is to decide what is more important---the bits from the story or your job. If you decide that the higher-ups are censoring something that needs to be heard, you tell your news director "the story airs as-is or I quit" (ideally after you have been there for a while). Sadly, most journalists don't have the stomach for that these days, but when this occurs you have to stand up for yourself or the upper management will walk all over you. Of course, this also points to a weak and ineffectual news director who doesn't have the guts to protect his/her reporters from the upper management.

    However, that's probably not what happened in the case of CNN. What probably happened here is that they condensed the interview for time and cut out bits that they considered less important. This, too, happens every day. Unless the reporter was pressured to remove those pieces (and there's no reason to believe that this is the case), there's really not a story here at all. It's just the normal, day-to-day operation of a TV news outfit.

    The Washington Post story, however, is very disturbing. If the reports of them changing their story are true, and if, in fact, Bush said the things claimed in the original version of the story, their editorial staff should be held accountable for their actions in turning a factually accurate story into a factually inaccurate story and deliberately removing highly relevant factual content from their story.

  • by CorSci81 (1007499) on Friday November 10, 2006 @03:11PM (#16796992) Journal
    'the people who really run the underpinnings of the Republican Party are gay... Ken Mehlman, OK, there's one I think people have talked about. I don't think he's denied it.'

    The point of Maher doing this is to expose the blatant hipocrisy that is going on. The current Republican leadership has been hostile towards gay and lesbian people and their rights. They pander to an audience of religious fundamentalists on a platform that alienates a minority group while being part of that group themselves. If they kept their own internal struggles and self-loathing private then I'd say they have a right to privacy. However, as it stands their public actions and policies have the potential to make life miserable for a group of people so their hipocrisy deserves to be brought under public scrutiny. Just because the minority group happens to be gays doesn't make this ok, there would be an uproar if you had a black man advocating segregation or making interracial marriages illegal, for example.

  • 1984 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PHAEDRU5 (213667) <instascreed&gmail,com> on Friday November 10, 2006 @03:12PM (#16797004) Homepage
    Kind of has that feel, doesn't it?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by teglsbo (267190)
      It reminds me of the main character's job rectifying old articles. Except today it's not archived issues of the paper, but web pages. That makes it so much easier to modify content without a trace.

      From chapter 4:
      "Winston dialled 'back numbers' on the telescreen and called for the appropriate issues of The Times, which slid out of the pneumatic tube after only a few minutes' delay. The messages he had received referred to articles or news items which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to alte
  • by yoha (249396) on Friday November 10, 2006 @03:13PM (#16797012)
    Removing details about someone's personal life, revealed by a third party, is not censorship, it's good taste. CNN is a news network, and the fact that a station made an editorial decision to remove rumors from its newscast is not censorship.
  • ..it was a feint, part of his strategery!
  • by scheming daemons (101928) on Friday November 10, 2006 @03:25PM (#16797202)
    The reason that there is a different standard for Democratic gays (Barney Frank, etc) and Republican gays (Mehlman, Drudge, Haggard, etc) is because the Republican gays are actively trying to demonize gays.

    The worst offense a politician can incur is to be a hypocrit. If you're going to blast others for their lifestyles and actively work to pass laws to limit their lifestyles, all the while participating in the exact same lifestyles yourself... then you are:

    A. A hypocrit
    B. A masochist

    and... it *IS* different for Democrats, because Democrats are NOT the ones trying to demonize the gay lifestyle.

    ps. Preachers like Haggard claim that homosexuality is a "choice" and not an inate character trait. Then he writes an apology letter to his congregation saying "I have been at war with these inner demons most of my adult life". Sounds like he's admitting that it WASN'T a choice... it's just who he is and he's forced to come to grips with it. And his followers offer HIM forgiveness, meanwhile their still bashing OTHERS like him.

  • Ken Mehlman (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fgn (200855) on Friday November 10, 2006 @03:27PM (#16797262)
    If Ken Mehlman resigns from the RNC Chair, it's not because he may or may not take it in the ass, it's because he was the chair when the whole party took it in the ass on election day.
  • um, what? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by cascadingstylesheet (140919) on Friday November 10, 2006 @03:32PM (#16797326)
    Mentioning youtube makes the contents of the DNC daily fax a technology story?
  • by meburke (736645) on Friday November 10, 2006 @04:23PM (#16798058)
    The YouTube is definitely a case of censorship. The Washington Post MAY have simply been editing the article for length. The blog regarding the WP contains a lot of insinuations, but but it does not carry any substantial evidence to support the insinuations or conclusions.

    Again, the blogger insists that the blog subject is about the WP comitting censorship, not abut the President's evasiveness. IMO, the public has a right to know, but the administration has an agenda and a strategy, and we are not automatically entitled to know what that is. We, as the public, are not entitled in all cases, to pass on decisions that we have delegated to out elected representatives. The solution is to find a way to elect people who make good decisons in a trustworthy environment. Neither of those conditions exists at this time.
  • by Odinson (4523) on Friday November 10, 2006 @06:51PM (#16799844) Homepage Journal
    On the surface this seems to be the perfect test case to be appealed to the top. It is blatent political censorship. a 1:10 second clip of a many minute interview on a one hour show to demonstrate the untrustworthyness of a news source is as political and as vital to the Democratic process as it gets. The dicovery process required by the DMCA just wiped it's butt with the first ammendment.

    Sorry Bill or Larry or who ever in the media companies where threatened and told to abuse this law. You just made the case.

Arithmetic is being able to count up to twenty without taking off your shoes. -- Mickey Mouse

Working...