Once again America sucks worst(after all the rest)

[Gonz]

Hasn't the there just been a ban on media filming and broadcasting the return of dead soldiers from Iraq in the US?

No. There has been a ban on filming returning GI's, dead or alive, since 1991 or so. It was in effect for the Gulf War, thru Clintons administration & recently, our unbiased media has begun reporting it as new.

It is in place to allow privacy & solice for the families involved in the military. It also, by chance, disallowd the media to use the footage as anti-war bias. (see Vietnam)

 

[Inkara1]

Is the Reuters you all speak of the same Reuters that likes to take some horrific stories of death and dismemberment and file them under "oddly enough"?

 

[HeXp£Øi±]

The same Reuters that refuses to use the word terrorist because some of their readers consider them freedom fighters?

 

[Puma]

Probably, but don't know exactly what you're talking about.

It's like flag burning because people have strong opinions about it. The actual law changes alot more than people's opinions, so I refer more to people's opinions than the law. It just so happens it's the law in UK to not diss the fake high class monarchs without their consent because they don't have the same kind of constitution, that is their constitution was more or less formed by those same monarchs and while it was changed greatly into a democracy the little rule about not dissing the monarchs was left as a historic reminder. Because sane people really don't care whether the prince is gay or not anyway.

 

[Bungi]

didnt they pass a law that doesnt allow flag burnign?

But if we change the constitution, we can make all kinds of crazy laws!

The Simpsons knows all

 

[Inkara1]

There's been talk of an anti-flag-burning amendment to the constitution for years. Getting an amendment to the constitution passed is a certified bitch, though, so I doubt it'll happen.

 

[ris]

I really don't see how you can possibly say that with a straight face. The socalled "prince" has ordered the media not to report a story and they haven't. I heard a gentlemen on msnbc state that he couldn't talk about it for fear of governmental action and i even heard Jay Leno apologizing for making cracks about the story. Why? Because he was afraid that his show would literally be taken off the air in the UK. This is freedom of the press? I'm sorry but nothing like this could happen in the United States.

i checked a few things about this with my missus who is a journo and took her legal exams with her company not all that long ago. she told me the royal family has no special priviledge as regards reporting and they can only stop stories through the normal legal channels.
the story to which you refer (allegations of impropriety toward prince charles) is currently embargoed after his solicitors achieved a court order banning publication of the unfounded accusations by the mail on sunday. private individuals also have the right to do the same, assuming they have the cash to get good enough briefs.

as i would understand it the reason why overseas shows would be concerned about making direct comment on this issue is that if broadcast or published in this country they would be breaking the terms of the court order. this has not stopped internet rumours doing the mill and it has brought up the thorny issue of how such broadcast can be dealt with under legal rulings.

in the event, little to do with the royal family's position, more to do with the wealth they have to buy good legal counsel.

 

[paul_valaru]

i checked a few things about this with my missus who is a journo and took her legal exams with her company not all that long ago. she told me the royal family has no special priviledge as regards reporting and they can only stop stories through the normal legal channels.
the story to which you refer (allegations of impropriety toward prince charles) is currently embargoed after his solicitors achieved a court order banning publication of the unfounded accusations by the mail on sunday. private individuals also have the right to do the same, assuming they have the cash to get good enough briefs.

as i would understand it the reason why overseas shows would be concerned about making direct comment on this issue is that if broadcast or published in this country they would be breaking the terms of the court order. this has not stopped internet rumours doing the mill and it has brought up the thorny issue of how such broadcast can be dealt with under legal rulings.

in the event, little to do with the royal family's position, more to do with the wealth they have to buy good legal counsel.

they have those in the states as well, referred to as a "gag" order. Perfectly legitimate when the case has embarrassing details that may not be true, but could still ruin a persons reputation.

 

[Inkara1]

A more common use of a gag order, though, is when something said to the press could harm the progress of the case and possibly prevent justice.