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.

(Guardian)   New UK libel laws passed after the News International phone-hacking scandal mean vast new state power over the media, but as long as that power is in the hands of leftists it won't ever be misused   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 60
    More: Unlikely, News International, English defamation law, News International phone hacking, libels, culture secretary, free press  
•       •       •

605 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Mar 2013 at 9:54 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



60 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-19 09:46:32 AM
Wait, so the ruling Conservative Party is now leftist?
 
2013-03-19 09:57:02 AM
"Leftists," subby?

Don't you want any sort of credibility at all?
 
2013-03-19 09:57:34 AM
UK libel laws are a threat to free speech around the world.
 
2013-03-19 09:58:23 AM
"vast new state power" == a corporation can't do whatever it wants any more
 
2013-03-19 10:00:50 AM
So rightists are for...phone hacking?
 
2013-03-19 10:02:41 AM
Under the rules, sites that generate news

The bad guy from Tomorrow Never Dies has a blog?
 
2013-03-19 10:02:55 AM
Sure, New International is horrible, but isn't giving the government the power to stop them from being quite so horrible just as bad?
 
2013-03-19 10:03:15 AM
www.caglesfarmhouse.com

/not subby
 
2013-03-19 10:05:33 AM
Well, "To the left of Mussolini" is technically a kind of "Left," I suppose...

NateGrey: So rightists are for...phone hacking?


That depends. Is Obama fer it or agin' it?
 
2013-03-19 10:06:30 AM
Both the Telegraph and the Guardian are against this, and that NEVER happens.
Who the hell thought this was a good idea?
 
2013-03-19 10:07:34 AM
Subby thinks the UK government is leftist.  Must be a "whatever isn't Saint Sarah is nuthin but a librul" Republican.
 
2013-03-19 10:07:41 AM

Cubicle Jockey: Both the Telegraph and the Guardian are against this, and that NEVER happens.
Who the hell thought this was a good idea?


Most corporations are against anything that will mean there are consequences for their bad actions, so the opposition is hardly surprising.
 
2013-03-19 10:08:22 AM
Having just now read the article, I have one bit of information that I didn't have before. Some news sources will have to sign up to a regulator. What that regulator's powers are, as opposed to what people who make their money off of being sensational state them to be, is not mentioned.
 
2013-03-19 10:09:11 AM

God's Hubris: "Leftists," subby?

Don't you want any sort of credibility at all?


Maybe where subby comes from, credibility is based on how scary something sounds.
 
2013-03-19 10:09:22 AM

Sybarite: Wait, so the ruling Conservative Party is now leftist?


Yes, Tories are now leftist. Someone add them to the GOP enemies list.
 
2013-03-19 10:10:22 AM

NateGrey: So rightists are for...phone hacking?



Any sort of restrictions, restraint or regulations on business is a socialist leftists wet dream, didn't you know that? It's a conservative's obligation, NO DUTY!, to undermine any efforts at government control over so-called "laws."
 
2013-03-19 10:11:43 AM

Sybarite: Wait, so the ruling Conservative Party is now leftist?


Ooh, maybe subby thinks the Tories are going to let the Lib Dems run the media.
 
2013-03-19 10:12:10 AM

verbaltoxin: Sybarite: Wait, so the ruling Conservative Party is now leftist?

Yes, Tories are now leftist. Someone add them to the GOP enemies list.


I was assured by more than one person on this here Politics tab that the Tories are, in fact, libby liberals who lib all the lib long day.  No, I don't know what those people were smoking.
 
2013-03-19 10:12:31 AM

Arkanaut: Maybe where subby comes from, credibility is based on how scary something sounds.



So, subby is a Fox News viewer.
 
2013-03-19 10:13:15 AM

Sybarite: Wait, so the ruling Conservative Party is now leftist?


Everybody outside the US is part of the Global Leftist Conspiracy™, don't you know.
 
2013-03-19 10:15:21 AM
Subby is dumb, therefore the law is good?
 
2013-03-19 10:17:02 AM

Ned Stark: Subby is dumb, therefore the law is good?


Between subby's farktarded headline and the virtually fact-free article he linked to, more information is needed to make a judgment.
 
