US Presidential Election 2012

I do love his guitar work though.

I think that may play havoc with your claim Orwell music is the highest form!

I wonder what happened to him to make him so bitter and hate filled and insane?

It is a little hard to argue with a guy who has created some of the most sublime rock guitar solos the world has ever known.

But not a very good base for argument. Jimmy Hendrix's politics were slightly different!

Thing is if someone carjacks you and is going to shoot you thenhaving a gun is indeed handy.
However I dont know how common a carjacking is in the US at gunpoint- but I have never heard of one in Scotland in my lifetime, and I doubt there were many, if any before- its hard to carjack someone at gunpoint if you dont know where to ge a gun.

In light of recent reshuffling of power in Egypt, this from the BBC:

'The Pentagon, a large aid donor to Eygpt's army, said it expected to maintain close ties with the military.
The generals had assumed presidential powers after the ousting of President Hosni Mubarak last year.
Although President Mursi's announcement startled observers, the BBC's Kim Ghattas in Washington says the US showed no sign of surprise.
As the US gives more than $1bn in aid to the Egyptian military, it would expect some degree of consultation or warning, she says.
The new Egyptian defence team is made of up officials who have trained in the US and are known to the Pentagon, our correspondent adds.
"We had expected President Mursi at some point to co-ordinate changes in the military leadership, to name a new team," Pentagon spokesman George Little told reporters.
The United States and the Department of Defence in particular look forward to continuing a very close relationship with the Scaf (Supreme Council of the Armed Forces)."

Amazing really, the US backs the army that kept the dictator in power for decades and then when democracy happens they continue to fund the military and so could influence Egyptian domestic politics, undermining their soverienty which is what the people there have been fighting for.
Leader of the Free World my arse.

US policy has always been about stability, not democracy. And anti-communist, not anti-dictatorship. Dictators make better trading partners than communists, and are often more stable.

But you are the selt-styled world defenders of Freedom and Democracy surely?

That's where theory and propaganda collides with realpolitik.

I think all politicians, deep down, would honestly like America to conform to the noble vision; but when it comes down to brass tacks they do what's best for business.

The problem with that of course is all dictaroships end, and when they do the US is often clearly seen to have been the main thing supporting the dictator- no ones buying the propoganda anymore outside of America. And countries you exploit for business and resources by keeping very unpleasant people in power tend to breed other people who are very resentful, and who then crash two planes full of people into one of your cities. Or join a police force serving with your troops, wait three years and open fire on them one day.
And then your govenment has to spend all your money on security, and curb your freedoms in order to keep an eye on everyone and nobody trusts you.

I'm pretty sure you're preaching to the choir here, Petty.

I know I am often in a state of shock and bewildered amusement when I visit Fox News- but is there no scrutiny of journalism at all in the US?

'Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel.'

Former judge, so presumably knows the value of a fair hearing and not chucking wild allegations about the place.
So how come he can write this of Obama with apprent impunity;

'Obama has killed innocents, altered laws, rejected his oath to enforce the law faithfully, and threatened to assault the liberty and property of Americans he hates and fears.'

Can you just publicly accuse someone in the press of murder like that? Because if a leading news company here said that about our PM they would have to back it up in a court or it is slander.

The press (and I use that term loosely) is generally allowed to claim whatever they want about politicians. Just look at the stuff Rush Limbaugh regularly claims. The people who are talked about can always make a libel case but a politician suing the media -- especially a Democrat going up against right-wing talk show types -- would be a PR disaster.

In the UK the politician wouldn't have to make the complaint themselves or take it to court- they could make an anomynous complaint to the Press Complaints Commission- an independent body- it is they who would decide if the press comment was justified or not and find accordingly.

Is there no regulatory body for the press in the US?

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Is there no regulatory body for the press in the US?

LOL.

We have the Federal Communications Commission but they're more worried about kids hearing the word fuck on TV than anything else. I'm pretty sure they don't take complaints about libel. You need to go to court for that.

Then whats to stop the news just publishing libalise stuff?

Mind you I suppose Fox News is my answer to that- nothing at all.
No wonder US news outside the US is generally regarded as closer to comedy than factual!

