*Sigh* For those of you too lazy/illiterate/ignorant/indifferent to actually read any of my posts in their entirety, let me reiterate my carefully formed opinion, based on the utmost reflection, one more time:
1) Leaking corporate information, as long as that coporate information doesn't involve illegal or immoral acts by the corporation or individuals with in it, is wrong.
2) Encouraging such leaks (as long as the information isn't illegal or immoral), is also wrong.
3) The person responsible for the leak of such information should be punished.
4) Forcing even one journalist to reveal their sources, even if morally justifiable in that particular situation (which I'm not entirely sold on with regards to ThinkSecret) will set a very dangerous precedent by which legitimate journalistic sources will be too afraid to step forward.
5) When sources are too afraid to step forward, it jeopardizes the future of the free press.
So could you people please stop hurling the following insults at me:
1) Childish
2) Stupid
3) Pee Wee Herman debater
4) Drivel writer
5) Too young to post in this forum
6) Lacking fresh air
7) Non-existent argument
8- etc
And debate the issues, as opposed to engaging in these silly, vitriolic, ad hominem personal attacks?
I don't mean to paint you all with the same brush, as some of you have actually come forward with coherent counter-arguments, but you're clearly in the minority.
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
"I know you are, but what am I?"
Oh good, we've devolved into the PeeWee Herman School of Debate.
This is not your typical freedom of speech threat for the following reason:
Think Secret's SOLE purpose is to report leaks. Nothing else. That's it. If they were Macnn or something like that they would have a better case. If they reviewed products they would have a better case. If they provided any other content besides leaked information I would probably side with them. But they don't, and this strengthens Apples case GREATLY.
Apple is going to argue, that TS's sole purpose is to disclose their unreleased products and therefore, link maliceous intent to that.
Further more, if you are working or "collaborating" with people who are breaking contracts and handling information linked to those broken contracts, you are just asking for trouble and entering a grey area, weither your signed anything or not.
It is absolutely ridiculous linking this to 9/11 or Enron or the tobacco industry or anything like that. Apple is the one being attacked here, and they are simply defending themself.
You know, everyone talks about Apple being rich, and that being some excuse for it to be ok. What if Apple was just a start up and someone was publishing details on their future products? Well, you could argue that whoever was publishing that information wanted that company to fail. There's no "free speech" issue there.
Guy, look, your thread sucks, okay? You're making it into something it's not.
I won't flame you. I won't get into your mother's sexual history, your mental health, your lack of fresh air and sunshine, or how skilled you are at fellatio. And believe me, this is a HUGE show of restraint on my part. Long time members can attest to this hurculean show of will power.
I will simply say this:
The best response so far in this thread belongs to applenut. Read it a few times. Absorb it.
(actually, no, read most of the posts again... kickaha and the cool gut deserve some recognition) heh heh
I won't flame you. I won't get into your mother's sexual history, your mental health, your lack of fresh air and sunshine, or how skilled you are at fellatio. And believe me, this is a HUGE show of restraint on my part. Long time members can attest to this hurculean show of will power.
even when ur not offending someone, your still hilarious murbot.
Yeah, I think that pretty much hits the nail on the head.
As it has been discussed before, Nick dePlume is NOT a member of the press, he is not a journalist. People who break their NDA's submit trade secrets to him, which he posts on his site. That is not journalism by any definition of the word (I'm sure your going to look it up anyway)
Nick dePlume isn't fucking Magnum P.I. He isn't doing investigative work on a company which is doing anything illegal.
Comparing this to a _reall_ journalist digging up dirt on the tobacco industy or Enron is studid & childish.
Sorry to be blunt, but your arguement is ridiculous to say the least.
Comments
1) Leaking corporate information, as long as that coporate information doesn't involve illegal or immoral acts by the corporation or individuals with in it, is wrong.
2) Encouraging such leaks (as long as the information isn't illegal or immoral), is also wrong.
3) The person responsible for the leak of such information should be punished.
4) Forcing even one journalist to reveal their sources, even if morally justifiable in that particular situation (which I'm not entirely sold on with regards to ThinkSecret) will set a very dangerous precedent by which legitimate journalistic sources will be too afraid to step forward.
5) When sources are too afraid to step forward, it jeopardizes the future of the free press.
So could you people please stop hurling the following insults at me:
1) Childish
2) Stupid
3) Pee Wee Herman debater
4) Drivel writer
5) Too young to post in this forum
6) Lacking fresh air
7) Non-existent argument
8- etc
And debate the issues, as opposed to engaging in these silly, vitriolic, ad hominem personal attacks?
I don't mean to paint you all with the same brush, as some of you have actually come forward with coherent counter-arguments, but you're clearly in the minority.
Originally posted by Kickaha
"I know you are, but what am I?"
Oh good, we've devolved into the PeeWee Herman School of Debate.
Think Secret's SOLE purpose is to report leaks. Nothing else. That's it. If they were Macnn or something like that they would have a better case. If they reviewed products they would have a better case. If they provided any other content besides leaked information I would probably side with them. But they don't, and this strengthens Apples case GREATLY.
Apple is going to argue, that TS's sole purpose is to disclose their unreleased products and therefore, link maliceous intent to that.
Further more, if you are working or "collaborating" with people who are breaking contracts and handling information linked to those broken contracts, you are just asking for trouble and entering a grey area, weither your signed anything or not.
It is absolutely ridiculous linking this to 9/11 or Enron or the tobacco industry or anything like that. Apple is the one being attacked here, and they are simply defending themself.
You know, everyone talks about Apple being rich, and that being some excuse for it to be ok. What if Apple was just a start up and someone was publishing details on their future products? Well, you could argue that whoever was publishing that information wanted that company to fail. There's no "free speech" issue there.
I won't flame you. I won't get into your mother's sexual history, your mental health, your lack of fresh air and sunshine, or how skilled you are at fellatio. And believe me, this is a HUGE show of restraint on my part. Long time members can attest to this hurculean show of will power.
I will simply say this:
The best response so far in this thread belongs to applenut. Read it a few times. Absorb it.
(actually, no, read most of the posts again... kickaha and the cool gut deserve some recognition) heh heh
[end post]
(Chester ghoulishly crosses fingers and toes in eager anticipation.)
Originally posted by murbot
I won't flame you. I won't get into your mother's sexual history, your mental health, your lack of fresh air and sunshine, or how skilled you are at fellatio. And believe me, this is a HUGE show of restraint on my part. Long time members can attest to this hurculean show of will power.
even when ur not offending someone, your still hilarious murbot.
Originally posted by the cool gut
Yeah, I think that pretty much hits the nail on the head.
As it has been discussed before, Nick dePlume is NOT a member of the press, he is not a journalist. People who break their NDA's submit trade secrets to him, which he posts on his site. That is not journalism by any definition of the word (I'm sure your going to look it up anyway)
Nick dePlume isn't fucking Magnum P.I. He isn't doing investigative work on a company which is doing anything illegal.
Comparing this to a _reall_ journalist digging up dirt on the tobacco industy or Enron is studid & childish.
Sorry to be blunt, but your arguement is ridiculous to say the least.
Still think that way?