FARK.com: (5398181) Admiral Thad Allen: "the media will have uninhibited access" Apparently uninhibted access means revoking all flyover permits, forbidding photography on public beaches, blockades, and harassment of journalists

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Admiral Thad Allen: "the media will have uninhibited access" Apparently uninhibted access means revoking all flyover permits, forbidding photography on public beaches, blockades, and harassment of journalists (mnn.com)		142
		More: Scary, blockades, MNN Bloggers, public areas, Anderson Cooper, modern history, gulf, harassment, Katie Couric

• • •

9082 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jun 2010 at 12:16 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/5398181

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

142 Comments (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

Seacop		2010-06-12 04:30:51 PM

TheDirtyNacho: Seacop: andyofne: OgreMagi: thinks_on_feet: This "news" story is from some douche's blog... calm down, hippies.

Yet that "douche" is able to link to stories in major newspapers which back up his claim. Bastions of conservative thought such as the New York Times.

This isn't the first story to come out with the same message. It is really frightening. I thought that with Bush out of office this shiat would stop. Apparently it just doesn't matter who is in office, our rights are constantly eroding.

I can't wait for the day when you have to register your camera and have a license to carry it.

Relax, while BP may have been trying to keep the extent of the issue as low key as possible in the begining by withholding THEIR underwater camera pics, the reason most people are being kept out now is a safety issue, and just keeping people out of the damn way.

Reporters on scene always get in the way.

It's not frightening, it's keeping the area clear so the job can get done.

What's the safety issue with reporters wanting to interview workers on their break? Why do private security guards harass reporters on public beaches? Why do these guards stand nearby and tell workers "they don't have to talk if they don't want to" (or keep their job)?

Fark you, "Seacop".

Haha, what you have is over zealous guards trying to keep people from getting in the way, and yeah if I'm a contractor working in a LA sun, that's what I want to do on my off time, talk to a reporter.

You nutjobs need to quit with the ideaology that this is a government blackout.

And why the "fark you seacop" did I hurt your feelings?

Lord Farkwad		2010-06-12 04:38:38 PM

When is Sean Penn going to show up for his role in Katrina 2: Electric Boogaloo?

img153.imageshack.us

farkingatwork		2010-06-12 04:45:45 PM

Seacop: TheDirtyNacho: Seacop: andyofne: OgreMagi: thinks_on_feet: This "news" story is from some douche's blog... calm down, hippies.

Yet that "douche" is able to link to stories in major newspapers which back up his claim. Bastions of conservative thought such as the New York Times.

This isn't the first story to come out with the same message. It is really frightening. I thought that with Bush out of office this shiat would stop. Apparently it just doesn't matter who is in office, our rights are constantly eroding.

I can't wait for the day when you have to register your camera and have a license to carry it.

Relax, while BP may have been trying to keep the extent of the issue as low key as possible in the begining by withholding THEIR underwater camera pics, the reason most people are being kept out now is a safety issue, and just keeping people out of the damn way.

Reporters on scene always get in the way.

It's not frightening, it's keeping the area clear so the job can get done.

What's the safety issue with reporters wanting to interview workers on their break? Why do private security guards harass reporters on public beaches? Why do these guards stand nearby and tell workers "they don't have to talk if they don't want to" (or keep their job)?

Fark you, "Seacop".

Haha, what you have is over zealous guards trying to keep people from getting in the way, and yeah if I'm a contractor working in a LA sun, that's what I want to do on my off time, talk to a reporter.

You nutjobs need to quit with the ideaology that this is a government blackout.

And why the "fark you seacop" did I hurt your feelings?

although there are safety reasons to remove access, if the press wishes for access anyway, you should not be able to refuse it. It's not a matter of people speaking to the press.

Seacop		2010-06-12 04:55:04 PM

farkingatwork:

although there are safety reasons to remove access, if the press wishes for access anyway, you should not be able to refuse it. It's not a matter of people speaking to the press.

