Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most of those who live off the fatted calf have nothing for the government to take anyway.
Freedom of speech, religion, search/seizure, ability to defend oneself, ability to do much of anything without committing a felony in the eyes of the gubmint?
Restricting the access to the areas was not directed specifically at media. It is directed at anybody getting in the way of the efforts, including the media. There are people that have actually cut boom lines, for some unknown reason. Excluding everybody other than those working on the efforts, only makes sense. The media may miss out on some good photo ops and stories, but I think everybody knows the devastating impact this oil spill is having. That some of you think there is some sinister objective behind this, is the truly sad aspect.
Restricting the access to the areas was not directed specifically at media. It is directed at anybody getting in the way of the efforts, including the media. There are people that have actually cut boom lines, for some unknown reason. Excluding everybody other than those working on the efforts, only makes sense. The media may miss out on some good photo ops and stories, but I think everybody knows the devastating impact this oil spill is having. That some of you think there is some sinister objective behind this, is the truly sad aspect.
The press would cut boom lines? We'll agree to disagree on the sinister nature of this law.
They may inadvertently, why take the chance for the sake of photo ops? As for the sinister aspect, I agree, I am not suffering from Paranoia.
True, but they could be allowed a lot closer than they are now, enough to take some pictures without being close enough to get in the way or get hurt. It just seems weird that the press isn't allowed. If they can handle reporting in Iraq, they can handle this.
True, but they could be allowed a lot closer than they are now, enough to take some pictures without being close enough to get in the way or get hurt. It just seems weird that the press isn't allowed. If they can handle reporting in Iraq, they can handle this.
The press in Iraq and Afghanistan, are embedded with the military. They don't go out on there own very much. The Coast Guard could do something similar, and I don't know that they won't. But their primary concern is dealing with the spill, as it should be.
They are restricted to 65 feet...big deal...CNN is just whining...USCG originally was going to restrrict press photographers to 300 feet,but relaxed that to 65 feet...
Suprised the paranoid here did not mention that...LOL
Not to mention that Americans really don't put much value in the First Amendment anyway.
Violators face a possible fine of $40,000.
Strange that CNN has been the only one to mention this. Or have I missed other reports?
They are restricted to 65 feet...big deal...CNN is just whining...USCG originally was going to restrrict press photographers to 300 feet,but relaxed that to 65 feet...
Suprised the paranoid here did not mention that...LOL
Paranoid like teabagging queen Anderson Cooper?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
