This is OPEN CENSORSHIP

meelashmeelash
Posted:
in AppleOutsider edited January 2014
I find this absolutely ridiculous:



http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-08-24-voa54.cfm.





Someone please explain how this is not trampling on the freedom of the press.





EDIT: The link is to a story about a man who is being charged with relaying programs from Hezbollah's television station to NY residents.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 29
    cosmonutcosmonut Posts: 4,872member
    You two have already tried and convicted anyone who might try to explain or come up with an explanation, so why should anyone bother?



    Move along now. Nothing to see here.
  • Reply 2 of 29
    cosmonutcosmonut Posts: 4,872member
    No thanks. Hey, if I do that, will you willingly throw yourself into a yard full of hungry pit bulls? Wouldn't that be fun?
  • Reply 3 of 29
    cosmonutcosmonut Posts: 4,872member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius


    the silence is somehow more honest.



    Nice try, but we're still not going to play.
  • Reply 4 of 29
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    Last thing we need is people supporting the terrorists.
  • Reply 5 of 29
    cosmonutcosmonut Posts: 4,872member
    (Placebo bit. Why did he have to do that?)
  • Reply 6 of 29
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    I heard that if you even *think* about the middle east (except for Israel) you support turrizm.
  • Reply 7 of 29
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    We don't need them brainwashing anybody through their state-controlled propaganda "news".
  • Reply 8 of 29
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Placebo


    We don't need them brainwashing anybody through their state-controlled propaganda "news".



    odd, every time a middle east TV outlet farts it is echoed on PMSNBC and Faux-News, Seems to me that this guy is guilty of nothing except for maybe redistribution of copyrighted content, which may not even hold as copyrights may not be enforcable internationally, in addition to FCC lack-o'-licence violations.



    Who would he brainwash anyway if the content isnt in English?
  • Reply 9 of 29
    maimezvousmaimezvous Posts: 802member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by a_greer


    odd, every time a middle east TV outlet farts it is echoed on PMSNBC and Faux-News, Seems to me that this guy is guilty of nothing except for maybe redistribution of copyrighted content, which may not even hold as copyrights may not be enforcable internationally, in addition to FCC lack-o'-licence violations.



    Who would he brainwash anyway if the content isnt in English?



    He would be brainwashing the Hizbollah! Oh wait, they are already on that side.
  • Reply 10 of 29
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius


    Hizbollah are not State controlled.



    No they aren't, they seemingly control the state though and wage open war like one. So what's the difference.



    Quote:

    It is not a News show.



    I guess you just toasted the whole freedom of the press argument yourself. Bravo!!!
  • Reply 11 of 29
    meelashmeelash Posts: 1,045member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by CosmoNut


    You two have already tried and convicted anyone who might try to explain or come up with an explanation, so why should anyone bother?



    Move along now. Nothing to see here.



    Whoa there, bro--I just asked a question....



    No need to get all defensive....
  • Reply 12 of 29
    meelashmeelash Posts: 1,045member
    I have another, related, question. What is being hidden from us? What is there on Hezbooolaah TV that the people in charge (who are supposed to be our representatives) can't let us see??
  • Reply 13 of 29
    jimdreamworxjimdreamworx Posts: 1,096member
    This is really a poorly worded article. I'm still trying to figure out what he's guilty of. And I'm not even sure freedom of the press is being violated here.



    Relaying programs to customers? They paid him?

    The US Treasury Department deemed Hezbollah a global terrorist entity?

    What, the Department of Homeland Security isn't on side?



    And they just rhyme off the International Emergency Eccomic (!) Powers Act like it has something to do with people hiding explosives in their shoes.



    Is there a better link that someone can provide?
  • Reply 14 of 29
    meelashmeelash Posts: 1,045member
    Here's a few more out of the 127 available at news.google.com, (http://news.google.com/?ncl=http://e...674.html&hl=en):



    Voice of America

    Wall Street Journal

    Reuters

    MSNBC

    Forbes



    Please let me know if these meet your standards....
  • Reply 15 of 29
    meelashmeelash Posts: 1,045member
    The reason for the Treasury Dept. involvement and the Emergency Economic Powers Act being mentioned is because it's one of those deals where a 50 page bill is all on one subject and then some unsavory, unrelated legislation is slipped in there as well so that it will get passed with all the rest. Common practice these days. Same thing happened with the "no child left behind act" and several other of these (in)famous bills.



    Basically, relaying their television is doing business with them and that is illegal under this act because this news station is "designated" a terrorist organization.
  • Reply 16 of 29
    trick falltrick fall Posts: 1,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Placebo


    We don't need them brainwashing anybody through their state-controlled propaganda "news".



    You think our new isn't propaganda?
  • Reply 17 of 29
    meelashmeelash Posts: 1,045member
    Look at the word this dude sarcastically puts in quotes in the first sentence....





    Very telling.
  • Reply 18 of 29
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by meelash


    Look at the word this dude sarcastically puts in quotes in the first sentence....





    Very telling.



    I'm trying to figure out whether that site is a parody.
  • Reply 19 of 29
    meelashmeelash Posts: 1,045member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chucker


    I'm trying to figure out whether that site is a parody.



    I wish it were. However, it does not seem to be the case...
  • Reply 20 of 29
    skatmanskatman Posts: 609member
    Remember.. "we're" at war... who are "we", we don't know.

    Who are "we" at war with... we also don't know except that they/she/he/it are called "terror", "terrorists", etc...



    What does that mean? Not much besides the fact that any branch of the government can do whatever they want, regardless, if it directly contradicts The Constitution or any other US laws because "we" are in a war.



    So in this case, the govmnt decided that to shut down a TV station.



    How is this answer?
Sign In or Register to comment.