Heb
2013-03-19 10:17:38 AM
Personally, I'm looking forward to newspapers being forced to print front page apologies when they tell front page lies. Currently, they do a massive exposé on pages 1,2,4,5,6 and 7, then when it's all found to be totally made up, a three line apology on page 8.
 
2013-03-19 10:18:34 AM
UK libel laws were already amongst the strictest in the world before this. What a goddamned mess.

Also, and I realize I'm not the first to point this out; subby is a moron.
 
2013-03-19 10:19:05 AM

HeartBurnKid: Sybarite: Wait, so the ruling Conservative Party is now leftist?

Everybody outside the US is part of the Global Leftist Conspiracy™, don't you know.


Because every country other than the US is a third-world hellhole Communist dictatorship.
 
2013-03-19 10:20:55 AM

Cubicle Jockey: Both the Telegraph and the Guardian are against this, and that NEVER happens.
Who the hell thought this was a good idea?


Anybody who thought GET MURDOCH first and ask questions later.

Also, anybody who can't grasp the concept of 'power wants power' and thinks the almighty state will get things right if only they're given added authority, and if something goes wrong it can be made aright if only the state is given added power, and if something goes wrong it...

A free press requires tolerance of asshat competitors.
 
2013-03-19 10:21:44 AM
What a British leftist might look to subbyteatard...
media-cache-ec6.pinterest.com
 
2013-03-19 10:24:20 AM

Gulper Eel: Cubicle Jockey: Both the Telegraph and the Guardian are against this, and that NEVER happens.
Who the hell thought this was a good idea?

Anybody who thought GET MURDOCH first and ask questions later.

Also, anybody who can't grasp the concept of 'power wants power' and thinks the almighty state will get things right if only they're given added authority, and if something goes wrong it can be made aright if only the state is given added power, and if something goes wrong it...

A free press requires tolerance of asshat competitors.


Thank goodness corporations abhor power. Left to themselves corporations will always do what is right and just for all.
 
2013-03-19 10:24:52 AM

Ned Stark: Subby is dumb, therefore the law is good?



What is this "comment on the article" nonsense you speak of? I saw a perfect opportunity to call out the potato in the headline, which I think we can both agree, was the point of the headline to begin with.
 
2013-03-19 10:26:32 AM

Jairzinho: What a British leftist might look to subbyteatard...
[media-cache-ec6.pinterest.com image 192x210]


I'll be in my bunk

/hope I don't get fined for saying that
 
2013-03-19 10:26:41 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Gulper Eel: Cubicle Jockey: Both the Telegraph and the Guardian are against this, and that NEVER happens.
Who the hell thought this was a good idea?

Anybody who thought GET MURDOCH first and ask questions later.

Also, anybody who can't grasp the concept of 'power wants power' and thinks the almighty state will get things right if only they're given added authority, and if something goes wrong it can be made aright if only the state is given added power, and if something goes wrong it...

A free press requires tolerance of asshat competitors.

Thank goodness corporations abhor power. Left to themselves corporations will always do what is right and just for all.



Which is why we need to deregulate the big industries.
 
Heb
2013-03-19 10:26:48 AM
There's quite a lot of over-reaction on this thread. British newspapers are going to be fine. This isn't state control, it's independent oversight. It hasn't killed our telly here in the UK. It's not going to kill our newspapers.  I like having TV regulation that stops monstrosities such as Fox calling itself news, and Im quite happy that newspapers can no longer continue to regulate themselves when they have repeatedly shown contempt for the process.
 
2013-03-19 10:27:58 AM

Arkanaut: God's Hubris: "Leftists," subby?

Don't you want any sort of credibility at all?

Maybe where subby comes from, credibility is based on how scary something sounds.


I'd love to point out how astute that observation is but I am busy driving back roads to avoid Department of Agriculture drones on my way to pick up my latest shipment of Goldline Gold to bury in my back yard.
 
2013-03-19 10:30:44 AM

Heb: There's quite a lot of over-reaction on this thread. British newspapers are going to be fine. This isn't state control, it's independent oversight. It hasn't killed our telly here in the UK. It's not going to kill our newspapers.  I like having TV regulation that stops monstrosities such as Fox calling itself news, and Im quite happy that newspapers can no longer continue to regulate themselves when they have repeatedly shown contempt for the process.



