Posted on 09/13/2004 2:41:52 PM PDT by sonofatpatcher2
You are right, we don't want government infringing on free speech. But we also don't want arrogant demagogues ruling our (yes, OUR) airwaves and foisting on us the narrowness that is their opinion.
There are many people who would buy that statement, word for word, except that they would substitute "right-ward" for "left-ward". That is, there are many people who believe that Dan, Tom and Peter slant the news to the right. Should they be in charge of what goes out over "our" airwaves? I prefer letting the marketplace of ideas sort it out, especially now that the market includes talk radio and the web.
Remember when the Boston Globe suspended Jeff Jacoby for four months in 2000 over a column about the signers of the Declaration of Independence? The Globe said he plagiarized a column that was floating around the internet; Jacoby said that the Globe wanted to silence him during the 2000 election.
Is this incident with Rather any different? Shouldn't CBS, at the very least, suspend Dan Rather until after the election? And then, while he's on suspension, they can float rumors about him not coming back.
-PJ
" My point in raising this issue is that the CBS expert (of the day) can say with all confidence and veracity (and not fear being labelled a liar) that the technology was available (the kool-aid drinker will stop listening here)..."
When Rather trotted out his expert to claim " of course the technology existed " as proof the memos were legit,
it demonstrated that to CBS and their advertisers, their target audience must be morons.
Thomas Sowell calls them 'the anointed'.
Is that what that idiot said? I thought that's what I heard. Damn, I wish we could get a transcript.
isn't there a problem with forging a FEDERAL document?
why wouldn't some federal agency attempt to look into this...
wait, since they were TANG forgeries, I guess it would be state government - so that would be the Attorney General of Texas?
That's a good point,and I've seen it raised here by those who are more knowledgeable about it than I am. I can't believe that anyone would think that it would infringe on free speech to not let the media get away with breaking the law.
The easy way to override the auto-superscript is to use the lowercase "l".
My next FAX to Andrew Heyward - President of CBS News - will be: Send Cap'n Dan to Florida to cover the hurricane. And pray that the storm gets him.
At this point, there is no possible way they can offer "proof" even if they prove it was possible. We have already proved it is also possible on WORD. So the doubt would be there even if they proved the unprovable. The signature is a photocopy.
any Texans out there that would contact a buddy in the system to request an opinion from the Attorney General's office? RE: whether an attempt to forge a documemnt purportedly from the TANG would be a punishable offense? Or election fraud?
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopen/opinhome.shtml
An Attorney General Opinion is a written interpretation of existing law. The Attorney General writes opinions as part of his responsibility to act as legal counsel for the State of Texas. Opinions are written only at the request of certain state officials, called "authorized requestors." The Texas Government Code indicates to whom the Attorney General may provide a legal opinion. He may not write legal opinions for private individuals or for any officials other than those specified by statute.
Attorney General Opinions clarify the meaning of existing laws. They do not address matters of fact, and they are neither legislative nor judicial in nature. That is to say, they cannot create new provisions in the law or correct unintended, undesirable effects of the law. Opinions interpret legal issues that are ambiguous, obscure, or otherwise unclear. Attorney General Opinions do not reflect the AG's opinion in the ordinary sense of expressing his personal views. Nor does he in any way "rule" on what the law should say.
Unless or until an opinion is modified or overruled by statute, judicial decision, or subsequent Attorney General Opinion, an Attorney General Opinion is presumed to correctly state the law. Accordingly, although an Attorney General Opinion is advisory, it carries the weight and force of law unless or until it is modified or overruled. Ultimate determination of a law's applicability, meaning or constitutionality is left to the courts. For this reason, the Attorney General generally does not write opinions on issues that are in pending litigation.
Who Can Request an Attorney General Opinion?
Sections 402.042 and 402.043 of the Government Code set out the state and local officials who are authorized to request formal Attorney General opinions on questions of law. The Attorney General is prohibited by statute from giving a written opinion to anyone other than an authorized requestor. Authorized requestors include:
the Governor
the head of a department of state government
the head or board of a penal institution
the head or board of an eleemosynary institution
the head of a state board
a regent or trustee of a state educational institution
a committee of a house of the Texas Legislature
a county auditor authorized by law
the chairman of the governing board of a river authority
The Attorney General shall also advise a district or county attorney in certain instances in which the State is interested and certain requirements are met. In addition, the Attorney General shall advise the proper authorities in regard to the issuance of bonds that by law require the Attorney General's approval.
A person other than an authorized requestor who wants to ask for an opinion should approach someone who is named in statute as an authorized requestor. In addition, a county or precinct official can request a written opinion or written legal advice from the district or county attorney, regarding the official's duties under the law.
No I want them to prosecute for fraud or any other damn thing they can think of.
your wish is my command. transcript.
salient portion:
RATHER: Richard Katz, a software designer found other indications in the documents. He noticed the lower case l is used in documents instead of the actual numeral one. That would be difficult to reproduce on the computer today.
KATZ: If you were doing this a week ago or a month ago on a normal laser jet printer, it wouldn't work. The font wouldn't be available to you.
Well that is kind of an interesting point
all, with the possible exception of the first document, the order to show up and schedule a physical, aren't really "official goverment documents"
they are just what they say, memos, not ment to go any further then a file cabinet in the units orderly room, nothing really oficial there, just typed up notes basically
Hiya CB
Isn't it illegal to forge government documents? Oh wait they don't have the originals so they have an out? I really don't get it... color me dense but if SeeBS can do this I guess anyone can pretty much say anthing and back it up with any damn thing and nothing will come of it.
Good to see ya!
yeah, you're right, I just hate seeing someone get away with this...
remember the FReeper yesterday who kept writing fake memos about Kerry and Blather, and we all laughed so hard?
Maybe we could just keep creating millions of them and FAX them to CBS, a virtual blizzard of fake emos, and shut down their fax lines for a month...
Some of the forgeries are just personal comments. One is a military order, but it has no effect (as in, nobody has to follow the order today, even if the document is authentic). In that light, I think the "forgery" angle evaporates.
color me dense but if SeeBS can do this I guess anyone can pretty much say anthing and back it up with any damn thing and nothing will come of it.
That pretty much sums up the state of reality. Except in this case, the forgery is so bad and the alleagations are so serious that CBS won't be able to duck the fallout. In contrast, AP's lie about "the crowd booed and Bush did nothing" will stand.
The media can, and does lie with impunity, most of the time. It is the exception to hear or read an accurate news story.
hmm so interfering with a federal election via the public airwaves is fine with you... sheesh that is a bit scary don't ya think?
You can say whatever you want as a citizen but to put out false statements backed up by forged government documents and report it as news (not an opinion mind you) doesn't cross any lines with you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.