*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[wufwugy]

Depends who you ask. If you ask one of his supporters, yes. If you ask the police, no.

He was filming people going into court, and the police came and nicked him for "breach of the peace" and "incitement". That'd be ok if they put him in a cell overnight and then released him the next day. But he was currently serving a suspended sentence for reporting on rape gang cases, and they appear to be activating it.

Whether you like him or not, he's trying to do his job. Standing there filming people going into court, that is not "breach of the peace" or "incitement", it's "journalism".

I'm not going to lose any sleep over it though.

What do you think about the UK law that you can't report on events/issues currently at trial?

[BananaStand]

What do you think about the UK law that you can't report on events/issues currently at trial?

I think George Zimmerman would have liked that policy

[wufwugy]

I think George Zimmerman would have liked that policy

It strikes me as a dangerous law.

[BananaStand]

It strikes me as a dangerous law.

Agreed. But it's addressing the right problem.

There is a non-negligible percentage of the population that believes Michael Brown had his hands up, begging for his life, and then was shot in the back execution style by a racist cop who got out of bed that day intending to kill a black kid.

As a result, you had "the Ferguson Effect" where cops wouldn't bother to do policing because they were afraid of a scandal. Murder rates went up.

Is that really what we consider an acceptable consequence of a free press?

When NBC doctored Zimmerman's 911 tapes....is that free press? Or is that a deliberate attempt to deceive?

Should there be consequences for the latter?

[wufwugy]

When NBC doctored Zimmerman's 911 tapes....is that free press? Or is that a deliberate attempt to deceive?

Should there be consequences for the latter?

This is an issue I'd like to hear viewpoints on from people smarter than me. I have no clue if I think the "deliberate attempt to deceive" should be illegal or not. I don't like it, but I don't have a handle on the most important elements of the topic so I can't say whether or not it's better for it to be legal or illegal.

[BananaStand]

This is an issue I'd like to hear viewpoints on from people smarter than me. I have no clue if I think the "deliberate attempt to deceive" should be illegal or not. I don't like it, but I don't have a handle on the most important elements of the topic so I can't say whether or not it's better for it to be legal or illegal.

On one hand, free and independent press is awesome. On the other hand, I'm not sure the founding fathers envisioned something as broad-reaching and persuasive as television news. In this context it has the ability to poison a jury pool. Maybe we really have to choose between fair trials, and free press.

Ultimately I lean towards having a press that's free to spew whatever spun up bullshit it wants. But when I said "consequences", I didn't necessarily mean legally. I was envisioning something like politifact but actually got people's attention, and wasn't polluted with leftist bias

[Savy]

What do you think about the UK law that you can't report on events/issues currently at trial?

This isn't true. He got arrested for disturbing the peace. What he does is he takes his little groups to events like this, causes it to kick off as he brings idiots with him and then makes out he's the most innocent person and it's everything against him because he gets in trouble.