News Int. Inc. hack phone of missing (dead girl)

[Humodour]

Yeah, I find it annoying when people use anecdotal evidence or argument from authority as the crux of their argument.

 

again, please be aware of the hypocrisy.

 

*snort*

 

and am suspecting that you has relied on authority literal hundreds if not thousands o' times in your life. med doctor visits. dentists. car mechanic. etc. nepenthe is correct when he is observing that everybody somehow believes they is an expert on law. go figure. oh, and once more, this ain't a question o' law, but if you not think lawyers, cops and judges gots special insights, then you kid yourself. regardless, we already pointed out a couple problems with walsh comments that is easily verifiable... if he wanna takes a quick look at the US Constitution, or use the logic krez seems to favor.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps while orogun is incorrect that we questioned his character (we questioned your certainty in spite of seeming lack of familiarity and requested clarification) it not change the hypocrisy o' the demand in absence of a similar offering, eh?

 

It's not the authority I have a problem with so much as the fact that anybody can say they're lawyer or engineer or doctor or something on the Net and it's rather difficult to prove they're not.

 

And I only tend to get annoyed with anecdotes when somebody starts making stereotypes and generalisations based on them. "I don't care if something happened to you personally, that doesn't make a rare event any more likely to happen to me." *blank stare*

[Gromnir]

for krez,

 

am not wanting to give out personal info, but we got a solution that should appease.

 

received today via email... am posting link to the online viewable version.

 

http://www.ieventreg.com/news/mobile_cats....b7f6d97cd6cd2ad

 

any other cal lawyers wanna confirm they received this bit o' email nonsense today? should suffice in any event.

 

also, am agreeing on the anecdote... but that were walsh, not Gromnir.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited July 21, 2011 by Gromnir

[Enoch]

for krez,

 

am not wanting to give out personal info, but we got a solution that should appease.

 

received today via email... am posting link to the online viewable version.

 

http://www.ieventreg.com/news/mobile_cats....b7f6d97cd6cd2ad

 

any other cal lawyers wanna confirm they received this bit o' email nonsense today? should suffice in any event.

I'm not a Cali attorney, but I'll state for the record that Gromnir has shown enough expertise in the past (particularly in the First Amendment area where he claims specialization) for me to trust his legal bona fides. And if he's being honest about his experience with a U.S. Attorney's Office, that's a pretty big deal. The USAOs do most of the in-court grunt work on behalf of the federal government-- prosecuting federal crimes and representing the United States when it is a party to civil litigation.

 

Lastly, although I've done exactly zero criminal work (actually, exactly zero trial work at all), his arguments conform with my "just enough criminal law training to pass the Virginia Bar Exam" understanding. Undoubtedly, some criminal lawyers are better than others, and all else being equal, wealth tends to lead to being more likely to have an above-average criminal lawyer defending you. But being a high-profile defendant also means that prosecutors are more likely to focus closely on the case. It could be argued that fame cut the other way for folks like Martha Stewart or Plaxico Burress.

 

 

Also, seriously? They're having their conference in Long Beach?

[Nepenthe]

I've never seen a non-lawyer show as much expertise as my assumed learned colleagues above, but I hear there are those practicing without a license, so I could be wrong.

 

Here it's always people who try to impersonate doctors, get more money and nurses, less hate from the unwashed masses who don't know better...

[Calax]

I still find it hilarious how News Corp and it's underlings are trying to force the entire topic to shift because "it's unfair to smear like this!" when they're known as the top smear monkies in the business.

[Gromnir]

for krez,

 

am not wanting to give out personal info, but we got a solution that should appease.

 

received today via email... am posting link to the online viewable version.

 

http://www.ieventreg.com/news/mobile_cats....b7f6d97cd6cd2ad

 

any other cal lawyers wanna confirm they received this bit o' email nonsense today? should suffice in any event.

I'm not a Cali attorney, but I'll state for the record that Gromnir has shown enough expertise in the past (particularly in the First Amendment area where he claims specialization) for me to trust his legal bona fides. And if he's being honest about his experience with a U.S. Attorney's Office, that's a pretty big deal. The USAOs do most of the in-court grunt work on behalf of the federal government-- prosecuting federal crimes and representing the United States when it is a party to civil litigation.

 

Lastly, although I've done exactly zero criminal work (actually, exactly zero trial work at all), his arguments conform with my "just enough criminal law training to pass the Virginia Bar Exam" understanding. Undoubtedly, some criminal lawyers are better than others, and all else being equal, wealth tends to lead to being more likely to have an above-average criminal lawyer defending you. But being a high-profile defendant also means that prosecutors are more likely to focus closely on the case. It could be argued that fame cut the other way for folks like Martha Stewart or Plaxico Burress.

 

 

Also, seriously? They're having their conference in Long Beach?

 

were s'posed to be san diego, but following the gay and lesbian lawyer protests that gots press the last time the meeting were held in san diego, the cowards in-charge decided to switch to long beach... not that we typical attend such stuff.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Volourn]

"when they're known as the top smear monkies in the business. "

 

 

Nah. That's FOX and CNN.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Volourn

[Tale]

"when they're known as the top smear monkies in the business. "

 

 

Nah. That's FOX and CNN.

