Thank goodness for that!! It may have helped save peoples lives by allowing people to know the identity of the suspect in much greater detail.
I'm sorry, I didn't know he went on a killing spree right after that graphic aired. You are correct. It would have saved lives.
Only if one of his victims happened to be watching CNN as their primary news source, and was watching this particular segment, assuming they knew about it at all, or were watching any news in general. Otherwise, no, not really.
Even assuming all those factors are met, AND this person lives in the vicinity of where this guy was, AND felt they were personally threatened enough to be concerned, why would a person that desperate to see a mug shot of this man then not do a couple second Google search on their computer or phone, or turn to any of the other cable news networks, or (what would be far more useful) turn to the LOCAL news which would probably be far more up to date on the situation in the first place?? The amount of hoops that one has to jump through here to conclude that CNN was putting public safety at risk numbers in the dozens.
Is conspiracy crackpot and notable Trump bff Alex Jones' a guy with sincerely held beliefs?
Not so much.
He is now calling himself a performance artist. Shocking, right? I know you really really wanted to believe him that Obama was from Kenya and Sandyhook was fake or something. Well too bad, when the chips are down he's admitted he's performance artist preying on the gullible.
Theresa May appears to have realised that the best time for an election is before the negative consequences of Brexit sink in. One of the most breathtakingly cynical moves I've ever seen from a politician.
Thank goodness for that!! It may have helped save peoples lives by allowing people to know the identity of the suspect in much greater detail.
I'm sorry, I didn't know he went on a killing spree right after that graphic aired. You are correct. It would have saved lives.
Only if one of his victims happened to be watching CNN as their primary news source, and was watching this particular segment, assuming they knew about it at all, or were watching any news in general. Otherwise, no, not really.
But that's how public warning systems work worldwide.
Yes there is a high chance people will miss a warning about a particular danger (especially the environmental kinds). They are far from perfect but still anything is better than nothing.
Even assuming all those factors are met, AND this person lives in the vicinity of where this guy was, AND felt they were personally threatened enough to be concerned, why would a person that desperate to see a mug shot of this man then not do a couple second Google search on their computer or phone,
This makes no sense... the entire point of a warning is to inform someone? Hence they would NOT have been desperate for information as they would have had no idea what is going on before hand. Even after knowledge of the danger, not everyone would be desperate enough for further info. Yet again, it is still better than nothing.
Also not everyone has a mobile phone or computer nearby (especially the elderly).
If someone was watching CNN while this was happening, chances are they were at home in their living room, kitchen, or bedroom. So you're in the relative safety of your own, locked home. Let's then assume this guy is in YOUR specific part of town and is just randomly breaking into residences. IF he happens to pick your specific house (the chances of which are infinitesimal), are you really going to react differently than you would if ANY raging madman broke into your home?? Would you take the precious time to do a cross scan in your head of whether it was THIS guy?? If someone has broken into your residence, your going to feel like you're in serious danger regardless.
Well the authorities WERE asking for help finding the guy so I guess any inaccuracies could have made it harder for folks to help out. Sounds like the only other person he harmed was himself though...
It's sort of scary, if not surprising to me, that this guy worked in the mental health field.
@Teo_live We're talking about this statement, which made no sense to begin with for what jj outlined.
Then perhaps next time make your sarcasm a little better?
It was hard to tell if you were being sarcastic or if you just had outright bad English (so I assumed the latter and left it at that). Same criticism I gave to JJ I will give to you, as you both don't seem to understand how warnings for any danger work (or technological and situational limitations for that matter).
Now unless you can point to someone who was physically harmed by this guy after the CNN story broke, you are making an issue out of nothing.
Nonsense!
I will give this criticism to any fugitive report, danger alert or environmental hazard that has been either poorly or falsely reported. Just because people haven't died from a stupid report doesn't mean it it's fine (what type of thinking is that anyway? "if people survive then no worries"? I hope you both never become safety inspectors...)
For the third time why are you and @jjstraka34 harping on with probability of XXXX? Their is no aired danger warning/reporting system on the planet I can think of that is going to be even remotely close to perfection that you two seem to expect. The chance of anyone seeing the CNN warning is unlikely yes, the chance of it being applicable to them is even less likely. Yet again I say it is still better than nothing and that's why they exist.
