Comments on: Round 2 Of GUARDIAN “De-listed” by Boise PD

By: Kappa TA

Kappa TA — Thu, 23 Dec 2010 01:42:13 +0000

pollypinks:

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law “respecting an establishment of religion”, impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances — Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia.

*Press conferences are by their very nature “attention getters” to sway public opinion.

Sticking with the Bill of Rights and the Boise Guardian on this issue. There was no crime. The “punishment” of withholding press releases and information was inappropriate, immature and totally unprofessional.

I’d make a better spokesperson, and I’m highly qualified! Besides, I always give a thumbs up to good firefighters as they roar by on their way to save someone or something for miniscule pay while upper echelon types hold press conferences. (Oh, sorry if I tried to get attention here — we all do, if we want to remain competitive!)

KTA

By: pollypinks

pollypinks — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 22:12:46 +0000

While I normally agree with Dave on most issues, what I find interesting is that he continues to do things in a manner guaranteed to create chaos. Bringing signs seems a norm for him. Kinda like oober evangelical women standing on State Streeet outside Central District Health, as though their pictures will bring people to their religion. For this to happen repeatedly tells me Dave enjoys this kind of attention, for, if he didn’t, he’d act like the other reporters on every scene.

EDITOR NOTE–Diane, it still rankles me that I called the Fire Chief PRIOR to attending the press conference by the river and he agreed that we would work together and I would donate the signs…it went south from there, but the offer of the signs was no surprise to the FD and the sole intent was to make the river safe.

By: dog

dog — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 19:38:59 +0000

Thanks Rod in SE, I’d be less hurt if Artianis called my comment Jamokish but moronic??? Wonder if he even knows what I was talking about?

By: Rod in SE Boise

Rod in SE Boise — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 22:09:30 +0000

Zippo,

At least we can agree on the “rightful demonization of large internet providers”.

Given a choice between control of the internet by the government or by big business, I would choose the government. But of course the best solution in no control of the internet.

By: Nan Emouse

Nan Emouse — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 12:44:26 +0000

The “journalist” list fails to mention Emily Simnitt, former intrepid gal reporter at the Statesman, who is now the go to mouthpiece for Idaho Health & Welfare. When not responding to Statesman inquiries, Simnitt provides the local radio stations with scintillating pieces on why we should reduce our salt intake.

Yepper – all that “jounalist” training comes in handy when it’s time to tell the hicks how to live their lives through government edicts – or to tell us what government wants us to hear.

By: Zippo

Zippo — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 16:49:45 +0000

RSEB, Editor, The catchy title “Net Neutrality” and the rightful demonization of large internet providers is the bait for a another bait and switch legislative package that further erodes our freedoms and gives internet content controls to the government which would make the old Soviet Politburo envious. “Badly misinformed” is a statement made by a Kool-Aid drinker and propagandist. Even our dear Queen Nancy recently said “you have to pass it first to see what’s in it”. Now that it is law, we are all eagerly and fearfully waiting to find out what is in it. This is not leadership of the people by the people or for the people.

By: Rod in SE Boise

Rod in SE Boise — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 03:00:52 +0000

Dog’s analogy is right on.

By: Rod in SE Boise

Rod in SE Boise — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 02:59:39 +0000

Zippo,

You are badly misinformed. The “powers that be” on the federal level are NOT trying to control the internet. They are trying to keep Verizon and Google from controling the internet for their own profit. It’s called net neutrality and it is critical to the future of equality and freedom of speech on the internet.

EDITOR NOTE–Correct. Some see it as WHO exactly will control the internet, but we sure as heck don’t want those you mention grabbing control.

By: Zippo

Zippo — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 02:56:14 +0000

Lynn, you’re all wet. You merely have your finger in the small leak while it floods all around you. Freedom of information is one of the most unstoppable forces on this planet. Being a former news reporter; you of all people should know that. Perhaps you are just following orders.

By: Zippo

Zippo — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 02:48:39 +0000

Dave, it’s not you; It’s that you provide a place for the citizen to voice things the government has always been able to ignore until now. The political campaign directors and government lawyers are now dealing one on one with “Joe the Plumber” and really don’t like it. This is why the powers that be on the federal level want to control the internet. It might be ACLU time Dave; as much as I dislike that bunch of liberal crazies, they like this kind of fight.