So if the press gets sick because of the pollutants and hazmat, and they get in the way of the people cleaning, that's ok huh?

olddinosaur		2010-06-12 05:00:51 PM

Let's fix it for you:

"---because it goes without saying, in the Great USSA, the press has a right to get underfoot whenever they want, bother people without permission, and interfere with an important project, all in the name of their "right" to report a story, which they usually get wrong anyway---"

That about get it?

el wharrrgarblo		2010-06-12 05:04:51 PM

Seacop: andyofne: OgreMagi: thinks_on_feet: This "news" story is from some douche's blog... calm down, hippies.

Yet that "douche" is able to link to stories in major newspapers which back up his claim. Bastions of conservative thought such as the New York Times.

This isn't the first story to come out with the same message. It is really frightening. I thought that with Bush out of office this shiat would stop. Apparently it just doesn't matter who is in office, our rights are constantly eroding.

I can't wait for the day when you have to register your camera and have a license to carry it.

Relax, while BP may have been trying to keep the extent of the issue as low key as possible in the begining by withholding THEIR underwater camera pics, the reason most people are being kept out now is a safety issue, and just keeping people out of the damn way.

Reporters on scene always get in the way.

It's not frightening, it's keeping the area clear so the job can get done.

Bullshiat you farking bootlicker.

STFU

Seacop		2010-06-12 05:18:40 PM

el wharrrgarblo: Seacop: andyofne: OgreMagi: thinks_on_feet: This "news" story is from some douche's blog... calm down, hippies.

Yet that "douche" is able to link to stories in major newspapers which back up his claim. Bastions of conservative thought such as the New York Times.

This isn't the first story to come out with the same message. It is really frightening. I thought that with Bush out of office this shiat would stop. Apparently it just doesn't matter who is in office, our rights are constantly eroding.

I can't wait for the day when you have to register your camera and have a license to carry it.

Relax, while BP may have been trying to keep the extent of the issue as low key as possible in the begining by withholding THEIR underwater camera pics, the reason most people are being kept out now is a safety issue, and just keeping people out of the damn way.

Reporters on scene always get in the way.

It's not frightening, it's keeping the area clear so the job can get done.

Bullshiat you farking bootlicker.

STFU

Right, and if the reporters get in and get sick, and hinder clean up, then the media and everyone else will be biatching, "Why did you let people in when you knew there were carcinogens and hazmat, and it would hinder clean up?? you screwed up!!"

I'd rather say FU, we'll talk to you when we get this under control until then if you want info, go wait in the media tent.

Not everything is a conspiracy you schmuck.

cmunic8r99		2010-06-12 05:22:55 PM

My new favorite plug-in: The Black Oil Firefox (new window) plug-in:

waywardtraveler.net

lotustuned		2010-06-12 05:52:16 PM

olddinosaur: Let's fix it for you:

"---because it goes without saying, in the Great USSA, the press has a right to get underfoot whenever they want, bother people without permission, and interfere with an important project, all in the name of their "right" to report a story, which they usually get wrong anyway---"

That about get it?

Exactly, it's a right not a privilege as such the government doesn't have the ability to take that away.

eggrolls		2010-06-12 05:57:19 PM

stirfrybry: eggrolls: Why, is there something happening in the Gulf of Mexico? Because I certainly haven't seen any scoverage on each and every news network, the covers of every news magazine, the headlines of every newspaper, the first five minutes of Colbert & Stewart every farking night, heard incessant railing on Facebook, Twitter & Youtube or seen hundred of hours of footage from every source imaginable.

Seriously, it's already being called the greatest single disaster in American history. How can you call that a news blackout...and how can the hyperbole get any worse?

what part of the "present" or "now" do you have trouble with. Does the phrase "current conditions" register in your pea-brain?

