TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77 wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:Interestingly, a court (SCOTUS?) said the media does not have any responsibility to tell the truth, just like the police don't have any responsibility to protect us.

I remember something about that now that you mention it. I don't remember how the ruling was worded, but I think from the legal standpoint I'd modify the term "any responsibility" either to "any requirement" or "any legal responsibility" to tell the truth. In other words there can be a higher standard for conduct than the minimum standard set by the law. For instance, I don't lie to the people I care about: it's irrelevant to me that lying is "legal." I was speaking to a moral obligation that is obviously an object of contempt and derision for the liars, hypocrites, and all around scoundrels who populate our media. From the legal standpoint I have to agree with the court: making it a legal requirement for the media to tell the truth would create much worse problems than tolerating their lies.

I edited my above post while you were typing. I agree with you.

Interestingly, a court (SCOTUS?) said the media does not have any responsibility to tell the truth, just like the police don't have any responsibility to protect us.

Edited because I was bothered that I didn't have a reference for the above statement and wasn't sure what exactly was said, so I went and looked it up.

Here's what I remember reading in numerous news outlets:
"In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States. ... [F]ive major media outlets [...] filed briefs of Amici Curiae- or friend of FOX – to support FOX’s position: Belo Corporation, Cox Television, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc., Media General Operations, Inc., and Post-Newsweek Stations, Inc."

And here'shere's what I discovered today:
"It is clear from the evidence presented here that FOX did not argue, as claimed by several of its critics, that it had a First Amendment [right] to lie in its news reports. It's also plain that the Florida courts did not rule that FOX and other broadcasters had such a right."

The FCC has a policy prohibiting false, distorted, or slanted news stories and is able to fine stations that do not comply. There is not a rule, law, or statute that I am aware of that requires news organizations to be honest in their stories.

However, I was correct about the police not having a responsibility to protect individual citizens: SCOTUS No 04-278 Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v Jessica Gonzales

Grog wrote:

baldeagle wrote:
Our rights don't come from the state of Texas. They come from God.

What if someone does not believe in God? Who do they get their rights from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

baldeagle wrote:Our rights don't come from the state of Texas. They come from God. The state of Texas at least recognizes our rights and doesn't punish us for exercising them or attempt to take them away from us. Other countries do.

As far as bad guys "needin' killing'", I absolutely believe in that. Two words; Kenneth MacDuff. (If you're not familiar with MacDuff, Google him.) Two more; Adolf Hitler. If ever a man needed killin', it was Kenneth MacDuff. Some men forfeit their right to life due to their evil deeds. We should not feel badly about their lives being taken, either by an honest citizen or by the state, because they have earned it. I feel bad when innocent lives are taken. I feel good when evil ones are. The world is a better place when evil men are killed.

Human beings have an inherent dignity by virtue of being made in the image and likeness of God and of being endowed with a spiritual and immortal soul. This gives human being inalienable rights that are distinct from those of the animals or the rest of creation. By inalienable, it means the person or another can not ever do anything which would allow one to deny these rights. The right to life, the right to protect oneself from attack, the right to ordinary life-saving care, the right to food and water, and so on.

Our country's history and philosophy also grants us a number of civil rights. The right to keep and bear arms, the right to vote for our leader, and so on. These civil rights are what make us Americans, but not what make us human. Other countries have monarchies, have different weapons, and so on but those laws must also be in accordance with our human rights. It is sad how many are not both inside and outside the USA.

Because all humans, even those who choose evil, are made in the image and likeness of God and endowed with a spiritual and immortal soul, it is overwhelmingly sad when they die in situations that could have been avoided and caused needless death and destruction. The responsibility rests fully with the person who brought it on himself, and in some situations is shared by those who were responsible for the person making the decision to do wrong, and it isn't at all wrong for a person to protect himself even unto the death of an attacker. It is still sad that things had to go the way they did. Ask nearly any person who justifiably killed another, either on a battlefield or closer to home, and I'm sure you'll hear about the grief and sadness they've had to face unless they've faced so much that it still consumes them and they can't talk about it at all, as many of our veterans live with on a daily basis. Death, even justifiable death, is never something to revel in.