Unlike the two of you I would always like the chance of being warned of danger even if it is a slim 1% chance. Now you both have made me even more grateful to not be an American atm. I have a lot of criticisms about the Australian MSM but damn at least in the warning department we seem to be much better than American MSM
So the same people, elderly or otherwise, who you claim have no access to smartphones or internet, are livestreaming on a bus??
First off, CNN does not have the burden of being held soley responsible for public safety in regards to disseminating information about fugitives. That's up to law enforcement, and is THEIR responsibility. Of course media is used in that. Second of all, I have still not seen one time-stamp on this graphic that indicates it was put up AFTER the photo was released by law enforcement. Not saying it wasn't, but you have not demonstrated in any way that it was. What I have seen is doctored cable news graphics claiming news outlets were describing this guy as "dark-skinned white" that were complete fakes meant to imply the exact same thing you are suggesting: that CNN and other news outlets were trying to somehow "hide" the fact that this shooter was black, as if that would be even remotely possible.
You also inaccurately indicated this man was on a "killing spree", which is not the case. He killed one person, tragically and randomly (which could only have been prevented if we lived in "Minority Report"). No one else was hurt. Tragic as it is, a single random murder does not nescessitate the entire national media to go into a full-on crime paranoia alert. If this idiot hadn't have broadcast the murder on Facebook, it wouldn't have even sniffed the national news at all.
@Teo_live We're talking about this statement, which made no sense to begin with for what jj outlined.
Then perhaps next time make your sarcasm a little better?
It was hard to tell if you were being sarcastic or if you just had outright bad English (so I assumed the latter and left it at that). Same criticism I gave to JJ I will give to you, as you both don't seem to understand how warnings for any danger work (or technological and situational limitations for that matter).
Now unless you can point to someone who was physically harmed by this guy after the CNN story broke, you are making an issue out of nothing.
Nonsense!
I will give this criticism to any fugitive report, danger alert or environmental hazard that has been either poorly or falsely reported. Just because people haven't died from a stupid report doesn't mean it it's fine (what type of thinking is that anyway? "if people survive then no worries"? I hope you both never become safety inspectors...)
For the third time why are you and @jjstraka34 harping on with probability of XXXX? Their is no aired danger warning/reporting system on the planet I can think of that is going to be even remotely close to perfection that you two seem to expect. The chance of anyone seeing the CNN warning is unlikely yes, the chance of it being applicable to them is even less likely. Yet again I say it is still better than nothing and that's why they exist.
Unlike to two of you I would always like the chance of being warned of danger even if it is a slim 1% chance. Now you both have made me even more grateful to not be an American atm. I have a lot of criticisms about the Australian MSM but damn at least in this warning department we seem to be much better than American MSM
OK, let me flip this on you.
What is better for public safety:
Announcing what you have available at the time as soon as possible with updates as they come in
OR
Waiting till all the facts are in and then airing the piece, losing critical time for the public to offer any leads they may have with the information already available.
You are suggesting the latter. Which, if they did, would have been harped on for "not informing the public sooner"
You are creating a lose/lose scenario so that you can point at them and yell "FAKE NEWS! NEVER TRUST THEM"
Waiting till all the facts are in and then airing the piece, losing critical time for the public to offer any leads they may have with the information already available.
Your hypothetical scenario question is N/A since his picture was released before the CNN airing.
This wouldn't be an issue if the picture was only released after. Most people spreading this are jumping straight to the conclusion that it is PC fake news. So I am being more than generous to CNN by giving them benefit of the doubt here that it could be a genuine computing/communication error rather than a human error.
@semiticgod *thread destroyer* To be fair though you commented a bit too late the topic was exhausted at this stage. I sometimes don't like certain topics here lingering but just be patient and a topic will eventually move by itself surely.
Would you like us to talk about the other most recent topic here i.e a topless Alex Jones? Fine... (warning: slightly disturbing)
Possibly the most savage alt-conservative meme I have seen yet. The nation of Kekistan will be proud.
Both of them are "performing artists" so to speak on opposing sides of the political spectrum... But I really think the left need to pick better personalities to stand a fighting chance. These progressive champions with a Charisma score of 3 (mostly obnoxious, obese women) are arguably the perfect troll material which inevitably benefits the alt/lite-right more than anything.
"It's funny cuz she/he is fat!" got old around 1974. And if *this* the most savage meme Kekistan has, then /b/ is even more boring, pathetic and embarrasing than I thought.
