Fox News is now the porn police - Page 3

tommymac · 05-11-2010, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trip

Does MTV just show music?

This is the same shit as when Chris Hanson busts the kiddy rapists on that "news" show. I forget which one he is on, I think it's 60 mins.

You are going way overboard on this because it says fox news. You have a hard on for them.

MTV doesnt show music anymore

Avatard · 05-11-2010, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trip

Does MTV just show music?

This is the same shit as when Chris Hanson busts the kiddy rapists on that "news" show. I forget which one he is on, I think it's 60 mins.

You are going way overboard on this because it says fox news. You have a hard on for them.

They have a hard-on for freedom. Only their version is valid, apparently.

Glad they're screening our info for us.

If YOU can't spot the difference between targeting child molestors, and Fox going after a fucking encyclopedia [known for it's frank, open, and editable public exchange of information] with threats, then you too fail on the sharpness scale, Trip.

I expected better from you.

This is NOT journalism, in fact, it's corporate extortion, blackmail, and ultimately slander...libel. The "threat" was bogus. Clearly, Fox's intent was to go public, and harm Wiki.

Freedom fail.

OneSickPsycho · 05-11-2010, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trip

Does MTV just show music?

This is the same shit as when Chris Hanson busts the kiddy rapists on that "news" show. I forget which one he is on, I think it's 60 mins.

You are going way overboard on this because it says fox news. You have a hard on for them.

For reals... and every local news organization has a "5 on your side" or "news 13 care" or some shit that hound local business owners when they make a mistake - half the time not even getting it right. No difference here... ALL of the media 'makes' news.

Trip · 05-11-2010, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avatard

They have a hard-on for freedom. Only their version is valid, apparently.

Glad they're screening our info for us.

If YOU can't spot the difference between targeting child molestors, and Fox going after a fucking encyclopedia [known for it's frank, open, and editable public exchange of information] with threats, then you too fail on the sharpness scale, Trip.

I expected better from you.

Kiddy pr0n is just as bad as child molestation. They found evidence of that. This is typical investigative journalism. They found a lot of pr0n on wikipedia that it sounds like most of us and their sponsors had no idea existed. They went to their sponsors and asked if they knew what was on there and they didn't. Sounds pretty typical of investigative journalism. You just have a massive issue with fox news, an enormous one.

Anyone know the laws for online pr0n and what measures large entities are suppose to take to prevent access by children if there is any?

goof2 · 05-11-2010, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avatard

I think you're intentionally minimizing the fact that no one elected Fox to police anything. They're supposed to report news, not threaten websites. If you can't see how this is a supposed news organization clearly overstepping their bounds, then you're an utter fool.

News organizations aren't elected to police the activities of Haliburton, Blackwater, Exxon/Mobile, banks, phone companies, cable companies, or auto manufacturers either. No one elects news organizations to police anything but that is a large part of what they do. If you disagree that is fine but I would like to hear what in your opinion the bounds are that Foxnews is so clearly overstepping. You are being a slave to your bias on this one.

Avatard · 05-11-2010, 10:52 AM

A public encyclopedia is no different than a public park.

Blaming the owners of the park if a child molester strikes there is foolish.

Just as foolish as demonizing an encyclopedia when some nitwit posts shit on it.

This is pure crap [not journalism] and I don't get pissed just when Fox does it.

NBC did some shit on Craigslist the other day, and it was more of the same type of shitty journalism..."blaming the park owner for the pedophile".

Trip · 05-11-2010, 11:01 AM

What public entity owns wikimedia? It's a private park, not public. They reported that this was going on and informed people of what was going on, Wikimedia took steps to ensure it shouldn't happen anymore. What's the big deal? No one is going to jail, it doesn't sound like the donors care or attempting to take back their donations. The issue is getting fixed.

If Wikipedia wants to operate in such a manner, they should be able to do it without the support of donators and charge for the content aka pr0n.

goof2 · 05-11-2010, 11:02 AM

To continue your simile/metaphore, if the park owner knows there are pedophiles (which Wiki apparently did) and does little to nothing about it then yes, they probably will run in to some problems.

Avatard · 05-11-2010, 11:02 AM

Fox News political hit job.

Trip · 05-11-2010, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avatard

NBC did some shit on Craigslist the other day, and it was more of the same type of shitty journalism..."blaming the park owner for the pedophile".

Then why isn't there a thread about how worthless NBC is?

05-11-2010, 10:52 AM	#26
Avatard Crotch Rocket Curmudgeon Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Here to integrity Moto: Li'l red baby Ninja Posts: 7,482	A public encyclopedia is no different than a public park. Blaming the owners of the park if a child molester strikes there is foolish. Just as foolish as demonizing an encyclopedia when some nitwit posts shit on it. This is pure crap [not journalism] and I don't get pissed just when Fox does it. NBC did some shit on Craigslist the other day, and it was more of the same type of shitty journalism..."blaming the park owner for the pedophile". __________________ Insert free thought here.

05-11-2010, 11:02 AM	#29
Avatard Crotch Rocket Curmudgeon Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Here to integrity Moto: Li'l red baby Ninja Posts: 7,482	Fox News political hit job. __________________ Insert free thought here.

05-11-2010, 11:01 AM	#27
Trip Hold mah beer! Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: 80 Miles South of Moto Heaven Moto: 08 R1200GS Posts: 23,268	What public entity owns wikimedia? It's a private park, not public. They reported that this was going on and informed people of what was going on, Wikimedia took steps to ensure it shouldn't happen anymore. What's the big deal? No one is going to jail, it doesn't sound like the donors care or attempting to take back their donations. The issue is getting fixed. If Wikipedia wants to operate in such a manner, they should be able to do it without the support of donators and charge for the content aka pr0n.

05-11-2010, 11:02 AM	#28
goof2 AMA Supersport Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 4,756	To continue your simile/metaphore, if the park owner knows there are pedophiles (which Wiki apparently did) and does little to nothing about it then yes, they probably will run in to some problems.