On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 7:07 AM, Melissa P <[email protected]> wrote:
> I dunno. It seems like a "checks and balances" event to me: Act REALLY > irresponsibly, and someone's gonna come after you. And, win. > Except - no. It is not only a responsible press that gets protected, In fact, it is the irresponsible press that most needs protection. As I argued when this thread first came up, that does not mean that the freedom of the press is absolute, of course it is not. We have fairly clear guidelines for what the press can and can not do in this country, and if Gawker violated those guidelines then they can be punished. I have not seen anyone here make the case that Gawker did in fact violate those guidelines. Instead, they got punished (basically, the death penalty) because what they did pissed off a very powerful and wealthy person. This is the definition of danger when it comes to a free press. -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