What part of 'the worst possible scenario' are YOU having a problem with, you clot? My point was, there's nothing new to report. The oil is still leaking, the hole is still unplugged, and and the gulf is still dying. Nothing new to say. Current conditions sucked yesterday, suck today, and I can say with 100% certainty, will suck tomorrow. Just because you need a constant supply of new footage of Katie Couric wandering oil-soaked wetlands in rubber waders so you can fap to it doesn't mean its news.

The constant need to update the public on absolutely nothing new becomes not just annoying, but voyeuristic and histrionic. But guys like you need to have a constant supply of redundant info fed into you brain-hole, in the guise of 'updates' lest you forget what's going on.

Want proof? Honestly...when's the last time you thought about Haiti?

sandreckoner		2010-06-12 06:10:20 PM

"FURY!"

"SLAM!"

"OUTRAGE!"

Alacritous		2010-06-12 06:15:53 PM

eggrolls: The constant need to update the public on absolutely nothing new becomes not just annoying, but voyeuristic and histrionic. But guys like you need to have a constant supply of redundant info fed into you brain-hole, in the guise of 'updates' lest you forget what's going on.

What do you think they'll be able to get away with if no one is watching?

kiwasabi		2010-06-12 06:50:19 PM

I
There are good points from both sides. But I do think the press is being limited intentionally for reasons other than "to protect them from teh benzene" and "to keep them out of teh way". Aerial photos of the oil spill do seem to be in very short supply...especially ones that give a complete picture of the catastrophe.

kiwasabi		2010-06-12 06:52:05 PM

Oops, minus the "I" at the top of my last comment. I typed in "I heart (less than symbol and 3) you Farkers" but it didn't take.

abb3w		2010-06-12 06:56:00 PM

ArizonaBay: While I agree with your conclusion, might I ask, exactly why does perfect understanding require a zero-cost oracle for the halting problem?

Even assuming you have all the raw data, PERFECT understanding requires you have to understand all the implications and interconnections of the data. This requires being able to do arbitrary analysis on the data (EG: finding the local optimum of the series of non-linear partial differential equations describing the supply and demand curves, including cross elasticities) for free. Arbitrary analysis includes halting problem.

Of course, since you have multiple players, you also have to be able to know what conclusions they will reach with their oracle for playing I-know-you-know-I-know-you-know games; thus, arbitrary ordinal degree hyper-oracle, too.

In the real world, humans use approximation algorithms that often come close, but don't quite give ideal answers in every case. As I understand it, taking note of this difference is main the difference between Behavioral Economists and the main Chicago School.

Bear in mind, though, I'm merely a skilled and facile amateur. A computational economist might be able to make a better argument, or give an effective argument for why a more restricted zero-cost or fixed-cost oracle is adequate (such as why a RE-complete oracle might not need to be a halting oracle). I doubt it, however.

abb3w		2010-06-12 06:58:29 PM

kiwasabi: I typed in "I heart (less than symbol and 3) you Farkers" but it didn't take.

The LT symbol gets interpreted as starting HTML markup.

HTML < is ampersand-LT-semicolon.
HTML heart (♥) is ampersand-hearts-semicolon.

blackheart666		2010-06-12 07:13:58 PM

Alacritous: eggrolls: The constant need to update the public on absolutely nothing new becomes not just annoying, but voyeuristic and histrionic. But guys like you need to have a constant supply of redundant info fed into you brain-hole, in the guise of 'updates' lest you forget what's going on.

What do you think they'll be able to get away with if no one is watching?

The exact same stuff they're getting away with now. Everything.

Protesting won't solve anything.
News coverage won't solve anything.

Blood in the streets will solve -everything-

kiwasabi		2010-06-12 07:24:17 PM

@blackheart666

Nah, a peaceful uprising is the way to overthrow the government. It would just take the majority of the population to be on board. Getting people to realize that 9/11 was a false flag operation might make that possible.

blackheart666		2010-06-12 07:50:40 PM

kiwasabi: @blackheart666

Nah, a peaceful uprising is the way to overthrow the government. It would just take the majority of the population to be on board. Getting people to realize that 9/11 was a false flag operation might make that possible.