Can we, um, not mock people based on their weight please? And especially not praise a meme for doing so?
The thing about this internet meme culture that has sprung up around Trump and alt-right media is that it's at least twice as insular as any liberal group-think they attack. It's a world that has no consequences for anything that is said, so what in the real world what would be considered rude and impolite is simply viewed as edgy free speech. If and when you are called out, the automatic response is "can't you take a joke, snowflake??." It's a world where people don't have humanity or feelings, and are just punchlines waiting to be unleashed. If you point any of this out, you are likely to be branded as "autistic", because most of these people have decided calling someone "retarded" isn't offensive enough. Of course, it's a community that can ONLY exist on the internet in anonymity. Because acting this way in the real world will get you fired and kicked out of public businesses.
I will maintain that Trump's #1 appeal is that he gives license and permission to his supporters to unleash their hatred of "the other". To blame them, to scapegoat them, to punish them. But especially to feel a sense of cultural superiority to. Of course they voted for Trump. He is the conservative id personified. Unaccountable, rude, macho bluster. And it sells.
Would it be better for such people to remain secluded under the relative safety of anonymity on the Internet or should they start saying such thing in public so that we may identify them for who they are? Obviously, they have neither a filter nor the ability to stop speaking but at least if they say it out loud we can make mental notes of exactly who said what, what they actually said, and when they said it.
Would it be better for such people to remain secluded under the relative safety of anonymity on the Internet or should they start saying such thing in public so that we may identify them for who they are? Obviously, they have neither a filter nor the ability to stop speaking but at least if they say it out loud we can make mental notes of exactly who said what, what they actually said, and when they said it.
Contrary to what this crowd thinks, no one wants or even has the power to shut down their speech. They can say whatever they want, and do, constantly. What gets me more than anything is they want total inoculation from criticism. And trolling is basically an online phenomena. And it's the worlds biggest get out of jail free card. When everything can be written off as a joke in retrospect, you can spread whatever vitriol you like with an escape hatch.
As for your direct question, I have no idea. I feel some of it is starting to leak out. Again, there is nothing preventing people from saying anything. I'd just prefer some responsibility for those statements.
It's simply a highly dubious claim that nobody wants to take free speech rights away when free speech rallies are flooded with masked leftist antifas starting brawls everywhere at the site where they previously did much the same thing mere months ago, except with less fire this time to their credit, all because these gatherings were percieved to be too right wing.
Their criticisms about free speech are no less valid and their cause no less sincere because some pro trump people said mean words on the internet.
And conflating trump supporters with trolls is like me just flatly accusing all liberals of being pro antifa violence or trying to point to all the recent terrorists who were The Young Turks or CNN fans as being representative of liberals as a whole. Totally unfair
It's simply a highly dubious claim that nobody wants to take free speech rights away when free speech rallies are flooded with masked leftist antifas starting brawls everywhere at the site where they previously did much the same thing mere months ago, except with less fire this time to their credit, all because these gatherings were percieved to be too right wing.
Their criticisms about free speech are no less valid and their cause no less sincere because some pro trump people said mean words on the internet.
And conflating trump supporters with trolls is like me just flatly accusing all liberals of being pro antifa violence or trying to point to all the recent terrorists who were The Young Turks or CNN fans as being representative of liberals as a whole. Totally unfair
This fundmentally misunderstands "free speech". It applies to the government restricting what you can say and NOTHING else. If Antifa is showing up to counter right-wing speakers or protesters, they are either engaging in free speech themselves, or, if they resort to violence or destruction, then they are breaking the law and subject to the penalties that incrues. Free speech doesn't enter into the equation because Antifa or ANY random peaceful leftist protester who may be yelling really loud something you don't like does not possess the institutional power to trample on your rights. Only the government possesses it because only they can make a law jailing or punishing you for saying something.
@jjstraka34 - but what about economic pressure? Let's say, we live in a country where there is free speech guaranteed by law, yet at the same time certain views (like, let's say, supporting homosexual marriage) may cost you your job - because companies, for an instance, support "traditional family" (whatever it may be), and do not want their employees publicly stating different opinions, cuz PR, and so on. So, if you write on you twitter "homosexual marriage is okay!" police won't come to arrest you... but many people will call you out on your "homosexual propaganda", you'll face risk of losing your job (and, of course, stable income). Even worse - this fictional country is very religious and does not take jokes about religion kindly. You share some ant-christian meme - the same risk. Is given situation a threat for a free speech right, or is it not?
