It bothers me how many stupid people there are in this country saying that regulation of the press is needed to stop infractions like the NotW phone hacking and other egregious violations of the law by the press.

We already have laws that deal with those crimes, if we just apply them now we won't need to give up rights and a free press. But people are bloody stupid and can't see the hand in front of their face for all the misplaced outrage they have.

Fark Leveson, I'm really starting to hope that Cameron is such good friends with Rebekah Brookes and Rupert Murdoch that he will ignore the calls to regulate the press. He'd be doing the right thing but for the wrong reason, and I can live with that.

I believe it's pronounced 'appened.

You know, not engaging in wide-spread, long-term, illegal behavior might have kept this sort of thing from happening. If you can't police yourself, someone else will do it eventually.

Superrad: You know, not engaging in wide-spread, long-term, illegal behavior might have kept this sort of thing from happening. If you can't police yourself, someone else will do it eventually.

If their actions are illegal then why can't they be charged and dealt with under the existing laws that they broke? The police should be policing them, and the government should be more concerned with the fact that the police didn't, and indeed took bribes to look the other way or engage in even more criminal activities. Instead of focusing on that people are simply saying we shouldn't have a free press anymore. It's too asinine.

Wait, British Newspapers don't follow the US Bill of Rights??

Damnit Obama

I've noticed in the news of late
An alarming, even ominous, spate
Of unnecessary duress
On those in the press-
Why threaten the Fourth Estate?

Has the UK ever even claimed they had a free and open press? I was under the impression that it just took a phone call from the palace to have stories held back. This is not my definition of a free and open press.

Slaxl: It bothers me how many stupid people there are in this country saying that regulation of the press is needed to stop infractions like the NotW phone hacking and other egregious violations of the law by the press.

We already have laws that deal with those crimes, if we just apply them now we won't need to give up rights and a free press

Yeah that seemed like the obvious path to me, and it's infinitely easier to manage than a press regulating agency.

Beef up checks on corruption, beef up privacy rights.

Lies are not freedom.

If I remember correctly, the UK does NOT have freedom of the press as we understand it in the United States. As in freedom of speech, etc. Non-issue for those of us on this side of the pond. I'm more interested in the current press by those in the U.K. who have influence who are trying to GAIN freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Slaxl [TotalFark]
2012-12-12 12:12:23 PM

It bothers me how many stupid people there are in this country saying that regulation of the press is needed to stop infractions like the NotW phone hacking and other egregious violations of the law by the press.

We already have laws that deal with those crimes, if we just apply them now we won't need to give up rights and a free press. But people are bloody stupid and can't see the hand in front of their face for all the misplaced outrage they have.

And Fools on both side of the political spectrum do it. The left wants to expand government control to ban / restrict what they hate, the neo-cons want to expand the government control to ban / restrict what they hate.

When faced with the pains of freedom, men beg for their chains.

Slaxl

If their actions are illegal then why can't they be charged and dealt with under the existing laws that they broke?

Are you consistent? What's your stance on gun control?

Sounds like a right winger's wet dream. No wonder all news here seems to come from the Telegraph, the Fail and WND.

Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: the Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?

Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big t!ts.

/Yes, Prime Minister

yah, cause fings break, don't ey?

what_now: Wait, British Newspapers don't follow the US Bill of Rights??

Damnit Obama

The United States didn't invent freedom of the press, dumb-ass.

Lotta nice tanks 'ere Colonel....

Publish and be damned.

You published - now you're damned.

Insatiable Jesus:
Sounds like a right winger's wet dream.

Why do people always say this after a left wing politician pulls this crap? It happens so often, it's not even a left-winger's dream at all, it's just doing business as usual.

Dammit, Britain, 1984 was a farkin' warning, not a goddam instruction manual.....

Re, the UK and freedom of speech. They are a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights and have incorporated most if not all of its provisions into their own legal system. Yes, Americans, other countries do indeed have freedom of speech, expression, etc. As far as freedom of the press, American media seem to be specialists in partisan propaganda rather than reportage in many cases.

What's going on here isn't any different than any other abuse of influence that politicians routinely commit.