Nope. Most humans can not act like anything other than apes without a healthy dose of fear. Religion no longer provides suitable amounts to keep the upper classes in line.

The businessmen need to be afraid again and peaceful uprisings will not accomplish that.

heisenberg		2010-06-12 08:06:23 PM

Dead Mutters: BP and Exxon are the breasts of society.

We need their Teat.

If mommy says don't do that, then don't.

This.

You ruined my evening with your cold dagger of reality.

kiwasabi		2010-06-12 08:13:54 PM

heisenberg: Dead Mutters: BP and Exxon are the breasts of society.

We need their Teat.

If mommy says don't do that, then don't.

This.

You ruined my evening with your cold dagger of reality.

We don't NEED oil, they just forced us to need it by preventing any progress in automobile innovation for the last 100 years.

eggrolls		2010-06-12 08:27:17 PM

blackheart666: Alacritous: eggrolls: The constant need to update the public on absolutely nothing new becomes not just annoying, but voyeuristic and histrionic. But guys like you need to have a constant supply of redundant info fed into you brain-hole, in the guise of 'updates' lest you forget what's going on.

What do you think they'll be able to get away with if no one is watching?

The exact same stuff they're getting away with now. Everything.

Protesting won't solve anything.
News coverage won't solve anything.

Blood in the streets will solve -everything-

At the very least, it will give them something to talk about in the next news cycle.

defects		2010-06-12 08:28:57 PM

crazywisdom_uk: I was in the UK the second week of this clusterfark, and the press was airing on the beach first-hand accounts and video. It was horrific, so yes, there's been a blackout on information we've been getting here. UK press is a little different, one, it's not on their beaches, and two, the British press makes ours look like a bunch of pussies. Do they block out news? Sure they do, but as I said, it's not their beaches, so they've been getting the lot-and the British people have no love for BP either.

Why? The same reason that gas prices have been getting lower, if we really had any idea of about the extent of the damage, there'd be roving gangs of looters tearing down gas stations, any gas stations, and draining the tanks dry.

The Gulf is totally farked for decades, along with any animals and people pathetic enough to have had the stupidity to make it their home. That's why there's a media blackout.

How's living in a nanny state under 24/7 surveillance working out for you?

muckin refarkable		2010-06-12 08:42:52 PM

blackheart666: kiwasabi: @blackheart666

Nah, a peaceful uprising is the way to overthrow the government. It would just take the majority of the population to be on board. Getting people to realize that 9/11 was a false flag operation might make that possible.

Nope. Most humans can not act like anything other than apes without a healthy dose of fear. Religion no longer provides suitable amounts to keep the upper classes in line.

The businessmen need to be afraid again and peaceful uprisings will not accomplish that.

Well said. But the upper class never really gave a crap about religion because they could "buy" their way into heaven. Now, if somebody put a bullet into that sockcucker Tony Hayward's brain-pan, shiat like this would become a little more rare.

/I, in no way, condone violence against another human being
// Hayward's humanity is far from certain

el wharrrgarblo		2010-06-12 10:00:10 PM

Seacop: el wharrrgarblo: Seacop: andyofne: OgreMagi: thinks_on_feet: This "news" story is from some douche's blog... calm down, hippies.

Yet that "douche" is able to link to stories in major newspapers which back up his claim. Bastions of conservative thought such as the New York Times.

This isn't the first story to come out with the same message. It is really frightening. I thought that with Bush out of office this shiat would stop. Apparently it just doesn't matter who is in office, our rights are constantly eroding.

I can't wait for the day when you have to register your camera and have a license to carry it.

Relax, while BP may have been trying to keep the extent of the issue as low key as possible in the begining by withholding THEIR underwater camera pics, the reason most people are being kept out now is a safety issue, and just keeping people out of the damn way.

Reporters on scene always get in the way.

It's not frightening, it's keeping the area clear so the job can get done.

Bullshiat you farking bootlicker.

