Alfredsson Wants New Owner for Senators

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Calling for bloggers to be licensed by the government? That is absolutely an infringement of free speech, and a very large one.

I write professionally, and no, I'm not going to tell you under what name, because I don't want to get CP mixed up with my work. My #1 tool for keeping in contact with my readers, selling new work, and getting feedback on my published stuff, is my blog. If any bureaucrat in Ottawa ever gets the power to tell me what I can and cannot write, under threat of revoking my licence, I will emigrate from this country so fast it will make your head spin, and never come back. And I can assure you I am far from alone in this.



There never has been before. There's a good reason why Gell-Mann amnesia effect is a recognized thing.

Ok let's reign it in here. All we've said so far is that 'there should be some kind of speed regulation on this road' and now we're talking about changing countries.

A regulation that holds bloggers accountable for ethically and honestly reporting news is something I would hope you don't fight too hard against
Ideally, you never hear from them. Neither would Susan here, FTR. She's clearly in the wrong IMO, but I would hope the foul isn't severe enough to require intervention. This is just an example of how 'anything goes' on a blog and there's no accountability.

No one suggested a hand-holding, 'run every article through the government' approach. Deerfoot Trail isn't 20km/h.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by SOMBRI

Lol. Where on earth did I say I was against freedom of speech?

Right here:

I think for any self-proclaimed bloggers in the world, they should be licensed or governed somehow.

Freedom of speech and of the press under English law began in 1695, when the Licensing Act was allowed to lapse. Prior to that, the Company of Stationers held the sole right to operate printing presses and publish written material, and the Crown had the power to seize or destroy any press operated by any other person and imprison the operator. If you wanted to print a newspaper, a book, or even a pamphlet or poster, you had to be a member of the Company. The practical result was that censorship was ubiquitous and oppressive. People were frequently put to death for their opinions.

A blogger's licence would simply impose the same requirement on electronically published writing. We no longer have the death penalty, but a new Licensing Act (under whatever name) would give the state the absolute and arbitrary power to destroy the livelihood of any person who wrote anything that those in power disapproved of. It would mark the end of freedom of speech in any country that adopted such a law.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Split98

A regulation that holds bloggers accountable for ethically and honestly reporting news is something I would hope you don't fight too hard against

That's what the libel laws are for. Licensing of bloggers would give the government the power to forbid them to write anything at all, and I would fight to the death against that.

No one suggested a hand-holding, 'run every article through the government' approach. Deerfoot Trail isn't 20km/h.

Yes, in fact, that is exactly what a licence to publish is. SOMBRI may have suggested it without thinking, but that is in fact the exact effect that such a regulation would produce.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That's what the libel laws are for. Licensing of bloggers would give the government the power to forbid them to write anything at all, and I would fight to the death against that.



Yes, in fact, that is exactly what a licence to publish is. SOMBRI may have suggested it without thinking, but that is in fact the exact effect that such a regulation would produce.

So what you're saying is that bloggers are a better source for news than any of the major publications that adhere to Journalistic Standards and Practices?

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I'm so glad to hear you are against freedom of speech.

let's leave aside the freedom of speech argument.

you say you're a blog writer for a living.

so what would you have done in this situation? would you have acted as this blogger did? would you have published alfredssons comments with the excuse he didn't ask for off the record until after the interview started?

I personally think she could have been a better person and professional, and respected alfedssons request instead of seeming to care more about her website traffic.
doesn't matter if she was technically correct or not. he didn't want the comments printed she did it anyway for her own gain and not the public good.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

let's leave aside the freedom of speech argument.

you say you're a blog writer for a living.

so what would you have done in this situation? would you have acted as this blogger did? would you have published alfredssons comments with the excuse he didn't ask for off the record until after the interview started?

I personally think she could have been a better person and professional, and respected alfedssons request instead of seeming to care more about her website traffic.
doesn't matter if she was technically correct or not. he didn't want the comments printed she did it anyway for her own gain and not the public good.

I think WHAT is being reported is really important here too.

This wasn't a smoking gun to a large story, this was (at best) a hot-take putting an unwilling face to a popular sentiment.

She didn't forgo ethics and respect to better the journalistic world at large, she used her opportunity to try and elevate her position at the expense of someone else.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Right here:



Freedom of speech and of the press under English law began in 1695, when the Licensing Act was allowed to lapse. Prior to that, the Company of Stationers held the sole right to operate printing presses and publish written material, and the Crown had the power to seize or destroy any press operated by any other person and imprison the operator. If you wanted to print a newspaper, a book, or even a pamphlet or poster, you had to be a member of the Company. The practical result was that censorship was ubiquitous and oppressive. People were frequently put to death for their opinions.

