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.
I try to watch a variety of newscasts just so I can compare their coverage and stay aware of their bias. But I also don't expect stories screened by privately-owned companies to be neutral in the first place. Healthy skepticism never hurt anyone. Neither did entertainment.
CNN had 93% negative coverage.
Fox had 52% negative coverage.
What's to talk about?
I check on CNN, MSNBC and The Washington Post every day just to find out what the new anti-Trump crisis of the day is, and how they are spinning it.
I feel deeply betrayed by the WaPo and NYTimes for abandoning journalistic ethics and becoming propagandists, but they apparently cannot help themselves.
CNN had 93% negative coverage.
Fox had 52% negative coverage.
What's to talk about?
I check on CNN, MSNBC and The Washington Post every day just to find out what the new anti-Trump crisis of the day is, and how they are spinning it.
I feel deeply betrayed by the WaPo and NYTimes for abandoning journalistic ethics and becoming propagandists, but they apparently cannot help themselves.
Unfortunately, when the next dem gets in he/she will be attacked with aa much fervour. It will be the new normal.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.â€"
(set 3 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,180 posts, read 13,461,836 times
Reputation: 19498
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
Nice try.
If Europe had free expression, then Germans would be allowed to wear Nazi symbols and deny the holocaust happened. Those are crimes in Germany. In Canada, it is now a crime to say anything disparaging about racial or ethnic groups. Similar laws exist in other "free" countries. Including Britain.
And these are criminal offenses that carry jail time, prison, and fines.
BBC has to comply with British law, which restricts free speech. BBC is not an objective source that can say anything it wants. Neither is the rest of the foreign media.
ECHR Rulings have already been made with regard to racial hatred and holocaust denial, there is no freedom of expression when it comes to discriminating against others or in relation to racial hatred. Discrimination and Racial Hatred impinge on the other human rights such as Article 9 – Conscience and Religion and Article 14 - Discrimination, whilst there are criminal laws which have to be applied when it comes to threatening or abusive behaviour that is intended to harass, alarm, or distress a community or individidual as well as harassment laws.
No free speach or behaviour can ever exist in relation to threats of violence that causes people to live in fear, alarm and distress and thereby violates the rights of others to live in peace.
As for the BBC it has every right to free expression, to be critical and to report the news independently. I think you are confusing specific laws aimed at stopping threatening and violent behaviour against individuals and communities with freedom of expression and reporting the news. As for being critical you can be as critical as you want of religion in the UK including Islam, indeed Richard Dawkins and many others who have been on the BBC make a good living out of it, what you can't do is threaten people with violence due to their religion or race, or engage in harassment.
In terms of the holocaust, there is no specific crime of Holocaust denial in the UK, there is no laws specificaly aimed at Nazi salutes, although if you are causing a disturbance you may be arrested under public order legislation.
There are also no laws with regard to Nazi symbols, although if you use such symbols in public to strike fear, alarm and distress then you can be arrested under Public Order and Harassment Legislation. However when it comes to proscribed terrorist groups such as IS (Islamic State) flags and materials are banned, as is encouraging support for such banned terrorist organisations and this is punishable by a lengthy prison sentence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oxford Human Rights Hub
While freedom of expression is unquestionably a key European value, human-rights law cannot ignore the weakest, who are often the victims of hate speech. And while there can little disagreement that criminal law should be used sparingly in the field of freedom of expression, one should not lose sight of the powerful message it conveys and the role it can play in shaping public opinion.
This has always been the approach of another Council of Europe human-rights mechanism, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), the General Policy Recommendations and practice of which the Court often cites in relevant judgments.
T v Belgium [1982] - incitement to racial hatred by publication justifying Nazi atrocities against Jews was not protected under Article 10.
Garaudy v France [2001] -
C wrote a book called "The Founding Myths of Modern Israel", which challenged certain historical orthodoxies about the Holocaust and the existence of Hitler's "final solution".
The Paris Court of Appeal found C guilty of disputing the existence of crimes against humanity, public defamation of a group of people (the Jewish community) and incitement to discrimination and racial hatred. C argued his Art 10 right was violated. ECtHR Held: C's claim is inadmissible as it is ill-founded.
The real purpose of C's work was to rehabilitate the National-Socialist regime and, as a consequence, to accuse the victims of the Holocaust of falsifying history.
Disputing the existence of crimes against humanity was, therefore, one of the most severe forms of racial defamation and of incitement to hatred of Jews.
The denial or rewriting of this type of historical fact undermined the values on which the fight against racism and anti-Semitism was based and constituted a serious threat to public order. It was incompatible with democracy and human rights and its proponents indisputably had designs that fell into the category of prohibited aims under Article 17 of the Convention. His Article 10 righta were NOT violated.
It should be noted that Article 10 ad Article 11 (Association) have also been used to protect those with extreme political views from discrimination themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oxbridge Notes
Art.10 may also protect individuals from punitive measures such as loss of public sector employment because of the holding of opinions
Vogt v Germany [1995] - a teacher was dismissed because of her active membership in the Communist Party. D argued that the membership was a breach of her duty of political loyalty to the constitutional order as a civil servant.
ECtHR Held: while the refusal to appoint a person as a civil servant cannot provide the basis for a complaint, dismissal violating his or her right under Article 10.
Here, the dismissal is NOT necessary in a democratic society! The absolute duty construed by the German courts is striking! No risk of indoctrination of her students was found. C's Article 10 and 11 (association) rights were violated!
Otto v Germany [2002] - refusal to promote police officer because of his membership of extreme right-wing party fell within scope of Article 10
Redfearn v UK [2012] - C was employed by a private bus company and was sacked at the request of the local authority because C was a member of the BNP.
There was no evidence that he had discriminated any passengers, the dismissal was based only on that reason. The employment tribunal upheld the dismissal. ECtHR Held: mere membership was NOT a valid ground for dismissal. Art 11 was violated.
CNN had 93% negative coverage.
Fox had 52% negative coverage.
And that proves CNN is fair and Fox is right-wing garbage.
Trump has been 1000% awful so if they're reporting positively on Trump more than half the time you can tell it's total garbage propaganda.
Something isn't "more accurate" if it's 50-50 positive-negative coverage. If you see a report on 9-11 and 50% blame the people murdered, it isn't "more accurate" than a report that 100% blames the terrorists.
Originally Posted by DonJuanQuixote What does 'ultra-left' mean? Are you Antifa?
You do realize that Antifa was basically started by skinhead anarchists under the guise of being anti-everything... right?
Antifa is as fascist as fascist can be.
I don't think most people know what "antifa" is, and don't much care.
I never heard of it until I saw references to it on this forum. It seems that Breitbart types are obsessed with the concept.
The plain and simple truth is almost all people around the world do know and understand the symbols of hate, which happen to have been adopted by some small groups of Trump supporters, and it looks bad for the president. If he was smart he would not accept their endorsement of him, but he cagily dances around that issue and people all over the world interpret it as acceptance of their support.
Let's be realistic here, the enormous numbers of counter protestors who come out against these Nazi or KKK rallies are not left wing militants. For the most part they are ordinary people who reject the rhetoric of hate, and although some may be liberal leaning, most do not even know what an 'antifa' actually is.
We can't paint everyone with a recently made up label to dismiss them out of hand. Ordinary people reject the rhetoric and reject the symbols of hate, and these demonstrating right-wing groups eagerly adopt both ... so the people reflexively reject them and politicians who protect them.
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.
