Reply #36: Not advocating anything close,

[mentalslavery]

A photo (picture) can be libel, and anything transmitted over the tv can be libel. Slander is spoken word that occurs between people, not via broadcast. Additionally, truth is not black and white. I am moreso addressing issues of harassment/privacy/liberty/pursuit of happiness with that specific case, which is really not the issue, but an exemplar. The core issue is the industries practices and nature.

My central point is that the big 3 are not news organizations, but modern day witch hunt/proga-opinion/slando-entertainment. They present themselves as news and violate commercial speech. A harder, more abstract, point that I am flushing out examines the basis of speech and expression.

Also, free press refers to news production, not reporting. Governments commonly restricted the tools (press) to produce documents. Therefore, someone who advocates a restriction on free press is someone who is restricting the tools, which I never mentioned. However, any restrictions on lap-tops are restrictions on press. So, think about that some time when you are not able to take a lap-top in to some place.

Reporting is free speech and these organizations are free to do so. However, I am advocating increased penalties for slander/libel/defamation of character. Additionally, I contend that they are in violation of commercial speech, which is ad related and has a higher burden for truthfulness and accuracy. Advertising a fox news logo, which is basically always running, as well as self-promotion breaks, are specific examples.

Ultimately, this will merge with some work I am doing on political and corporate crime. It is a small part of a larger argument that looks at some of changes in this country since 1950's. It is in the beginning stages, not really spending much time on it, moreso writing about economic crisis and solutions.

Fragmented stream of conscious form still-sorry so hard to read-and I am a teacher.