@jjstraka34 - but what about economic pressure? Let's say, we live in a country where there is free speech guaranteed by law, yet at the same time certain views (like, let's say, supporting homosexual marriage) may cost you your job - because companies, for an instance, support "traditional family" (whatever it may be), and do not want their employees publicly stating different opinions, cuz PR, and so on. So, if you write on you twitter "homosexual marriage is okay!" police won't come to arrest you... but many people will call you out on your "homosexual propaganda", you'll face risk of losing your job (and, of course, stable income). Even worse - this fictional country is very religious and does not take jokes about religion kindly. You share some ant-christian meme - the same risk. Is given situation a threat for a free speech right, or is it not?
That currently depends on the state and how their employment laws work. For instance, the state I work in can fire you without cause for no reason (has happend to me). I personally believe that employers should have to demonstrate reasonable cause to fire someone. As to people who actually OWN their businesses (such as the hypothetical "forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding" argument), clearly nothing does (or should) innoculate them from public pressure. That's the free market conservatives worship. But when you are talking about employees, more protections need to be in place, and it must be demonstrated that you caused harm to the company with your speech or actions. Many of these things are written into employee contracts, many are covered by laws, many states don't. It's murky and very difficult waters.
My believe is that employment is necessary to live and function in this country, and that there need to be protections in place so employers (who hold a position of power in relation to you) cannot hold your political views against you and punish you for them. Then again, this is why most people in most jobs shy away from talking about politics, and that many people in many jobs abstain from social media. And it does not apply to say, a guy who drives around town shouting racial slurs at minorities while in a company vehicle, OR for that matter, someone wearing a uniform of his company walking into a cafe and bad-mouthing conservatives. That clearly is a case of you representing your company in harmful manner and is cause for whatever happens.
Basically, if it can be easily demonstrated that you are clearly on work hours or representing the company officially when such things were said, then the water becomes clearer.
I personally have some experience with this. At the annual healthcare meeting at the job I got fired from, our boss made it very clear what he thought of Obamacare and Obama ( and I'm pretty sure that IS illegal but don't quote me). While I do not think I was eventually let go without being given a reason because of POLITICS, I do suspect it was cultural, meaning I don't fit the sterotype of what "men" should act like in rural ND (wear cowboy boots, drive a pick-up, hunt & fish, etc).
I think the legalistic argument is inherently dishonest and a way for the left to excuse their own attempts to de platform conservatives and attempt to ruin their events at every turn but we can go there, Berkeley is a public university and as far as I understand it is required by law to abide by free speech rights. Part of that means providing a space that doesn't selectively put undue burdens on free speech, such as the very real fear of campus police doing literally nothing as antifa crashes your event and attack people as they were filmed doing for quite a while. Requiring full body armor to feel safe at a free speech protected place as a conservative due to real and recemt history sounds like an undue burden to me.
I think the legalistic argument is inherently dishonest and a way for the left to excuse their own attempts to de platform conservatives and attempt to ruin their events at every turn but we can go there, Berkeley is a public university and as far as I understand it is required by law to abide by free speech rights. Part of that means providing a space that doesn't selectively put undue burdens on free speech, such as the very real fear of campus police doing literally nothing as antifa crashes your event and attack people as they were filmed doing for quite a while. Requiring full body armor to feel safe at a free speech protected place as a conservative due to real and recemt history sounds like an undue burden to me.
Berkeley as a University is just as much a victim here as anyone else. It's been demonstrated several times by University officials that these anarachist, masked agitators are not students. I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that there is a single police force in this country, campus or otherwise, that isn't foaming at the mouth to crack protester's skulls.
But you know what, I agree (but for entirely strategic reasons). Let these people talk and ignore them. The protesters should know by now the right is using them as a straw-man. People like Milo and Lauren Southern are absolutely thrilled when riots break out where they speak. It's not about academics, it's about their brand. And without the oxygen of protests fueling them, they are just speaking to 100 guys who spend too much time on 4chan in the Biology Lecture Hall.