A blogger's licence would simply impose the same requirement on electronically published writing. We no longer have the death penalty, but a new Licensing Act (under whatever name) would give the state the absolute and arbitrary power to destroy the livelihood of any person who wrote anything that those in power disapproved of. It would mark the end of freedom of speech in any country that adopted such a law.

I think this blogger should be summarily executed.

Let's get drastic and hyperbolic

[GirlySports]

One thing about talking to reporters - you better know the differences between off the record, not for attribution, and on background. And you better be in complete agreement on which it is before you speak to the reporter.

This one is on Alfredsson. It's his reputation on the line.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Split98

So what you're saying is that bloggers are a better source for news than any of the major publications that adhere to Journalistic Standards and Practices?

I'm saying that the major publications don't adhere to journalistic standards and practices. They violate their own rules constantly.

[FlamesFanTrev]

Originally Posted by Split98

I think WHAT is being reported is really important here too.

This wasn't a smoking gun to a large story, this was (at best) a hot-take putting an unwilling face to a popular sentiment.

She didn't forgo ethics and respect to better the journalistic world at large, she used her opportunity to try and elevate her position at the expense of someone else.

Hear hear

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by nik-

I think this blogger should be summarily executed.

Let's get drastic and hyperbolic

Calling for bloggers to require a licence in order to say anything is drastic and hyperbolic. I'm calling it the way it is.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I'm saying that the major publications don't adhere to journalistic standards and practices. They violate their own rules constantly.

But there are rules...

...which was all that was being said.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

let's leave aside the freedom of speech argument.

you say you're a blog writer for a living.

I am not a blog writer for a living. I am a professional writer who uses a blog as a promotional tool.

so what would you have done in this situation? would you have acted as this blogger did? would you have published alfredssons comments with the excuse he didn't ask for off the record until after the interview started?

I would never have published Alfredsson's comments at all, so the rest of the question is moot. The blogger's behaviour in the circumstances was foolish and unethical, but if we passed a law against people publishing foolish and unethical things, every editorial writer in the country would be in prison.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Calling for bloggers to require a licence in order to say anything is drastic and hyperbolic. I'm calling it the way it is.

You most definitely are not.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Split98

But there are rules...

...which was all that was being said.

No, what was being said is that people should have to have a licence in order to write blogs. In other words, 100% censorship of every blog by the government.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I am not a blog writer for a living. I am a professional writer who uses a blog as a promotional tool.



I would never have published Alfredsson's comments at all, so the rest of the question is moot. The blogger's behaviour in the circumstances was foolish and unethical, but if we passed a law against people publishing foolish and unethical things, every editorial writer in the country would be in prison.

No one is asking for that, and no they definitely would not be.

[nik-]

Death to bloggers!

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Split98

No one is asking for that, and no they definitely would not be.

SOMBRI did in fact ask for bloggers to be licensed, and yes, they definitely would be. This is my professional area. This is my business. So-called reputable publications routinely lie, they routinely libel people, they routinely omit essential facts in order to distort news. I've seen it often myself, and I can tell you that the whole business is rotten from Alpha to Omaha. The very idea of ‘journalistic ethics’ makes me laugh.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Split98

You most definitely are not.

Oh, gee, that's a convincing rebuttal.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

No, what was being said is that people should have to have a licence in order to write blogs. In other words, 100% censorship of every blog by the government.

Ok last post on this, and hopefully it sums it up for you.

There's a road people are driving really really fast on and hurting tons of people.

Someone suggested, 'hey, what if we asked people to limit their speed to something more reasonable?'

To that person, you have responded with a threat to move countries and are dead-convinced that the limit this person just proposed will make it impossible for you to ever travel upon it's tainted asphalt ever again.

If they throttled everything to the levels you're suggesting, I'll be right on the picket line with you. But all that's been mentioned is stopping a few that are irresponsibly travelling without regard for anyone else or what is safe.

That's it, that's all. It's not more than that.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Oh, gee, that's a convincing rebuttal.

Lol, this is your 5th or 6th response to my rebuttals? I'm fairly certain I've offered your hyperbole enough of a platform that this response seems silly.