STFU

Right, and if the reporters get in and get sick, and hinder clean up, then the media and everyone else will be biatching, "Why did you let people in when you knew there were carcinogens and hazmat, and it would hinder clean up?? you screwed up!!"

I'd rather say FU, we'll talk to you when we get this under control until then if you want info, go wait in the media tent.

Not everything is a conspiracy you schmuck.

Hey, douche bag that lives in Falmouth, MA, why don't you try shuting your fat mouth for a second.

I know what the fark's going on, because I live on the gulf. I'm not even in the worst part and I'm seeing some of the mess.

The people who are watching the media KNOW NOTHING. I.E. YOU.

This is way worse than they are letting on. But for some reason, idiots like you buy the official story with no question at all, and then proceed to mock anyone with a different opinion than you oh so very informed one.

And newsflash, they have no right keeping people the fark out of there.

Especially news people. That tells anyone with a brain something right there.

Not you, of course.

Do everyone a favor and shut your mouth. You don't know shiat except what the media has fed you. So STFU, moron.

"if the reports get sick"...LOL, how farking pathetic/dumb could you be? Thanks for the laugh, douche. Keep believing everything little thing you see on the TV.

PlatypusPuke		2010-06-12 10:38:00 PM

*dons a tin-foil hat in snug position*

*cues "it's a conspiracy" pic*

huntercr		2010-06-12 11:14:19 PM

kiwasabi: Oops, minus the "I" at the top of my last comment. I typed in "I heart (less than symbol and 3) you Farkers" but it didn't take.

I always thought "less than + 3" was an ice cream cone that fell over. or a bird with a bumpy head.
Those wacky emoticons.

hershmire		2010-06-12 11:27:58 PM

eggrolls: stirfrybry: eggrolls: Why, is there something happening in the Gulf of Mexico? Because I certainly haven't seen any scoverage on each and every news network, the covers of every news magazine, the headlines of every newspaper, the first five minutes of Colbert & Stewart every farking night, heard incessant railing on Facebook, Twitter & Youtube or seen hundred of hours of footage from every source imaginable.

Seriously, it's already being called the greatest single disaster in American history. How can you call that a news blackout...and how can the hyperbole get any worse?

what part of the "present" or "now" do you have trouble with. Does the phrase "current conditions" register in your pea-brain?

What part of 'the worst possible scenario' are YOU having a problem with, you clot? My point was, there's nothing new to report. The oil is still leaking, the hole is still unplugged, and and the gulf is still dying. Nothing new to say. Current conditions sucked yesterday, suck today, and I can say with 100% certainty, will suck tomorrow. Just because you need a constant supply of new footage of Katie Couric wandering oil-soaked wetlands in rubber waders so you can fap to it doesn't mean its news.

The constant need to update the public on absolutely nothing new becomes not just annoying, but voyeuristic and histrionic. But guys like you need to have a constant supply of redundant info fed into you brain-hole, in the guise of 'updates' lest you forget what's going on.

Want proof? Honestly...when's the last time you thought about Haiti?

Because there's no balance between the two points you both make, right?

What if BP and the US Gov't. both claimed the oil leak has stopped and the Gulf has been completely cleaned up. Wouldn't you want some proof from independent journalists?

This is a massive, long-term problem (to put it mildly) and deserves long-term attention.

eggrolls		2010-06-12 11:34:17 PM

hershmire: eggrolls: stirfrybry: eggrolls: Why, is there something happening in the Gulf of Mexico? Because I certainly haven't seen any scoverage on each and every news network, the covers of every news magazine, the headlines of every newspaper, the first five minutes of Colbert & Stewart every farking night, heard incessant railing on Facebook, Twitter & Youtube or seen hundred of hours of footage from every source imaginable.

Seriously, it's already being called the greatest single disaster in American history. How can you call that a news blackout...and how can the hyperbole get any worse?

what part of the "present" or "now" do you have trouble with. Does the phrase "current conditions" register in your pea-brain?

