Wait, you're going on a tirade about the media being dishonest, but you don't want to be asked to substantiate your claims?
Where did I say anything like that?
If he has a case for defamation, he's still free to bring it. How does the use of an anonymous source shield a news organization from such lawsuits?
If that was how it worked, I would imagine that all sources would be kept anonymous, which clearly isn't the case.
You do get to question the reporter who used the source, and they can be held responsible if it's shown that the information from their source is false. Stop making it sound like there's suddenly no recourse agains defamation just because an anonymous source is in the picture.
And you haven't really addressed the main point: no anonymous sources means less information; why would you want that?
--
Okay, I guess I'll just take your word for it, guy who demands that the press be more transparent and accurate.
What has any of that got to do with anonymous sources? You're just vomiting a bunch of unfocused hatred of the media on a conversation that's about something more specific. (The president appreciates the assist.)
That does not prove that he is of sound mind.
Knock it off.
You're right there, it doesn't prove anything either way. It does show that his mind was functioning well enough to plan this out. That being said, the mental evaluation he is undergoing will likely determine the direction both the prosecution and defense will go when preparing this case.
People with mental illnesses can be extraordinarily capable of planning ahead. You don't suddenly lose all of your thinking, reasoning and planning skills because you have a mental illness.
Chess genius Bobby Fischer for example. I never played Fischer, but I did play (and defeat) a person who later became a Grand Master, US national champion, and multi-time candidate for the world championship. (He was a boy at the time I played him
)
Isn't he the great champion of free speech?
He's the one who says (and yes, I'm paraphrasing here) that freedom of speech is a fundamental, inalienable right. He's the one who criticised people for trying to silence him on the grounds that they disagreed with him. And he's the one in the video trying to silence people that he disagrees with.
The whole thing. He's protesting against CNN, but where is he protesting against the redditor? Surely both of them have an equal right to say what they said.
I am. And I'm certainly not defending them. I'm just pointing out that you've got CNN and the redditor, both of whom have said something objectionable, but both are being treated differently. And I don't think it's as simple as saying that one is an individual and the other is an organisation - the original video was produced for a specific audience as commentary on current events. It was a political cartoon, and if you change the medium it's the sort of thing that you could find in the Sunday newspaper on the opinion page. In that sense, the redditor was acting as an agent of the media - just not the conventional media the way CNN is. So why is he free to say as he pleases, but CNN are not?You are aware of why people are mad at CNN right now, right?
You didn't watch the video otherwise you would know he's not in the video trying to silence people he disagrees with, in this case CNN. Feel free to disagree with links to the parts of the video where he's trying to silence CNN.
The "black block" is busy blinding helicopter pilots in Hamburg.What, no burning cars? No people running around in masks yelling obscenities at everyone in sight? No one getting smacked with bicycle chains? Someone forgot to invite the leftists I guess