Have you ever heard anything Rush Limbaugh says? There's not really anything to stop them. Any attempt to crack down is met with cries of censorship and oppression from whichever side happened to get caught spewing lies that time.

For that matter, your original example of accusing the President of murder is so mundane that I can't even find it remarkable. It's an accusation that can fit so many different causes that you hear it from all different sides, whether the grievance is war, abortion, capital punishment, or budget cuts. This is only a slight exaggeration.

Thats why you need a press complaints that is independent of government- so it cant be accused of anything political, just of making sure the press can back up what they say with evidence.

And to ensure that when something is opinion it is clearly given as such and not as news.

Its come to something when American news is more biased and propoganda filled than watching Russia Today! (which seems to be written by Putin)

I don't disagree, but that would require a fairly fundamental change in the practices of American media and in the attitude that many people have towards it. Not to mention that everything in America is or is accused of being political.

To be honest there are times when America scares the living crap out of me you know.

For a nation which claims to be the bastion of freeedom it seems like one of the least free countries in the 1st world democracies, and far and away the most nutty religous country out of them.
And you have loads of weapons- thats never a good mix right there.

I'd say we're sorry, but we'll never apologize to a dirty foreigner like you!

Hey Im not Foreign I'm British- so more like Americas parent or uncle or something- we made you so its probably our fault!
We had no idea when we got rid of all our nutters they would create America and be hugely nutty- we thought wolves would eat them or something!

I saw a news story today that reminded me of the libel discussion from last night. It's a bit different because the libelous party was a lawyer and a blogger, not a member of the professional press, but it illustrates the legal process in the courts that people who are libeled have to go through.

Lawyer ordered to pay $4.5M to gay U-M student - AP via Yahoo

DETROIT (AP) — A jury on Thursday awarded a gay University of Michigan student body president $4.5 million in his lawsuit against a former Michigan assistant attorney general who posted about him in an anti-gay blog.

The U.S. District Court jury ruled in favor of Christopher Armstrong, who claimed he suffered distress after a blog created by Andrew Shirvell accused him of enticing minors with alcohol and recruiting people to become homosexual.

"I'm just incredibly humbled by what happened today," Armstrong told The Associated Press. "This is truly a victory — not just for myself, but for a lot of other kids out there."

Shirvell, who was representing himself, said the jury award was "grossly excessive" for what was "clearly protected speech ... and activity."

"This should have been thrown out," he said, adding that he plans to appeal. "Juries give short shrift to First Amendment rights."

Armstrong accused Shirvell of defamation as well as emotional distress for his actions on the blog, in Facebook posts and during visits to the Ann Arbor campus.

Then-Attorney General Mike Cox fired Shirvell in 2010 after he criticized Armstrong, who graduated last year.

Shirvell has said he viewed his blog "as a movement to get" Armstrong to resign. Shirvell argued he was acting within his First Amendment rights and that his statements were either true or protected because of Armstrong's role as a public figure.

Armstrong's attorney, Deborah Gordon, had said she would drop the lawsuit if Shirvell apologized and retracted his comments. Shirvell said that was disingenuous, since it wasn't until closing arguments that a multimillion-dollar award was brought up.

Shirvell said he's unemployed and "there's no way I could possibly ever pay such a judgment."

Gordon said the jury couldn't make him apologize, so the money was the only answer.

"We needed him to retract the flat-out fabrications he had come up with about Chris," she said. "Once he refused to take responsibility, we put it in the hands of the jury."

Ive never quite understood ths first amendment lark- is it fee speech without constraint then?- so racial, derogitary, or comments likely to incite a riot are all protected?
Lying about people is protected? Slandering is protected?
I dont get it at all.
There is free speech here, but if someone's right to free speech is unfairly at the expense of anothers whose rights are being trampled on then you dont automatically have the right to say it without consequence.

The First Amendment doesn't name any limits to free speech but Congress and the Courts have been clear that there are limits. The famous "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre" example is one, slander/libel is another. Inciting a riot is also illegal but unless there is a clear call to violence or some form of defamation I'm pretty sure hate speech is protected.

However, because the First Amendment doesn't name any explicit limits and because most people aren't hugely knowledgeable about the matter, you get people complaining that their right to free speech is being trampled by everyone from the government to employers to forum moderators.