Bee News supports censorship, sites lawsuits

Printable View

July 4th, 2010, 06:07 PM
4248

Bee News supports censorship, sites lawsuits

Dan Meyer, Lancaster Bee Political Satirist supports censorship and sites non-existent legal suits as a reason.

In the July 1,2010 issue he wrote:

"Probably the best reason to end the practice of allowing anonymous comments to appear on-line is that it is just not right. Such comments simply add to the list of challenges that some newspapers - particularly daily publications - face in a constantly changing industry that is looking to stabilize itself in the still-uncertain economic climate of our country.:confused:

He continues: " The last thing any publisher or editor wants to deal with is the threat of litigation, but for some reason, they continue allowing anonymous posters to create an atmosphere that has attorneys who specialize in defamation and character assassination lawsuits licking their chops." Partial quote from Dan Meyer.

My opinion: First off its the person or persons who threaten law suits and the lawyers who profit from them who should be censored.

You as a "Columnist" are caving in to imagined threats of litigation. Those who threaten such actions are usually mad because their hidden agenda or their misdeeds are exposed.

How many actual, documented successful lawsuits have been brought against the Bee News Group? How many actual successful lawsuit were filed and won in a court of law because a person posted a comment anonymously relating to any item printed in the Lancaster Bee?

I dare say I have never heard or read about one. The Bee is the "Official Lancaster Town Paper" so it receives a yearly check from Town Hall. The writers employed by the Bee attend events and award dinners sponsored by the controlling majority and their contributors/supporters.

Writers from the Bee have been included in "Political" affairs involving the "Dem Committee" and their supporters.

I believe the majority of threatened "Lawsuits" come from the same people. They insinuate they and or others could or would start a law suit. They use their influence to impress their desires to suppress certain comments and information from being made public.

Mr.Dan Meyer of the Lancaster/Depew Bee and the Buffalo News Staff are only caving in to the "Politicians and special interest groups" that pour thousands and thousands of dollars yearly into their papers in the form of endorsements and advertising.

Many readers of this site and many others on the net share opinions, facts and information that many "Insiders" would prefer not be written about - or publicly discussed.

The Bee and the BufNews should make a stand for Free Speech.
July 4th, 2010, 06:32 PM
nogods

You are right - it sounds like an excuse to protect the guilty.

First, under section 230 of Title 47 of the U.S. Code, websites are not liable as publishers for the content on their sites so long as they are not involved in the creation of the objectionable content.

Second, a newspaper is only liable for content it creates if it published the content with malice, a very high bar to liability.

Third, any lawyers "licking their chops" over anonymous posting on a Newspaper website had better go back to law school or learn to live hungry.
July 4th, 2010, 07:44 PM
gorja

What is odd is that the Amherst, Cheektowaga, Clarence, East Aurora, Ken-Ton, Orchard Park, and West Seneca bees allow online comment.
The lone soldier is the Lancaster/Depew bee. It's the Lancaster political machine pressuring for censorship.
July 6th, 2010, 01:36 PM
therising

This has absolutely nothing to do with censorship, or free speech.

The Buffalo News is now saying that they'll require people to post by their real name. How does that impede free speech? How is that censorship?
Back in the "old days" before the internet, letters to the Editor were always published with a name.

I'm not sure that the News is handling this correctly - but if you've ever read the comments on their site, I think you'll agree that something had to be done.
July 7th, 2010, 10:19 PM
therising

Quote:

Originally Posted by therising

This has absolutely nothing to do with censorship, or free speech.

The Buffalo News is now saying that they'll require people to post by their real name. How does that impede free speech? How is that censorship?
Back in the "old days" before the internet, letters to the Editor were always published with a name.

I'm not sure that the News is handling this correctly - but if you've ever read the comments on their site, I think you'll agree that something had to be done.

As usual, therising, you make an excellent point. And, it looks like no one has bothered to respond. I guess their silence is just their way of saying that you're right. :)
July 8th, 2010, 02:29 AM
Effigy

Quote:

Originally Posted by therising

As usual, therising, you make an excellent point. And, it looks like no one has bothered to respond. I guess their silence is just their way of saying that you're right. :)

Only Bringthetruth can answer his own posts. Bzzzt! Fail.
July 8th, 2010, 02:30 AM
Effigy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Effigy

Only Bringthetruth can answer his own posts. Bzzzt! Fail.

Oh and besides err, oops!
July 8th, 2010, 05:47 AM
gorja

Quote:

Originally posted by therising:
This has absolutely nothing to do with censorship, or free speech.

The Buffalo News is now saying that they'll require people to post by their real name. How does that impede free speech? How is that censorship?
Back in the "old days" before the internet, letters to the Editor were always published with a name.

I'm not sure that the News is handling this correctly - but if you've ever read the comments on their site, I think you'll agree that something had to be done.

Quote:

Posted by therising:
As usual, therising, you make an excellent point. And, it looks like no one has bothered to respond. I guess their silence is just their way of saying that you're right. :)

Rising, you are right. Actually, I think the Buffalo News is doing the right thing. I think the Lancaster/Depew Bee is looking for more "Letters to the Editor" in ceasing their online posting.
July 8th, 2010, 11:50 AM
Riven37

!

Impedes on your privacy rights under privacy laws.

"NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT'S TO FORCE AN AMERICAN TO USE THEIR REAL NAME, IF THEY DO WE'RE LIVING IN TERNARY." BY RIVEN37
July 8th, 2010, 01:24 PM
therising

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riven37

Impedes on your privacy rights under privacy laws.

"NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT'S TO FORCE AN AMERICAN TO USE THEIR REAL NAME, IF THEY DO WE'RE LIVING IN TERNARY." BY RIVEN37

First of all, you're a smarter than me, because I have no idea what TERNARY is.

Secondly -- no one is being forced to post on the News website. Therefore, no one is being forced to use their real name.

Finally, your whole theory of NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT'S TO FORCE AN AMERICAN TO USE THEIR REAL NAME is pure idiocy.
You just bought a new motorcycle, right? Did you divulge your name when you registered it? If you financed it, did the bank FORCE you into divulging your name.
July 8th, 2010, 05:33 PM
gshowell

Quote:

Originally Posted by therising

First of all, you're a smarter than me, because I have no idea what TERNARY is.

Secondly -- no one is being forced to post on the News website. Therefore, no one is being forced to use their real name.

Finally, your whole theory of NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT'S TO FORCE AN AMERICAN TO USE THEIR REAL NAME is pure idiocy.
You just bought a new motorcycle, right? Did you divulge your name when you registered it? If you financed it, did the bank FORCE you into divulging your name.

They couldn't possible force him to give his name when he financed and/or registered his cycle. That would be TERNARY!