FOX is News Corp.

[Humodour]

The Wall Street Journal is also News Corp.

[Darth InSidious]

Isn't the New York Post NewsCorp, too? Advice to Americans: Don't let Murdoch buy any more. Don't let yourselves get into the position we're in over here.

[Calax]

Isn't the New York Post NewsCorp, too?

Yep.

[Calax]

 

Does a bit of a look at the entire thing and how Fox is downplaying it (The poster is one of the ACLU members in the Sacramento department).

 

Also pointing out that as of right now, News Corp is vulnerable to American criminal action (due to a foreign espionage act) And if somebody pushed the issue the FCC could (in theory) revoke the ability for News Corp, and it's subsidiaries, to broadcast on the TV because in order to broadcast apparently you need "Good moral character".

[Volourn]

L0L if there were atcually true.. all news stations would be off the air since they've all been aprt of some sort of emss that involved 'non moral behaviour'. It's too broad of a charge, it wouldn't stick in modern court if fought.

[Calax]

L0L if there were atcually true.. all news stations would be off the air since they've all been aprt of some sort of emss that involved 'non moral behaviour'. It's too broad of a charge, it wouldn't stick in modern court if fought.

But the other companies are not accused of BREAKING THE LAW (which is a codified set of morals).

[Volourn]

"But the other companies are not accused of BREAKING THE LAW"

 

They sure have been.

 

I'

m not talking abotu 'breaking the law' but about your silly 'moral behaviour' nonsense. That just wouldn't fly in a modern court if fought since it's too wishy washy.

 

Breaking ana ctual law, on the other hand, is a whole 'nother issue...

[Calax]

"But the other companies are not accused of BREAKING THE LAW"

 

They sure have been.

 

I'

m not talking abotu 'breaking the law' but about your silly 'moral behaviour' nonsense. That just wouldn't fly in a modern court if fought since it's too wishy washy.

 

Breaking ana ctual law, on the other hand, is a whole 'nother issue...

Technically, I didn't say "moral behavior", I said "Good Moral Character". There is a difference.

 

And it wouldn't be a legal matter so much as the FCC allowing them to broadcast, so it'd be up to the members of the FCC, not the Courts to decide.

 

R00fles!

[Walsingham]

"But the other companies are not accused of BREAKING THE LAW"

 

They sure have been.

 

I'

m not talking abotu 'breaking the law' but about your silly 'moral behaviour' nonsense. That just wouldn't fly in a modern court if fought since it's too wishy washy.

 

Breaking ana ctual law, on the other hand, is a whole 'nother issue...

 

Actually, Volo, if you'd bothered to follow this properly broadcasters are required to uphold 'silly moral niceties' in the UK. If they are found unfit then they can be denied the right to broadcast.

[Volourn]

Absolutely, but the threshold is so low. But, if you remember how this disucssion started, we were talking about Amerikan junk not British junk so how Bitian handles stuff in this regard would be irrelevant.

[Calax]

Absolutely, but the threshold is so low. But, if you remember how this disucssion started, we were talking about Amerikan junk not British junk so how Bitian handles stuff in this regard would be irrelevant.

And yet the point is that the FCC has a very similar requirement as part of a companies contract to broadcast here in the US, thus they can be forced to stop broadcasting if the FCC was getting pissed off (and news corp in general can be hit with criminal charges for other reasons).

 

Did you watch the vid where this is all spelled out or just read my haphazard summary you goof?

[Volourn]

the FCC doesn't just remove people's rightt o broadcast willy nilly. At best, I can see a fine (,ajor one) but no complete removal of air time. ie. FOX is not gonna be off the air over this. Period.

[WDeranged]

It seems world events are threatening to distract from this story what with the Norway situation...and Amy Winehouse just died.

 

*edit*

 

Also, check this for a display of how low the Murdoch news empire will stoop to distract.

Edited July 23, 2011 by WDeranged

[Calax]

the FCC doesn't just remove people's rightt o broadcast willy nilly. At best, I can see a fine (,ajor one) but no complete removal of air time. ie. FOX is not gonna be off the air over this. Period.

I don't think repudiating their contract would be "willy Nilly" at this point.

[Volourn]

Yes, it would be 'willy nilly'. I think a major fine and jail time for those directly involved would be enough punishment.

 

Again, FOX isn't going off the air so get that nonsense out of your head.

[WDeranged]

I kind of agree with Volo, in that a major fine and jail time is probably the best we will get for the people *directly* involved, the higher ups who authorise the shenanigans will of course get away with it, albeit with a dirtied image...and that only ever lasts a year or two given the short memory of the perpetually bombarded public.

[Calax]

Yes, it would be 'willy nilly'. I think a major fine and jail time for those directly involved would be enough punishment.

 

Again, FOX isn't going off the air so get that nonsense out of your head.

Who the HELL said it was in my head numbskull? You're the one pushing that I'm saying they WILL be when I said it was a possibility.

 

JESUS can you READ?