It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

City of Paris to sue Fox News

page: 4
30
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Those of you saying the courts won't take this case seriously, can I point out that France has courts too. They haven't said in which country they will sue Fox.

If they sue Fox in a French court, there is no obligation for Fox to defend itself, since its an American company, but if it doesn't defend itself, it will be found guilty by default. Once guilty, a French court (or any other European court) could order their EU held assets seized (and Goggle shows me that Fox has quite sizeable EU based assets), until the case was settled properly.

Don't assume that an American company HAS to be sued in an American court. The plaintiff CAN actually sue them in their home country via their home countries legal system.




posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1


The 1st Amendment isn't a French law.

No, it's not


The State suing the press IS anti-American.

You were all bent out of shape about the State suing the press. It's France suing FOX news - you see this as working against free speech? Maybe it is, but it's not our own government restricting freedom of speech in our own country

Libel tourism

The Free Speech Protection Act of 2008 and 2009 were both bills aimed at addressing libel tourism by barring U.S. courts from enforcing libel judgments issued in foreign courts against U.S. residents, if the speech would not be libelous under American law. These protections were passed in the 2010 SPEECH Act which passed unanimously in both the House of Representatives and the Senate before being signed by US President Barack Obama on August 10, 2010.[17][18]


I have no idea what's actually possible under French law - in France. If this does work against the idea of free speech - won't this be interesting? :-)

For what it's worth Jamie1 - I think every single time freedom of speech is put to the test - just like this - it's a good thing. No matter what the outcome. If we say that some institutions are sacred, or protected in such a way that you absolutely can't question anything they say, that is also working against freedom of speech. There's a difference between prohibiting free speech and questioning things that have been said

Like I said - I have no idea how far this will go, but I will enjoy watching every bit of it no matter what
edit on 1/20/2015 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: pez1975

Fox News deserves to get sued by all the organizations and nations it spreads lies about as news. Hopefully more people do this.



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen


a reply to: crazyewok

A example is free speach does not give one the right to shout fire in a movie theater.


But what if there's really a fire?






Dont be pedantic you know exactly what I mean

If there really is a fire then its not a dangrous lie is it?



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 11:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: windword



I love when people point at Fox news and say look at the agenda they are pushing..........FOOLS. It is not Fox news agenda they are paid to push it for someone else. Just like CNN,MSNBC,CBS,PBS,BBC,ABC,WC.....etc.



These propaganda outlets are controlled by the very same corporations controlling the governments in many countries. So stop pointing at FOX and take a deeper harder look and find the real facts.


I don't have any argument against your opinion above. I'm just wondering why you're singling me out. I was the one who said that the Supreme Court is to blame. Fox News brought the case to SCOTUS. SCOTUS ruled that the media has the right to lie to the Public.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 12:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Anyafaj

Can the French comedian sue Paris for being charged over "free speech"?


Dieudonne has already been sued many times for using free speech- I doubt he can do much of anything.
Hypocrisy abounds.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 12:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

A example is free speach does not give one the right to shout fire in a movie theater.


That is basically what Charlie Hebdo has been doing though.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 12:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: crazyewok

A example is free speach does not give one the right to shout fire in a movie theater.


That is basically what Charlie Hebdo has been doing though.


How so?



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: thesaneone
We do, the general population is too lazy to read the ingredients of their "food", let alone research a story.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 01:01 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason
Yeah, like when newspapers correct their errors from a front page story, a few days later, on page 7 where it likely won't be noticed.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 01:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Bluesma
lol! How ironic! Right in the middle of their big proclamations about freedom of expression and of the press, with the Charlie Hebdo thing!



There is freedom of expression and then there is useing a media outlet to spred out right lies and bull crap.

Thats is why its a civil case not a criminal case.


If like if I went round spreding lies you were a pedo you could sue me for defamation.


Free speach does not mean the right to lie or make violent threats.

A example is free speach does not give one the right to shout fire in a movie theater.






Give it time, at the rate things are going, we are slowly devolving into that direction.




posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 01:04 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason

As I have explained in many threads now, we have a very volatile situation here, between the second and third generation arabs (the highest population of them in Europe, and growing).
They are the source of a huge criminal element, that is outside of the authorities ability to deal with.
Inside these zones, they rule, and the more peaceful, passive inhabitants, (including moderate muslims) live in fear of them, and their children feel pressured to join them in order to survive, even as they feel resentful that their own parents are victimized by them.

This makes it a prime fishing ground for extremist recruiters- give them an alternative choice. To become a fundamentalist muslim, and be a warrior of Allah. To not be part of the gangsters, and perhaps even take that power from them in the future. To take the power from all the gangsters, and the official authorities, and cleanse the world!

This is a very sensitive point- even for a parent, filled with anxiety at seeing their teen drawn into crime, or being inducted into extreme practice of your religion (which includes prohibition of drugs, alcohol, and thieving).
Between these two less-then-desirable choices, what would you end up supporting more?


They are in the balance.

Then, Charlie Hebdo decides to repeatedly provoke ALL muslims. Not terrorists, not extremists, but all of them, moderates and otherwise.

When the scale is in danger of tipping one way or another, they just push it over into the side of hostility and violence.
They have probably made a lot more extremists of a lot of non-threatening moderates.

Many sociologists studying the current culture in France claim a war is already underway here, but thanks to them, I think it will really break out in a worse way now.
edit on 21-1-2015 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 01:52 AM
link   
-Just to provide an update on how this conflict I refer to is being responded to by the french government-

Seeing as the recent events will most likely tip the arab youth into the muslim extremist groups,
they are attempting to woo them into the idea of joining the native french (instead of the caids, or the muslim terrorists).