@jjstraka34 - but what about economic pressure? Let's say, we live in a country where there is free speech guaranteed by law, yet at the same time certain views (like, let's say, supporting homosexual marriage) may cost you your job - because companies, for an instance, support "traditional family" (whatever it may be), and do not want their employees publicly stating different opinions, cuz PR, and so on. So, if you write on you twitter "homosexual marriage is okay!" police won't come to arrest you... but many people will call you out on your "homosexual propaganda", you'll face risk of losing your job (and, of course, stable income). Even worse - this fictional country is very religious and does not take jokes about religion kindly. You share some ant-christian meme - the same risk. Is given situation a threat for a free speech right, or is it not?
This hypothetical situation is protected by law here in Canada and there is a special Commission appointed to make sure the Act is enforced properly.
That said, nothing is stopping the company from attempting to dismiss the individual for another reason once those views are shared.
@jjstraka34 - but what about economic pressure? Let's say, we live in a country where there is free speech guaranteed by law, yet at the same time certain views (like, let's say, supporting homosexual marriage) may cost you your job - because companies, for an instance, support "traditional family" (whatever it may be), and do not want their employees publicly stating different opinions, cuz PR, and so on. So, if you write on you twitter "homosexual marriage is okay!" police won't come to arrest you... but many people will call you out on your "homosexual propaganda", you'll face risk of losing your job (and, of course, stable income). Even worse - this fictional country is very religious and does not take jokes about religion kindly. You share some ant-christian meme - the same risk. Is given situation a threat for a free speech right, or is it not?
This hypothetical situation is protected by law here in Canada and there is a special Commission appointed to make sure the Act is enforced properly.
That said, nothing is stopping the company from attempting to dismiss the individual for another reason once those views are shared.
I actually changed my view on the last point. I used to think if you are granted the license to run a business serving the public you should serve the public. Now I realize it just makes them martyrs. So let them refuse to bake the cake. And then boycott and shame their business until it is driven into the ground. Hitting them with a fine is a slap on the wrist. Let them own the consequences of their choices.
Berkeley the publically funded University also canceled Ann Coulter's speech, I just found out, over security concerns. To me the free speech issue has essentially been proven, using rioters as a pretext to shut down free speech from the right was a pattern all last year with milo as we've spoken of previously. How many examples do we need, cause they keep on coming.
As professors, who are overwhelmingly liberal, foster such a politically biased and charged enviornment that those who contradict their narratives can't even speak, and then use that hostile climate as a pretext for repeat bans on basically all right wingers, its astounding to me that we even have to discuss whether or not this is a problem.
Free Speech is protected for the people against the Government historically.
The ethical Guideline is people need protection for their speech against Institutions of Power to prevent oppression, it is simply that historically Government was considered 'The Power' and little else.
Nowadays in modern society we are tackling with other institutions of power such as Corporations, Media etc and with less established rules (media has been getting away with alot) but society still tends towards the same ethical guideline such as whistle-blowing against corporate malpractice.
In terms of Antifa yes you can definitely make an argument for the same ethical reason (an International organisation, funded and using violence discourages and scares people to not discuss things publicly).
However they will not be strictly dealt with by law in the same way because they are not such a well defined established Institution of Power of society.
The ethics of Freedom of Speech does not exactly match law or the constitution, Because the Constitution and Law deal with a specific scope of society, But the ethics is more broad.
What exactly are the parameters for getting the privilege to speak at a college campus?? Are any academic credentials necessary at all?? If so, exactly why are Milo and Ann Coulter constructive to an academic debate?? Beyond that, are there ANY limits on who is invited to speak at a college??
For instance, should someone who said "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." be allowed to speak?? Or maybe "We just want Jews to be perfected, as they say." (implying they should all convert to Christianity). Or "I don't really like to think of it as a murder. It was terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester. ... I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don't want to impose my moral values on others." when commenting on the assassination of a doctor who provided abortions. Are there ANY lines to what a college has to put up with in regards to who it invites on it's campus?? Because Ann Coulter said every one of those things.
I mean, at a certain point, why don't we just invite the guy on the street corner with the sandwich board preaching about how Armageddon is nigh?? Or Uncle Jerry who has his own short-wave radio show about how UN black helicopters are masking evidence of UFOs poisoning our water with an alien substance that will turn us all into Soylent Green?? What credentials (as opposed to anyone else in the country) do Ann Coulter or Milo possess that makes them worthy of these speaking engagements other than the fact that they are popular personalities in a right-wing propaganda network??
