The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums
-
Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community
In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
If you do not have an account, please register.
REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your InfoPLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.
Should Bill O'Reilly be charged for mis-leading news?
- Thread starter Telstra
- Start date
Not over here.
He would be charged by this department in Australia:
"The Australian Communications and Media Authority"
http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=CONTACT_COMPLAINTS_OVIEW
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2005
- Posts
- 11,385
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Bill O'Reilly isn't a newsman. He's a commentator. But I would agree that we should require political compaign commercials be held to the same standard of honesty as every other commercial hawking a product. Right now they are exempt.
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2005
- Posts
- 43,808
- Reaction score
- 75
- Points
- 0
It is so easy to sit at your keyboard and listen to
EDITED DRIVEL promulgated by modern day Hemorrhoids
telling a bullshit version that is just as distorted
as BullShit Bills version as heard by the barcolounger
crowd.
I can understand 'downunder' boy trying to mix petrol
and water, poor lad was the steeden on too many
pitches during Footy Season. But you Sethbert, a
UNI man...and neither one of you within 3,000 miles
of Oakland California, not to mention that you aren't
even in the USA, never mind California.
I call total bullshit and recommend retrieving some
heads from their bloody arses.
Media= Controversy= Viewers= Advertisers= MONEY
J ust M y P ersonal O pinion
EDITED DRIVEL promulgated by modern day Hemorrhoids
telling a bullshit version that is just as distorted
as BullShit Bills version as heard by the barcolounger
crowd.
I can understand 'downunder' boy trying to mix petrol
and water, poor lad was the steeden on too many
pitches during Footy Season. But you Sethbert, a
UNI man...and neither one of you within 3,000 miles
of Oakland California, not to mention that you aren't
even in the USA, never mind California.
I call total bullshit and recommend retrieving some
heads from their bloody arses.
Media= Controversy= Viewers= Advertisers= MONEY
J ust M y P ersonal O pinion
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2003
- Posts
- 8,102
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Who is the dumb-fuck in the video?
moveon.org aka George Soros does not speak for me.
George Soros would be a part of the .0001%
moveon.org aka George Soros does not speak for me.
George Soros would be a part of the .0001%
Asenath
JUB Addict
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Posts
- 1,066
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
You know what, I'm not pressed about Bill-O, Sean Hannity, and their type. They're covered under the Bill of Rights to say what they like without fear of government reprisal.
And I am also free to not buy a damned thing advertised on any of their programs. . .
And I am also free to not buy a damned thing advertised on any of their programs. . .
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2003
- Posts
- 8,102
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Absolutely true. Ain't it great to live in the USA.
Not many intelligent people over here like Murdoch that much either.
But they respect that he is wealthy and powerful.
TX-Beau
FEAR THE LIBERAL DETENTE!
Freedom of speech tests in the US are designed to err on the side of speech.
If you can PROVE that something someone says in any public sphere is directly threatening the public good you can get a lawsuit, but probably not criminal prosecution unless it's really egregious.
I'm not sure that should be different, and people like O'Reilly for all their bluster, when push comes to shove will say they only express and opinion, not a fact, no matter what they intentionally try to imply, or even outright lie about.
But lying about someone in the US is not a crime, so that doesn't help you. You have to prove that whatever is said actually threatens the rest of us some tangible way.
But things like that are notoriously difficult to prove.
FYI the question in the US is not CAN the government censor, but WHEN can the government censor - you have a right to free speech, until you endanger some one else.
It's much easier to sue over damage caused by consumer products and their claims.
If you can PROVE that something someone says in any public sphere is directly threatening the public good you can get a lawsuit, but probably not criminal prosecution unless it's really egregious.
I'm not sure that should be different, and people like O'Reilly for all their bluster, when push comes to shove will say they only express and opinion, not a fact, no matter what they intentionally try to imply, or even outright lie about.
But lying about someone in the US is not a crime, so that doesn't help you. You have to prove that whatever is said actually threatens the rest of us some tangible way.
But things like that are notoriously difficult to prove.
FYI the question in the US is not CAN the government censor, but WHEN can the government censor - you have a right to free speech, until you endanger some one else.
It's much easier to sue over damage caused by consumer products and their claims.
TX-Beau
FEAR THE LIBERAL DETENTE!
We can blame Clinton in the US for media deregulation which directly led to "infotainment," and the erosion of our news organizations.
It seems that when the news desks must turn a profit truth is the first casualty.
Before the networks carried their news departments and there was a lot more rigor to report what actually was happening - instead of making things as sensational as possible to attract viewers and advertising dollars.
Murdoch is actually a symptom of the problem (as vile as he is) and if he didn't create Fox, under those conditions - someone else would have.
It seems that when the news desks must turn a profit truth is the first casualty.
Before the networks carried their news departments and there was a lot more rigor to report what actually was happening - instead of making things as sensational as possible to attract viewers and advertising dollars.
Murdoch is actually a symptom of the problem (as vile as he is) and if he didn't create Fox, under those conditions - someone else would have.