'You're Not Allowed to Film': The Fight to Control Who Reports from Portland • Hacker News Board

Re: 'You're Not Allowed to Film': The Fight to Control Who Reports from Portland

#321

Post by youareostriches » Mon, Sep 07, 2020, 7:35 PM UTC

prepend wrote: post #311

youareostriches wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Allowed” to report? When did we get into the topic of government interference with the press? This is about what private citizen protesters do. But I suppose if you were concerned with government interference in the media you’d be going after the fascist who has been crying “Lügenpresse” for the past four years—who also wants to silence criticism of himself on social media by executive fiat.

Oh, I wasn’t talking about government interference. I asked if you thought they should be allowed. And somewhat if protesters should allow members of the press they don’t approve of to record and report on them.

>I asked if you thought they should be allowed.

...which is a question of governance.

Re: 'You're Not Allowed to Film': The Fight to Control Who Reports from Portland

#322

Post by someguydave » Mon, Sep 07, 2020, 7:42 PM UTC

pmoriarty wrote: post #304

someguydave wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough - the system isn’t perfect; however there is no perfect system this side of heaven. I’m open to many kinds of reforms of the criminal justice system. The important thing to realize is that there are only trade-offs, no perfect answers. Still, defendants still have rights and get due process in court. It is not reasonable to jettison all of that because sometimes we don’t like the outcomes.

You do have rights and get due process unless you're: - a minority who's not part of the elite - poor and don't have connections - get accused of not having the right papers - run in to a corrupt cop or one who's having a bad day and decides to take it out on you Even if you do get your day in court the system is heavily stacked against many segments of society.

Are you saying that those people don't get a court date? Or they don't have access to lawyers?

Re: 'You're Not Allowed to Film': The Fight to Control Who Reports from Portland

#323

Post by prepend » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 1:04 AM UTC

youareostriches wrote: post #321

prepend wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I wasn’t talking about government interference. I asked if you thought they should be allowed. And somewhat if protesters should allow members of the press they don’t approve of to record and report on them.

>I asked if you thought they should be allowed. ...which is a question of governance.

Yes, governance by the people trying to stop these reporters. The story talks about protesters governing the press by yelling, stealing, and smashing equipment.

Of course, I’m also against government governance of press, but I’m not asking about that. I’m asking whether you think this behavior is appropriate of protesters.

Re: 'You're Not Allowed to Film': The Fight to Control Who Reports from Portland

#324

Post by wonder_er » Sun, Sep 13, 2020, 4:06 AM UTC

threatofrain wrote: post #172

formercoder wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve found that most people I speak to can’t accept that most issues are complex shades of gray. It’s all our team or their team based on whatever news channel they subscribe to. No one takes time to dig below the surface and think for themselves.

If someone suggests that they think in morally gray manner, doesn't it signal to everyone around them that they're morally suspicious? >"Do you think it's alright that police are getting killed?" > "Well, let's think about the details, as the situation can be complex or even gray..." You might say this is a stupid and sparse example, but well, let's think about it... for many people instinctual morality is their prim…

Heh. This was a brilliant comment. The others who have responded to your comment have unconsciously proven the truth of what you're suggesting.

They are 'well-actually'-ing your question, which proves that they don't have don't have an instinctive 'of course it is wrong that police are being killed' reaction, which now eliminates credibility with the group they're hoping to influence.

I think MLK would have said "of course it's not alright that police are getting killed." He would have followed up with a salient point about police brutality, of course.

Re: 'You're Not Allowed to Film': The Fight to Control Who Reports from Portland

#325

Post by Hnrobert42 » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 2:48 AM UTC

abduhl wrote: post #227

sammorrowdrums wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That logic isn't correct. Take for counter example Christians, a group of largely self identifying "members of an organisation". It doesn't logically follow that if a self-identifying Christian shoots a lot of people that "Christianity is responsible" either. That lacks nuance, of course groups of individuals that self-identify as part of a group can act as individuals and as a group, and it's often unclear externall…

If you want to draw a parallel to Christianity in this way then we can focus on what the organization does post-crisis. A self identifying Christian who kills people in the name of Christianity is vocally condemned by other self identifying Christians and many would rush to say that they were mentally ill. If BLM wants to not be lumped in with extremists then supporters of Black Lives Matter need to vocally and unequ…

I don’t think you can fairly argue that “extremist actions by BLM supporters are never condemned.” I mean, I believe that black lives matter, yet I condemn taking of innocent lives.

I worry you are letting your philosophy shape your reality. It happens to us all. No judgement. I would just urge you to reconsider whether you have factual data to support your argument.