Berkeley the publically funded University also canceled Ann Coulter's speech, I just found out, over security concerns. To me the free speech issue has essentially been proven, using rioters as a pretext to shut down free speech from the right was a pattern all last year with milo as we've spoken of previously. How many examples do we need, cause they keep on coming.
As professors, who are overwhelmingly liberal, foster such a politically biased and charged enviornment that those who contradict their narratives can't even speak, and then use that hostile climate as a pretext for repeat bans on basically all right wingers, its astounding to me that we even have to discuss whether or not this is a problem.
Milo was the one example. And Coutler and Milo and right wingers encourage violence. Trump was telling people to rough up people he didn't like during his rallies. And right wingers are all about guns and being tough whatever that means (hiding behind a gun?) You reap what you sow.
Liberal professors outnumber right wingers. Why is that? Pure speculation but I think there's a number of reasons.
Maybe it's because many right wingers don't believe in science they have their own "Beliefs" such as vaccinations cause autism and other unproven or flatly disproven theories.
They are often capitalistic too, the pursuit of money and power is more important that the pursuit of knowledge. Being a professor usually doesn't pay a whole hell of a lot - often because right wing politicians seem to be always trying to cut education budgets. A desire to be highly paid discourages the conversation from their pursuit.
Right wingers often lack of patience and curiosity. They have all the answers already, why bother to explore and spend time thinking? Could you imagine sexual harrasers like Bill O'Reilly, Trump, or Roger Allies teaching a class on anything? Hell no, they don't have the patience or empathy to work with students and their big egos don't tolerate questions as we've seen.
My hot take is that they could get in - but their nutty ideas, a lack of scientific thinking, a lack of empathy and patience doesn't particularly attract them to this profession.
Comments
Even assuming all those factors are met, AND this person lives in the vicinity of where this guy was, AND felt they were personally threatened enough to be concerned, why would a person that desperate to see a mug shot of this man then not do a couple second Google search on their computer or phone, or turn to any of the other cable news networks, or (what would be far more useful) turn to the LOCAL news which would probably be far more up to date on the situation in the first place?? The amount of hoops that one has to jump through here to conclude that CNN was putting public safety at risk numbers in the dozens.
Not so much.
He is now calling himself a performance artist. Shocking, right? I know you really really wanted to believe him that Obama was from Kenya and Sandyhook was fake or something. Well too bad, when the chips are down he's admitted he's performance artist preying on the gullible.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/not-fake-news-infowars-alex-jones-performance-artist-n747491
Yes there is a high chance people will miss a warning about a particular danger (especially the environmental kinds). They are far from perfect but still anything is better than nothing. This makes no sense... the entire point of a warning is to inform someone? Hence they would NOT have been desperate for information as they would have had no idea what is going on before hand. Even after knowledge of the danger, not everyone would be desperate enough for further info. Yet again, it is still better than nothing.
Also not everyone has a mobile phone or computer nearby (especially the elderly).
We're talking about this statement, which made no sense to begin with for what jj outlined.
Now unless you can point to someone who was physically harmed by this guy after the CNN story broke, you are making an issue out of nothing.
It's sort of scary, if not surprising to me, that this guy worked in the mental health field.
It was hard to tell if you were being sarcastic or if you just had outright bad English (so I assumed the latter and left it at that). Same criticism I gave to JJ I will give to you, as you both don't seem to understand how warnings for any danger work (or technological and situational limitations for that matter). Nonsense!
I will give this criticism to any fugitive report, danger alert or environmental hazard that has been either poorly or falsely reported. Just because people haven't died from a stupid report doesn't mean it it's fine (what type of thinking is that anyway? "if people survive then no worries"? I hope you both never become safety inspectors...)
For the third time why are you and @jjstraka34 harping on with probability of XXXX? Their is no aired danger warning/reporting system on the planet I can think of that is going to be even remotely close to perfection that you two seem to expect. The chance of anyone seeing the CNN warning is unlikely yes, the chance of it being applicable to them is even less likely. Yet again I say it is still better than nothing and that's why they exist.
