One sees no implication that the article is blaming Trump, stating: "Trump appears to be a man who wants to bring the press to heel, especially in light of the comments made about him during the election. To me the real news it that we allow public officials to abuse power and write it off as a common practice"
One only has a problem with the line:
Whichever the case, we had another first as on the very day of Trump's inauguration, his first day officially as President of the United States, police managed to arrest and charge six journalists for the crime of covering the protests coinciding with the ceremony.
Stating "calling the arrests 'another first' here kind of makes it sound like this is new for the Trump age, even if he does say this has been happening a lot elsewhere in the article."
And then there's me. To play armchair quarterback: I'd of reversed the order of the article. Talk about the arrests, then talk about the fact that oh, by the way, these arrests (and tons of others) were under the 'most transparent administration' in history that constantly paid lip service to the importance of a free press. Finally, point out the new guy has been very public about his disdain for the press and his desire to bring them to heel (to borrow an apt phrase from a coworker), so if you think this is bad, you'd better buckle up...
But then again, I make buttons for a living, not write articles, so my thoughts on the matter are of dubious value. ;)
I wouldn't say it was unfair or inaccurate, just unrelated.
This is the same banal bullshit that's been happening forever: journalists get swept up in a mass arrest during a riot/protest. Nothing new or special.
The US Attorney pushing the charges is an Obama appointee. That's probably the only novel thing about this, I suppose: DC is the only city where a Federal prosecutor will end up trying to lock you up journalists who get swept up like this. Normally it'd be a local schmuck (e.g. Carlos Miller is probably on a first-name basis w/ attorneys in the Miami DA's office by now...)
TL; DR: My real problem is the article conflates "OMG Trump!" with business as usual, giving the implication that this is some *new* troubling sign of the decline of free speech rights.
Where do you even start? The obvious First Amendment implications? The complete ineffectiveness at attaining its stated goals? The actual impossibility of the mandate (How do you sell a Raspberry Pi with the filter pre-installed? How do you deal with people like me who build their own computers from individual parts? Does some key component become 'the computer' like we pretend a receiver == gun?)?
Are we sure Chumley isn't some sort of Google Deep Mind AI project that's using a neural network to generate things that look like Bills?
Unless there's an apology I'm not seeing, all I remember was a note from the editor that said "We should've talked to the Fraternity before publishing." Nothing was said about the Dean.
I could definitely see how a casual reader could read their "apology" and assume that the only thing they should question was whether "Jackie" was raped, but still assume her account of the supposed coverup was credible.
Except SEGA is pretty notorious for handing out really nasty, frivolous copyright strikes on several YouTube gaming channels who were covering SEGA games, and only removing the strikes from the larger channels after they were called out on it. Last I checked, nothing was done for other users. TotalBiscuit refuses to cover any SEGA games since then.
2. While everyone deserves due process and civil asset forfeiture is blatantly evil, this guy who had his money taken was obviously not some innocent like the better examples we've seen. I don't think we should be rallying around that particular flag.
Most of the left-leaning people I know are not anti-gun per se, they just don't want loonies and criminals to have them.
That doesn't seem to describe anyone proposing gun control legislation currently.
However, even MENTION the possibility of a discussion WRT enacting reasonable legislation in that general direction and on go the tinfoil hats and out flows the froth.
Much the same as people become outraged when you try to have a discussion about legislation to limit free speech, and for the same reason: a knowledge of the history of all such laws and how they are always applied.
Seriously, that's the (circular) discussion. The point of having laws is to hold people to account when they are broken, and to impose penalties for breaking them.
Maybe then we should try actually enforcing the existing laws instead of proposing new ones that don't actually solve any problems.
You can't resolve your social problems by shooting them, you'll have to learn to get along with each other, including that little git over there with the wonky eye who has been looking at you in a funny way. Why is that too much to ask?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Matt Bennett on Jan 20th, 2016 @ 2:27pm
Actually, I think it's pretty clear you're the one with a screw loose.
I have forfeited my rights as a citizen? Really now? By saying every adult not currently serving in the active military is a member of the militia, and that the second amendment guarantees the individual right to bear arms? Do I offend The Party by not invoking the proper prayers and supplications, Comrade?
To be honest, I started wondering if your response article was satire, considering how you gave him pretty much every choice quote he was looking for from a 'media' personality vis a vis constitutional protections.
If I was Mike Pitts, I'd print your article out and post it on the outside of my office door. Right under a giant Troll Face picture.
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Matt Bennett on Jan 20th, 2016 @ 2:27pm
We don't even have to invoke pseudo-deity figures. The definition of the militia is a matter of federal law. The meaning of the second amendment is a matter of supreme court opinion. Both are exactly the opposite of what the AC I was replying to said.