Yesterday, Hollande announced that young people are invited to join civic service (openings for 150,000 young people) as volunteers. The benefit of social security coverage is being offered if they join. As it is, in order to get social security (healthcare coverage, etc.) you have to be employed.

They are hoping to get these problem youths to integrate- though at the same time, the terminology was denounced yesterday. We are no longer to use "integration", but to speak of being a "civilian". They are attempting to counter the immigrants opposition to integrating the traditional practices, culture, ethics, laicism). The new message is- you don't have to change and adapt to be part of the french society, in order to gain the protection of it.

Nice try... but I think it will fail. So far, the french authorities have shown to be pretty powerless. Who wants to join the losers??

Yesterday evening, the only thing on all the newschannels was live coverage of a Malian man who was awarded french nationality by the President. He was working under the table (as an illegal immigrant) at the Cacher deli when the hostages were taken, and hid some of the clients in a freezer, saving their lives. So he is being proclaimed a hero, and given a medal along with the nationality.

This is part of the same effort- he is muslim. The hope is to appease the moderate muslim community and pull them to the side of the french.

I doubt this will work, Charlie Hebdo yelled fire in this cinema, and people are too emotional to think much about anything .
edit on 21-1-2015 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 02:49 AM
link   
a reply to: pez1975

Yet they don't sue MSNBC for reporting wrong info on who was killed and who was involved?

Sounds political to me...

So free press is only allowed when it can be exploited? Rich coming from france.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 05:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: crazyewok

A example is free speach does not give one the right to shout fire in a movie theater.


That is basically what Charlie Hebdo has been doing though.


1 it was not a lie

2 it wasnot a threat of violence.


Therefore it does not meet those criteria.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 05:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: crazyewok

A example is free speach does not give one the right to shout fire in a movie theater.


That is basically what Charlie Hebdo has been doing though.


1 it was not a lie

2 it wasnot a threat of violence.


Therefore it does not meet those criteria.


Put it this way-

if, at the time of the "freedom fries", when relations were strained between the US and France,
if a group of french people went on TV and burned an American flag.... how do you think that would be seen and responded to? Do you imagine there might be any criticism of their right to do that?

It is not a lie, it would not be a threat of violence. It would be an incitement of violence though.

The situation here has gotten so hypocritical since this event!


In a message distributed to all French prosecutors and judges, the justice ministry laid out the legal basis for rounding up those who defended the Paris terror attacks as well as those responsible for racist or anti-Semitic words or acts.

The ministry said it was issuing the order to protect freedom of expression from comments that could incite violence or hatred. It said no one should be allowed to use their religion to justify hate speech.

The order warned authorities to be particularly attentive to any incidents that could lead to urban unrest or violence against police.

www.thenational.ae...

The actions of Charlie Hebdo fall directly into these catagories.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


Yet they don't sue MSNBC for reporting wrong info on who was killed and who was involved?

Sounds political to me...

There's a difference between getting a story wrong and deliberately lying. Putting information into a story on purpose and hoping people won't notice or call you on it isn't journalism, it's propaganda

Comparing the two and saying that they're the same thing is political



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Xcathdra


Yet they don't sue MSNBC for reporting wrong info on who was killed and who was involved?

Sounds political to me...

There's a difference between getting a story wrong and deliberately lying. Putting information into a story on purpose and hoping people won't notice or call you on it isn't journalism, it's propaganda

Comparing the two and saying that they're the same thing is political


Some people need to wake up.

IT IS ALL PROPAGANDA.
Here is CNN talking about no go zones 2 years ago.
They report what they are TOLD to.
Now CNN is ripping fox.
Do you REALLY think cnn producers forgot they ran that story??
It is ALL BS
But by all means, stay divided and angry about what THEY tell you. FFS



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: stosh64

We could quibble about this - that was a story about people attempting to impose Sharia in certain areas. Not the same as a story that states as fact that there are areas actually established in France with both the knowledge and permission of the French government

FOX news has destroyed politics in this country. I know that's a pretty strong statement to make

This country needs both it's conservatives and it's liberals. Fox has poisoned that well, and changed the nature of news - and intelligent debate - who knows for how long. The people who bring us the news have never been perfect - but there was a time when we could rely on certain things - all gone...

Real journalists, a genuine news agency might make a retraction if they get something wrong. FOX apologized for it's story - apologized! In a whiny, cowardly backpedaling way...

Real journalists stand by their stories, protect their sources, sometimes they'll even go to jail for their story

Obvious crap is obvious. I don't know that this French story will ever turn into anything more than an amusing thing to think about - but anything that will drag FOX news out into the bright light of day and humiliate them for all the world to see is OK by me

None of that interferes with their right to free speech



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   
I would not believe a thing Christiane Amanpour says...
In Somalia, she would not even assist when we asked her about the little yellow tractor in the background (when she was interviewing CWO Michael Durant). She wanted her interviews above his rescue.
The tiny road between the US Embassy and the 'university' was called 'sniper alley', but when she was in it not a shot was fired.
She wore a knitted multi-colored skull cap and smoked little twisted black cigars. Sitting next to her at the morning and evening UN briefings was a real chore because of her smell.
She was 100% Adeed's man!

There were other less than memorable things about her, but I will refrain from listing then as the liberal left wing on her will whine...




top topics



 
30
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join