Unlike the two of you I would always like the chance of being warned of danger even if it is a slim 1% chance. Now you both have made me even more grateful to not be an American atm. I have a lot of criticisms about the Australian MSM but damn at least in the warning department we seem to be much better than American MSM
First off, CNN does not have the burden of being held soley responsible for public safety in regards to disseminating information about fugitives. That's up to law enforcement, and is THEIR responsibility. Of course media is used in that. Second of all, I have still not seen one time-stamp on this graphic that indicates it was put up AFTER the photo was released by law enforcement. Not saying it wasn't, but you have not demonstrated in any way that it was. What I have seen is doctored cable news graphics claiming news outlets were describing this guy as "dark-skinned white" that were complete fakes meant to imply the exact same thing you are suggesting: that CNN and other news outlets were trying to somehow "hide" the fact that this shooter was black, as if that would be even remotely possible.
You also inaccurately indicated this man was on a "killing spree", which is not the case. He killed one person, tragically and randomly (which could only have been prevented if we lived in "Minority Report"). No one else was hurt. Tragic as it is, a single random murder does not nescessitate the entire national media to go into a full-on crime paranoia alert. If this idiot hadn't have broadcast the murder on Facebook, it wouldn't have even sniffed the national news at all.
What is better for public safety:
Announcing what you have available at the time as soon as possible with updates as they come in
OR
Waiting till all the facts are in and then airing the piece, losing critical time for the public to offer any leads they may have with the information already available.
You are suggesting the latter. Which, if they did, would have been harped on for "not informing the public sooner"
You are creating a lose/lose scenario so that you can point at them and yell "FAKE NEWS! NEVER TRUST THEM"
This wouldn't be an issue if the picture was only released after. Most people spreading this are jumping straight to the conclusion that it is PC fake news. So I am being more than generous to CNN by giving them benefit of the doubt here that it could be a genuine computing/communication error rather than a human error.
"Winning the debate" is not what this thread is here for. Let it go.
To be fair though you commented a bit too late the topic was exhausted at this stage. I sometimes don't like certain topics here lingering but just be patient and a topic will eventually move by itself surely.
Would you like us to talk about the other most recent topic here i.e a topless Alex Jones? Fine... (warning: slightly disturbing)
Possibly the most savage alt-conservative meme I have seen yet. The nation of Kekistan will be proud.
Both of them are "performing artists" so to speak on opposing sides of the political spectrum... But I really think the left need to pick better personalities to stand a fighting chance. These progressive champions with a Charisma score of 3 (mostly obnoxious, obese women) are arguably the perfect troll material which inevitably benefits the alt/lite-right more than anything.
And if *this* the most savage meme Kekistan has, then /b/ is even more boring, pathetic and embarrasing than I thought.
I will maintain that Trump's #1 appeal is that he gives license and permission to his supporters to unleash their hatred of "the other". To blame them, to scapegoat them, to punish them. But especially to feel a sense of cultural superiority to. Of course they voted for Trump. He is the conservative id personified. Unaccountable, rude, macho bluster. And it sells.
As for your direct question, I have no idea. I feel some of it is starting to leak out. Again, there is nothing preventing people from saying anything. I'd just prefer some responsibility for those statements.
Their criticisms about free speech are no less valid and their cause no less sincere because some pro trump people said mean words on the internet.
And conflating trump supporters with trolls is like me just flatly accusing all liberals of being pro antifa violence or trying to point to all the recent terrorists who were The Young Turks or CNN fans as being representative of liberals as a whole. Totally unfair
Let's say, we live in a country where there is free speech guaranteed by law, yet at the same time certain views (like, let's say, supporting homosexual marriage) may cost you your job - because companies, for an instance, support "traditional family" (whatever it may be), and do not want their employees publicly stating different opinions, cuz PR, and so on.
So, if you write on you twitter "homosexual marriage is okay!" police won't come to arrest you... but many people will call you out on your "homosexual propaganda", you'll face risk of losing your job (and, of course, stable income). Even worse - this fictional country is very religious and does not take jokes about religion kindly. You share some ant-christian meme - the same risk.
Is given situation a threat for a free speech right, or is it not?
My believe is that employment is necessary to live and function in this country, and that there need to be protections in place so employers (who hold a position of power in relation to you) cannot hold your political views against you and punish you for them. Then again, this is why most people in most jobs shy away from talking about politics, and that many people in many jobs abstain from social media. And it does not apply to say, a guy who drives around town shouting racial slurs at minorities while in a company vehicle, OR for that matter, someone wearing a uniform of his company walking into a cafe and bad-mouthing conservatives. That clearly is a case of you representing your company in harmful manner and is cause for whatever happens.