What part of 'the worst possible scenario' are YOU having a problem with, you clot? My point was, there's nothing new to report. The oil is still leaking, the hole is still unplugged, and and the gulf is still dying. Nothing new to say. Current conditions sucked yesterday, suck today, and I can say with 100% certainty, will suck tomorrow. Just because you need a constant supply of new footage of Katie Couric wandering oil-soaked wetlands in rubber waders so you can fap to it doesn't mean its news.

The constant need to update the public on absolutely nothing new becomes not just annoying, but voyeuristic and histrionic. But guys like you need to have a constant supply of redundant info fed into you brain-hole, in the guise of 'updates' lest you forget what's going on.

Want proof? Honestly...when's the last time you thought about Haiti?

Because there's no balance between the two points you both make, right?

What if BP and the US Gov't. both claimed the oil leak has stopped and the Gulf has been completely cleaned up. Wouldn't you want some proof from independent journalists?

This is a massive, long-term problem (to put it mildly) and deserves long-term attention.

Long term, yes. Incessant and redundant, serving no other purpose but to perpetually re-fill a twenty-four hour news cycle with the same, slightly rephrased information, no.

Alacritous		2010-06-13 01:03:50 AM

eggrolls: Long term, yes. Incessant and redundant, serving no other purpose but to perpetually re-fill a twenty-four hour news cycle with the same, slightly rephrased information, no.

How do you propose they GET new information then? wait for the BS press releases? You know.. The ones that they've been lying their asses off in for months now?

Bucky Katt		2010-06-13 02:08:40 AM

dead_dangler: junkie

Hate everybody, it saves time.

Lots43		2010-06-13 03:49:58 AM

Insane gibberish spewing article writer is insane.

Maybe correct but insane.

Lots43		2010-06-13 03:52:09 AM

AbbeySomeone
You can't find the stories of the blackout from the big outlets because they have been blocked dumbass.

Please like that'd work.

Seacop		2010-06-13 09:38:53 AM

el wharrrgarblo: Hey, douche bag that lives in Falmouth, MA, why don't you try shuting your fat mouth for a second.

I know what the fark's going on, because I live on the gulf. I'm not even in the worst part and I'm seeing some of the mess.

The people who are watching the media KNOW NOTHING. I.E. YOU.

This is way worse than they are letting on. But for some reason, idiots like you buy the official story with no question at all, and then proceed to mock anyone with a different opinion than you oh so very informed one.

And newsflash, they have no right keeping people the fark out of there.

Especially news people. That tells anyone with a brain something right there.

Not you, of course.

Do everyone a favor and shut your mouth. You don't know shiat except what the media has fed you. So STFU, moron.

"if the reports get sick"...LOL, how farking pathetic/dumb could you be? Thanks for the laugh, douche. Keep believing everything little thing you see on the TV.

Watching the media? That's how you think I'm getting my info? Schmuck. I've got 40 people from my sector down there right now and we've got 40 replacements suiting up. My watch has been tasked with sending 2 people, going down to our minimum numbers, and the SITREPS are CG wide. It's more than likely I'll be down there between now and September.

Yeah, everything I get is from TV you joke. Trust me, media just gets in the way.

Nemo's Brother		2010-06-13 11:04:43 AM

farkin_Gary: Why would President Obama, a man who was elected on the promise of government transparency, greenlight one of the biggest media blackout operations in U.S. history to take place? What is the administration attempting to hide? What could be SO bad that it would warrant Obama calling in the Coast Guard, the National Guard, local and state sheriffs, even U.S. wildlife officials to keep images of the Gulf spill out of the media?

Because he's an ass, that's why.

The Total Farkers and DailyKos will defend him for it. They will even find a reason to blame Bush.

studebaker hoch		2010-06-13 11:19:47 AM

Use less oil wherever you can.

eggrolls		2010-06-13 01:11:38 PM

Alacritous: eggrolls: Long term, yes. Incessant and redundant, serving no other purpose but to perpetually re-fill a twenty-four hour news cycle with the same, slightly rephrased information, no.

