You are welcome to come here and possibly be granted political asylum. But you must agree to stop releasing information the United States considers harmful to its political interests lest the NSA makes good on its threat to release all the scandalous information it has compiled over the years on the crimes and blatant hypocrisy of European politicians and governments.
But the rules only determine who gets issued press passes to cross police lines or attend closed functions. They do not attempt to regulate who is protected under freedom of the press rules - or to regulate who is 'officially' allowed report on a news story.
Durbin's argument is all about the government able to force news reporters to name their sources. And narrowly defining who a 'real' reporter is gives them many more arms to twist next time an embarrassing news story gets released.
Once again it's all about clamping down on government whistle-blowers. Something Durbin doesn't even have the spine to admit he's trying to do.
Why do I need to be afraid of a foreign 'enemy' when my own government is acting this way? All the violations of constitutional rights I was raised to despise Russia and China for are now somehow magically justified if done to us by our own government? What's the real difference between any of them?
King is an idiot preaching to his own little choir. Fox is doing their usual shtick by pandering to their "fair and balanced" audience and attempting to stir up some controversy to increase their own exposure.
This is what's referred to as "business as usual."
Yet another bit of police department "wilding" gets called out for what it is.
And once again an opportunistic lawman, who sees everything in black & white, gets his face rubbed in it and adopts a "not angry but terrible disappointed" stance in a pitifully transparent attempt to save face.
Nice to see the citizens of Massachusetts called "bullshit" on this "case." And better yet, this time they did it through a grand jury. Which is ironic in that the entire grand jury system is heavily stacked in favor of law enforcement and their arguments.
My my my...what a difference some adverse publicity and widespread public disgust can make when you're advancing a totally outrageous argument. They were wise to back-pedal. If they're not careful, they're ridiculousness might wake the general public up. And even worse, the public might demand that some common sense an fairness finally be brought to bear on the whole issue.
Can any explain to mehow a career in VR research, the ability to compose music, a penchant for collecting unusual musical instruments makes somebody eminently qualified to speak on business, political and economic issues? And more to the point, how that somehow adds credibility to the naive grad student level arguments he puts forth?
I guess it just goes to show how much a really weird haircut plus an entourage can do for your credibility with what passes for the 'news' media these days.
And your point is what? That Mike's editorial style offends your personal sensibilities? FWIW, it's his article. And his words. If he continues to offend you after your repeated suggestions of how he should change his style to most appeal to your preferences, perhaps you might take the hint?.
The only thing a move like that would accomplish is to start a full scale war of attrition on the Internet. I hope they table this for the utterly stupid idea it is before killer bots, drive-by malware and DDoS exchanges become the norm.
Cowboy style "justice" may appeal to our baser instincts. But anybody can assemble a posse. And the people who are asking for a blanket authorization of vigilante responses might want to consider that any number can play that game if you abandon good laws and decent behavior.
And when it comes to that sort of technology and creativity, I think the 'court advantage' is squarely with the "rest of the world" rather than corporate security and IT departments
A truly scientific diagnostic tree based on hard and current 'best of breed' verifiable data? Where's the fun in that?
One of our favorite games back in college was sitting around with a bunch of inebriated friends while a graduate psych major "referee" went through the DSM (III at the time) trying to see which of us could "scientifically" claim to be the 'provably' craziest among us.
How can they just walk away from such a terrific form of entertainment?
Well... I guess you have to do something to justify all that money for equipment, training and nifty ninja uniforms the DHS is doling out to police forces everywhere. Mix that with a healthy dose of testosterone, and that genuine desire "to make a difference" that motivates many of those who elect to join our police forces, and you have a sun just waiting to go nova.
That's the problem with things like this. They're put in place as a preventative measure. But all too often they take on a life of their own and begin to manufacture situations to justify their continued existence as well as argue for an expansion of scope.