” NEW YORK (AP) — Rant all you want in a public park. A police officer generally won’t eject you for your remarks alone, however unpopular or provocative.

Say it on the Internet, and you’ll find that free speech and other constitutional rights are anything but guaranteed.

Companies in charge of seemingly public spaces online wipe out content that’s controversial but otherwise legal. Service providers write their own rules for users worldwide and set foreign policy when they cooperate with regimes like China. They serve as prosecutor, judge and jury in handling disputes behind closed doors.

The governmental role that companies play online is taking on greater importance as their services – from online hangouts to virtual repositories of photos and video – become more central to public discourse around the world. It’s a fallout of the Internet’s market-driven growth, but possible remedies, including government regulation, can be worse than the symptoms.”

http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/T/TEC_DISAPPEARING_FREEDOMS?SITE=WIRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-07-06-14-17-49

Many trust you.

I personally read and listen and then look at other sources, the old trust but verify.

If the topic of news was a car crash on Cherry Street, the media would report the crash and that would be accepted.

“Whenever you read anything, no matter who it’s written by unless you personally hear the exact words being said yourself there is always a chance it will be wrong.”

Chance.

Not intended.

The whole intent issue comes back around.

An outlet that intends to influence people is not really a media source as much as it is a proxy for the other party.

35 posts to go.

That was one of the other issues raised here, who can you trust to provide you information?

Right, which is some use privacy services or do not disclose personal information.

Not disclosing personal information, lest one wants to be in the public eye, is the same type of advise given on Myspace, Facebook, etc., especially so on Usenet postings.

We had people in city government here releasing personnel information to the media.

“We acknowledge the media is not credible…”

Some is not. Some do not vet information. To say all media is not credible, takes into those that blog, etc., as that is part of the media, isn’t?

We acknowledge the media is not credible, yet many react to what is quoted by someone without giving them the benefit of the doubt that it might not be exactly what they stated and if it was exactly what they stated? Where does their right to free speech end and our ability to try to change their minds/insult them begin?

Well, here’s one.

It is a campaign season, campaigns and their operatives say what ever they can and then get called on it and the backtracking begins, as in some one mis spoke, mis quoted, the media distorted it, etc.

It is like the rain, it comes and goes and when it is gone we wonder where it went and why, and when it comes back we bemoan the fact it is back.

Free speech is alive and well within recognized norms and with recognized consequences.

“It is disappointing when a post such as this one that took a great deal of thought and some research effort goes off the intent of the original post.”

Just a thought/comment made with complete respect to the time and effort, but is what the campaigns doing all that new or note worthy?

We had Swift Boating, we had character assassination by a whole host of political players from decades ago, come back with the same bag of dirty tricks.

Maybe people are turned on by talk about job creation, the bear market we are in, or some other real news.

I think the answer to your questions in the post are self evident, people make their minds up, when the same phrases and statements are repeated over and over and over again, regardless the truth or foundation of the comments.

and that was my point. I would have much rather read 39 comments about the Washington Post article and freedom of speech.

but alas….that was not to be.

maybe next time LR…

Sheetheads. Boy, I do crack myself up!

(And yes, I would consider myself racist – only not towards the peoples that you might think. Being 1/3 Ani-Yun-Wiya, you might be able to guess who I consider the enemy)