How do you propose they GET new information then? wait for the BS press releases? You know.. The ones that they've been lying their asses off in for months now?

You don't need a press release to look at a beach and go "Yup. Oil", count up dead Pelicans, interview fisherman put out of work, or look over satellite imagery. Nah....instead, show the same three seconds of footage of the broken pipe again. That's news. If we're so certain the information being divulged by BP and/or the Coast Guard is total bullshait, why are the press even asking for access? Rent a boat. Hire a marine biologist or two, put them and the reporter on said boat and go take a farking look for yourselves. The leak is all over the damn gulf, the Coast Guard sure as hell isn't patrolling the whole thing. Let the folks in charge rebut an actual investigative report rather than frame the conversation.

Thing is, nobody wants to know the truth. They just want to be entertained and then feign outrage until 'Idol' comes on. And the lazy news companies will do as little as they can to provide you with that momentary distraction.

kendelrio		2010-06-13 01:33:59 PM

I'm currently sitting smack dab in the middle of the Horizon site, trying to stop the well, so, I'm getting a kick.....

/you should see the mutant dolphin swimming ominously around our boat.

DarkVader		2010-06-14 01:05:29 AM

Seacop: farkingatwork:

although there are safety reasons to remove access, if the press wishes for access anyway, you should not be able to refuse it. It's not a matter of people speaking to the press.

So if the press gets sick because of the pollutants and hazmat, and they get in the way of the people cleaning, that's ok huh?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In other words: YES, THAT'S OK.

Seacop		2010-06-14 09:44:29 AM

DarkVader: Seacop: farkingatwork:

although there are safety reasons to remove access, if the press wishes for access anyway, you should not be able to refuse it. It's not a matter of people speaking to the press.

So if the press gets sick because of the pollutants and hazmat, and they get in the way of the people cleaning, that's ok huh?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In other words: YES, THAT'S OK.

Oh! Congress passed a law on this huh? That's what's keeping the press out? It's not a law.

farkingatwork		2010-06-15 12:24:57 PM

Seacop: DarkVader: Seacop: farkingatwork:

although there are safety reasons to remove access, if the press wishes for access anyway, you should not be able to refuse it. It's not a matter of people speaking to the press.

So if the press gets sick because of the pollutants and hazmat, and they get in the way of the people cleaning, that's ok huh?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In other words: YES, THAT'S OK.

Oh! Congress passed a law on this huh? That's what's keeping the press out? It's not a law.

hahaha. yes, that constitution thinger. swear, someone must never have heard of it.

Are they potentially in the way of the disaster? maybe. Are they putting themselves at risk? probably. Do they have that choice to make? yes. Press have a right to access to the ocean, even if people sold out the seafloor beneath it.

Seacop		2010-06-15 08:37:56 PM

farkingatwork: Seacop: DarkVader: Seacop: farkingatwork:

although there are safety reasons to remove access, if the press wishes for access anyway, you should not be able to refuse it. It's not a matter of people speaking to the press.

So if the press gets sick because of the pollutants and hazmat, and they get in the way of the people cleaning, that's ok huh?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In other words: YES, THAT'S OK.

Oh! Congress passed a law on this huh? That's what's keeping the press out? It's not a law.

hahaha. yes, that constitution thinger. swear, someone must never have heard of it.

Are they potentially in the way of the disaster? maybe. Are they putting themselves at risk? probably. Do they have that choice to make? yes. Press have a right to access to the ocean, even if people sold out the seafloor beneath it.

Not if it's a safety to their own person it's called a safety zone and is decided by the CG who has juridiction over the area, and it's not to control the press it's to ensure, derp, safety.

The reason they want everyone escorted is to make sure reporters aren't picking up hazmat and tarballs thus ensuring even more future lawsuits.

If you think it's anything other than that, and it's a conspiracy, you're not worth arguing with.

Displayed 42 of 142 comments