You sound like a Tory.
 
2013-03-19 10:31:39 AM
Look at the nimbus on that gal.
 
2013-03-19 10:34:38 AM
I am confused.  The media has to sign up with independant censorship progrograms or face a fine?... and this is tied up with libel?  Maybe I need more coffee to understand that article.
 
2013-03-19 10:36:03 AM
The problem with News International (and, by the way, to a lesser extent the rest of the red tops) was not that they printed libelous things*. The problem was the laws they broke and the police they bribed and the privacies they invaded in order to discover the things that they printed.

There's really no justification for tightening England's already-strict libel laws in the News International scandal (although there is plenty of justification for jailing a lot of powerful people currently walking around free, including certain "political advisors".)

*Which they do, regularly and recklessly, and are sued for under existing laws.
 
2013-03-19 10:36:42 AM
So, it's like the UK's version of the FCC but instead of worrying about naughty words and women's nipples they worry about news sources lying their asses off?

[imokwiththis.jpg]
 
2013-03-19 10:39:40 AM
Wait, so there's the conservative media outlet who f*cked up royally and then the conservative ruling party who puts this legislation into practice because of it, and it's all hurr and derr with the "leftists"?

Did subby get touched in the bad place by an environmental activist as a child or something?
 
2013-03-19 10:39:44 AM
These leftists want to impose their leftinista ideas that they developed in their leftoriums under control of lefters who left Leftoria to left-out America.
 
2013-03-19 10:41:11 AM

Heb: Personally, I'm looking forward to newspapers being forced to print front page apologies when they tell front page lies. Currently, they do a massive exposé on pages 1,2,4,5,6 and 7, then when it's all found to be totally made up, a three line apology on page 8.


The Daily Caller and Breitbart would have to rotate apology days.
 
2013-03-19 10:46:42 AM
"The key will be to differentiate between huge operations such as Huffington Post and voluntary blogs like Liberal Conspiracy. We should be vigilant but I don't see a cause for panic yet."

So apparently its about who's doing the offending more than who's being offended?
Yea, not buying that this isn't a disaster waiting to happen.

/I wonder how they'll determine the minimal offence.
/"I see your blog has gotten more than [arbitrarily determined number of] clicks for insulting [rather specific government official],  You'll have to pay the big boys fine now!"
 
2013-03-19 10:59:38 AM
So the print media is complaining about new restrictions on the print media as a result of terrible behaviour by the print media and some people are actually gullible enough to think the print media is providing an objective assessment of the situation?

/10 print media
//20 goto 10
 
2013-03-19 11:22:13 AM
Just in case anyone's forgotten why this was necessary... hereare Messrs Stewart and Oliver discussing the issue back in '11.

(Yes, it's a Gawker link. But TDS's own website is blocked over here, so it's the only way I can verify it's the right clip.)
 
2013-03-19 11:31:57 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Most corporations are against anything that will mean there are consequences for their bad actions, so the opposition is hardly surprising.


The Guardian is run by a public trust. It is NOT a for-profit corporation. There was a reason the intrepid British reporter that the US killed in the Bourne Ultimatum was written as a Guardian employee, you know.

You are better than this.
 
2013-03-19 11:34:33 AM
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the people in the article who are saying bad things about this law Leftists?
 
Heb
2013-03-19 11:37:37 AM
It's not a left v right issue. The independent regulator had broad cross-party support, and newspapers on the left and right are now grumbling about it.
 
2013-03-19 11:57:42 AM

Heb: It's not a left v right issue.


BURN THE HERETIC
 
2013-03-19 12:01:36 PM

Cubicle Jockey: Philip Francis Queeg: Most corporations are against anything that will mean there are consequences for their bad actions, so the opposition is hardly surprising.

The Guardian is run by a public trust. It is NOT a for-profit corporation. There was a reason the intrepid British reporter that the US killed in the Bourne Ultimatum was written as a Guardian employee, you know.

You are better than this.


I am better than thinking even the best intentioned corporations require regulation and oversight?
 
2013-03-19 12:07:38 PM
A marriage made in derp heaven.
i.imgur.com
 
Displayed 50 of 60 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report