Slaxl: It bothers me how many stupid people there are in this country saying that regulation of the press is needed to stop infractions like the NotW phone hacking and other egregious violations of the law by the press.

We already have laws that deal with those crimes, if we just apply them now we won't need to give up rights and a free press. But people are bloody stupid and can't see the hand in front of their face for all the misplaced outrage they have.

Fark Leveson, I'm really starting to hope that Cameron is such good friends with Rebekah Brookes and Rupert Murdoch that he will ignore the calls to regulate the press. He'd be doing the right thing but for the wrong reason, and I can live with that.

We have the Bill of Rights and the first amendment. Britain does not. I don't see anything wrong with this story. Does anything about Britans laws guarantee freedom of the press? If not that what is the issue here?

So let me ask you this. You said that you hope he will ignore calls to regulate the press and ignore the whole phone hacking things. Rupert Murdoch had his employees hacking into peoples private phones. If it were up to me he would be put to death.

scopecreep: Has the UK ever even claimed they had a free and open press? I was under the impression that it just took a phone call from the palace to have stories held back. This is not my definition of a free and open press.

Would that be why the press regularly feature any and every embarrassing story with pics about anything any of the royals do? Duchess of York getting her toes sucked by a 'friend' while still married? Full story with pics. Prince Charles wishing he was a tampon? Every word printed. Every random guy that Diana farked? Named and shamed. The truth is the press print anything they like then face the court case later - a 3 line apology on page 27 is worth it.

The Press Freedom Index lists countries by press freedom. The UK is at number 28, considerably higher than the USA at number 47. What's happening in the US that your press is so repressed?

They should prolly drop a D notice on this story, eh wot!

I understand each of the individual words in TFA, but find the combination of them to be incomprehensible.

Doesn't the UK government already own and operate the dominant news organization in the UK?

Seems to me this Miller woman has more to worry about than the newspaper.

Superrad: You know, not engaging in wide-spread, long-term, illegal behavior might have kept this sort of thing from happening. If you can't police yourself, someone else will do it eventually.

Damn right! Their behavior should be made even more illegaler.

Warlordtrooper: Slaxl: It bothers me how many stupid people there are in this country saying that regulation of the press is needed to stop infractions like the NotW phone hacking and other egregious violations of the law by the press.

We already have laws that deal with those crimes, if we just apply them now we won't need to give up rights and a free press. But people are bloody stupid and can't see the hand in front of their face for all the misplaced outrage they have.

Fark Leveson, I'm really starting to hope that Cameron is such good friends with Rebekah Brookes and Rupert Murdoch that he will ignore the calls to regulate the press. He'd be doing the right thing but for the wrong reason, and I can live with that.

We have the Bill of Rights and the first amendment. Britain does not. I don't see anything wrong with this story. Does anything about Britans laws guarantee freedom of the press? If not that what is the issue here?

So let me ask you this. You said that you hope he will ignore calls to regulate the press and ignore the whole phone hacking things. Rupert Murdoch had his employees hacking into peoples private phones. If it were up to me he would be put to death.

Yes. The European Convention of Human Rights

Article 10, Freedom of Expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold
opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authorities
and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent states from requiring the licensing of
broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be
subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are
necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public
safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the
protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information
received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority or impartiality of the judiciary.

Spiralmonkey: The Press Freedom Index lists countries by press freedom. The UK is at number 28, considerably higher than the USA at number 47. What's happening in the US that your press is so repressed?

Nothing, really, if one goes by the report that created this index. Some reporters got mixed up in the OWS reports, were arrested along with the others, and this equated to a 27-place drop.

Spiralmonkey: We have the Bill of Rights and the first amendment. Britain does not. I don't see anything wrong with this story. Does anything about Britans laws guarantee freedom of the press? If not that what is the issue here?

So let me ask you this. You said that you hope he will ignore calls to regulate the press and ignore the whole phone hacking things. Rupert Murdoch had his employees hacking into peoples private phones. If it were up to me he would be put to death.

Yes. The European Convention of Human Rights

Insufficiently protective language. All it does is call on governments to recognize these rights, rather than forbidding them from infringing upon said rights, and the "acceptable" infringements are far too vaguely worded.

illannoyin: Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: the Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?

Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big t!ts.

/Yes, Prime Minister

If the right people don't have power (nothing to do with the topic of the thread, but an awesome Yes Prime Minister clip.)

There is more information between the lines in that article than within them.

Well done!

Warlordtrooper: We have the Bill of Rights and the first amendment.

Redundant is redundant.

Millennium: Spiralmonkey: We have the Bill of Rights and the first amendment. Britain does not. I don't see anything wrong with this story. Does anything about Britans laws guarantee freedom of the press? If not that what is the issue here?

So let me ask you this. You said that you hope he will ignore calls to regulate the press and ignore the whole phone hacking things. Rupert Murdoch had his employees hacking into peoples private phones. If it were up to me he would be put to death.

Yes. The European Convention of Human Rights

Insufficiently protective language. All it does is call on governments to recognize these rights, rather than forbidding them from infringing upon said rights, and the "acceptable" infringements are far too vaguely worded.

It's law under the Human Rights Act 1998.

Millennium: Spiralmonkey: The Press Freedom Index lists countries by press freedom. The UK is at number 28, considerably higher than the USA at number 47. What's happening in the US that your press is so repressed?

Nothing, really, if one goes by the report that created this index. Some reporters got mixed up in the OWS reports, were arrested along with the others, and this equated to a 27-place drop.

What about all the other years before OWS when UK consistently ranked higher than US?

Millennium:
Some reporters got mixed up in the OWS reports, were arrested along with the others, and this equated to a 27-place drop.

More like "some OWS protesters were pretending to be reporters and the real reporters were too embarrassed to call them on it, so it became a press freedom issue rather than a dumbass protester issue."

The Telegraph can DIAF along with the tabloids as they passed on the entire expenses scandal and did nothing to investigate the journalists who were hacking phones left right a centre.

The Daily Mail is even worse as they employed the police officer in charge of the first hacking investigation that said it was a rogue staffer. They also passed on the expenses scandal and ignored the phone hacking.

The tabloids have intimidated politicians with threats to bury them in sleaze (real or made up) if you spoke against them

The Sun has written more column inches about Imogene Thomas' choice of bikinis than the entire phone hacking story.

We have enough laws to deal with the illegal shiat that the newspapers have pulled. What we need is a police force that isn't buying holiday homes in Spain with money from the newspapers and a cheaper route for the general public to get privacy/libel/slander protection.

illannoyin: Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: the Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?

Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big t!ts.

/Yes, Prime Minister

There is no political issue in Britain that cannot be awesomely summed up with a Yes Prime Minister quote

Superrad: illannoyin: Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: the Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?

Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big t!ts.

/Yes, Prime Minister

There is no political issue in Britain that cannot be awesomely summed up with a Yes Prime Minister quote

So Mrs. Thatcher had big tits. I never thought to notice.

Dinsdale?

Ennuipoet: [freeversephotography.com image 850x641]

this took six posts entirely too long to be posted.

Lot of derp in here regarding British freedom of the press and the press being controlled by the Royal or the government.

Awful lot of derp.

We have an extraordinarily free press in the UK, enshrined both in our unwritten constitution and the Rule of Law, and in written law via the Human Rights Act.

Superrad: You know, not engaging in wide-spread, long-term, illegal behavior might have kept this sort of thing from happening. If you can't police yourself, someone else will do it eventually.

You talking about the press or the MP claiming expenses for her parents house?

Pert: Lot of derp in here regarding British freedom of the press and the press being controlled by the Royal or the government.

Awful lot of derp.

We have an extraordinarily free press in the UK, enshrined both in our unwritten constitution and the Rule of Law, and in written law via the Human Rights Act.

Is that why Simon Singh had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own money to protect himself from the quackery of the british chiropractors? Or why the phrase "libel tourism" was created pretty much to describe how easy it is to sue someone from anywhere in the world for supposed libel in England?

Superrad: You know, not engaging in wide-spread, long-term, illegal behavior might have kept this sort of thing from happening. If you can't police yourself, someone else will do it eventually.

Uh, the behavior they engaged in is already illegal as you noted. What is the point of piling on additional laws to stop things that you can already prosecute when you find them?