Basically, if it can be easily demonstrated that you are clearly on work hours or representing the company officially when such things were said, then the water becomes clearer.
I personally have some experience with this. At the annual healthcare meeting at the job I got fired from, our boss made it very clear what he thought of Obamacare and Obama ( and I'm pretty sure that IS illegal but don't quote me). While I do not think I was eventually let go without being given a reason because of POLITICS, I do suspect it was cultural, meaning I don't fit the sterotype of what "men" should act like in rural ND (wear cowboy boots, drive a pick-up, hunt & fish, etc).
But you know what, I agree (but for entirely strategic reasons). Let these people talk and ignore them. The protesters should know by now the right is using them as a straw-man. People like Milo and Lauren Southern are absolutely thrilled when riots break out where they speak. It's not about academics, it's about their brand. And without the oxygen of protests fueling them, they are just speaking to 100 guys who spend too much time on 4chan in the Biology Lecture Hall.
That said, nothing is stopping the company from attempting to dismiss the individual for another reason once those views are shared.
As for the hypothetical "not baking a cake for a gay wedding argument," the state of Washington would like to interject:
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/02/16/washington-court-rules-against-florist-who-denied-service-to-gay-couple.html
As professors, who are overwhelmingly liberal, foster such a politically biased and charged enviornment that those who contradict their narratives can't even speak, and then use that hostile climate as a pretext for repeat bans on basically all right wingers, its astounding to me that we even have to discuss whether or not this is a problem.
*http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/6/liberal-professors-outnumber-conservatives-12-1/
The ethical Guideline is people need protection for their speech against Institutions of Power to prevent oppression, it is simply that historically Government was considered 'The Power' and little else.
Nowadays in modern society we are tackling with other institutions of power such as Corporations, Media etc and with less established rules (media has been getting away with alot) but society still tends towards the same ethical guideline such as whistle-blowing against corporate malpractice.
In terms of Antifa yes you can definitely make an argument for the same ethical reason (an International organisation, funded and using violence discourages and scares people to not discuss things publicly).
However they will not be strictly dealt with by law in the same way because they are not such a well defined established Institution of Power of society.
The ethics of Freedom of Speech does not exactly match law or the constitution, Because the Constitution and Law deal with a specific scope of society, But the ethics is more broad.
For instance, should someone who said "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." be allowed to speak?? Or maybe "We just want Jews to be perfected, as they say." (implying they should all convert to Christianity). Or "I don't really like to think of it as a murder. It was terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester. ... I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don't want to impose my moral values on others." when commenting on the assassination of a doctor who provided abortions. Are there ANY lines to what a college has to put up with in regards to who it invites on it's campus?? Because Ann Coulter said every one of those things.
I mean, at a certain point, why don't we just invite the guy on the street corner with the sandwich board preaching about how Armageddon is nigh?? Or Uncle Jerry who has his own short-wave radio show about how UN black helicopters are masking evidence of UFOs poisoning our water with an alien substance that will turn us all into Soylent Green?? What credentials (as opposed to anyone else in the country) do Ann Coulter or Milo possess that makes them worthy of these speaking engagements other than the fact that they are popular personalities in a right-wing propaganda network??
Liberal professors outnumber right wingers. Why is that? Pure speculation but I think there's a number of reasons.
Maybe it's because many right wingers don't believe in science they have their own "Beliefs" such as vaccinations cause autism and other unproven or flatly disproven theories.
They are often capitalistic too, the pursuit of money and power is more important that the pursuit of knowledge. Being a professor usually doesn't pay a whole hell of a lot - often because right wing politicians seem to be always trying to cut education budgets. A desire to be highly paid discourages the conversation from their pursuit.
Right wingers often lack of patience and curiosity. They have all the answers already, why bother to explore and spend time thinking? Could you imagine sexual harrasers like Bill O'Reilly, Trump, or Roger Allies teaching a class on anything? Hell no, they don't have the patience or empathy to work with students and their big egos don't tolerate questions as we've seen.
My hot take is that they could get in - but their nutty ideas, a lack of scientific thinking, a lack of empathy and patience doesn't particularly attract them to this profession.