91–100 of 137 posts
First time I've heard of the show. I watched about 20 minutes ... pretty good. The style reminds me of Samantha B ... political commentary sprinkled with humor.
> political commentary sprinkled with humor. I think you're right about their shows, but both Hasan Minhaj and Samantha Bee are comedians, so why are we entrusting political commentary to comedians?
simillary UK censor HBO's Last Week Tonight show when it reports about uk parliament https://theweek.com/speedreads/778214/john-oliver-fiendish-p...
That’s a bit different in the U.K. official parliament footage isn’t allowed to be used for satire or anything other than news reporting. This was more of a copyright claim than censorship. They could literarily have broadcast the same thing with muppets instead of the official footage and that would’ve been ok and a large part of wishes they had done just that. “We wanted to show you footage from the House of Common…
First time I've heard of the show. I watched about 20 minutes ... pretty good. The style reminds me of Samantha B ... political commentary sprinkled with humor.
> political commentary sprinkled with humor. I think you're right about their shows, but both Hasan Minhaj and Samantha Bee are comedians, so why are we entrusting political commentary to comedians?
Political Commentary is also not something to be rationed - as per se, it would be extremely misguided (and illegal, in the US) to regulate who can be televised on a given matter (Although I assume that you mean "we" as in society rather than the state?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a bit different in the U.K. official parliament footage isn’t allowed to be used for satire or anything other than news reporting. This was more of a copyright claim than censorship. They could literarily have broadcast the same thing with muppets instead of the official footage and that would’ve been ok and a large part of wishes they had done just that. “We wanted to show you footage from the House of Common…
Is the law really from 1743? I mean, it can make sense, but I would find it interesting if the law was really that old
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a bit different in the U.K. official parliament footage isn’t allowed to be used for satire or anything other than news reporting. This was more of a copyright claim than censorship. They could literarily have broadcast the same thing with muppets instead of the official footage and that would’ve been ok and a large part of wishes they had done just that. “We wanted to show you footage from the House of Common…
Semantics. You can call it whatever you want, but it’s censorship.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. Such lawsuits aren't really a thing.
Kinda odd that so many companies pay money for fairness opinions (M&A, capital raising, major transactions) that specifically identify fairness from solely a "Financial" point of view to shareholders. I always thought it was to avoid lawsuits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a bit different in the U.K. official parliament footage isn’t allowed to be used for satire or anything other than news reporting. This was more of a copyright claim than censorship. They could literarily have broadcast the same thing with muppets instead of the official footage and that would’ve been ok and a large part of wishes they had done just that. “We wanted to show you footage from the House of Common…
Is the law really from 1743? I mean, it can make sense, but I would find it interesting if the law was really that old
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Marlborough
“The chapters currently valid are c.1, c.4, and c.15 (often referred to as the Distress Act 1267),[10] which seek to govern the recovery of damages ("distresses") and make it illegal to obtain recompense for damages other than through the courts, and c.23 (the Waste Act 1267),[11] which seeks to prevent tenant farmers from "making waste" to land they are in tenancy of.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m sure they care more than that. Global opinion matters, especially if it can influence policy makers, particularly citizens in the western developed countries.
> Global opinion matters... Not so sure about this? Reality is, MBS can do whatever he wants, global opinion or no global opinion. That's been made pretty clear recently. I mean really, who's gonna stop him?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a bit different in the U.K. official parliament footage isn’t allowed to be used for satire or anything other than news reporting. This was more of a copyright claim than censorship. They could literarily have broadcast the same thing with muppets instead of the official footage and that would’ve been ok and a large part of wishes they had done just that. “We wanted to show you footage from the House of Common…
>This was more of a copyright claim than censorship. Copyright claims that result in reduced access to media are censorship.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a bit different in the U.K. official parliament footage isn’t allowed to be used for satire or anything other than news reporting. This was more of a copyright claim than censorship. They could literarily have broadcast the same thing with muppets instead of the official footage and that would’ve been ok and a large part of wishes they had done just that. “We wanted to show you footage from the House of Common…
>This was more of a copyright claim than censorship. Copyright claims that result in reduced access to media are censorship.
The speech isn't being restricted. The background footage is.
Even if it is a stupid law.