Media Corruption: Sacramento Bee Pulls Story/Photos of Looters to Protect Criminals' Identities

[BTR1701]

So a bunch of thugs went wild in Sacramento and looted and torched
multiple businesses and the the newspaper reported on it. Apparently
this upset the looters and thugs because it helped identify who they
were. So the local grievance group complained to the newspaper, which
pulled down the story and the photos to please them rather tell them
them to pound sand, which is what a news organization should do when
someone tries to censor them.

The story included surveillance photographs of people suspected
of vandalizing stores in downtown Sacramento following a night
of protests against police brutality.

Members of the community asked that the story-- and the
photographs-- be removed from our website the next day and we
did so. We apologize for the harm that publishing those photos
may have caused.

The harm they caused? The harm?!?!

The *harm* was the innocent store owners who were stolen from and had
their livelihoods destroyed by animals. But now we're apologizing to the
animals for harming *them* by showing them committing the crimes.

This sad excuse for a newspaper also says they will no longer use the
word 'looter' or 'looting' because it's racist. It's not, of course,
that's simply a lie-- anyone of any race can and has looted-- but since
in the most recent cases, it was black people doing the looting, the
word must now be declared racist so that critics of this lawless
behavior can be silenced from talking about it under threat of being
declared raaaaccciiiist.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article244097082.html

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701
So a bunch of thugs went wild in Sacramento and looted and torched
multiple businesses and the the newspaper reported on it. Apparently
this upset the looters and thugs because it helped identify who they
were. So the local grievance group complained to the newspaper, which
pulled down the story and the photos to please them rather tell them
them to pound sand, which is what a news organization should do when
someone tries to censor them.
The story included surveillance photographs of people suspected
of vandalizing stores in downtown Sacramento following a night
of protests against police brutality.
Members of the community asked that the story-- and the
photographs-- be removed from our website the next day and we
did so. We apologize for the harm that publishing those photos
may have caused.
The harm they caused? The harm?!?!
The *harm* was the innocent store owners who were stolen from and had
their livelihoods destroyed by animals. But now we're apologizing to the
animals for harming *them* by showing them committing the crimes.
This sad excuse for a newspaper also says they will no longer use the
word 'looter' or 'looting' because it's racist. It's not, of course,
that's simply a lie-- anyone of any race can and has looted-- but since
in the most recent cases, it was black people doing the looting, the
word must now be declared racist so that critics of this lawless
behavior can be silenced from talking about it under threat of being
declared raaaaccciiiist.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article244097082.html

Here's a tip: stay away from newspapers named after insects.

Idiot.

[FPP]

Post by trotsky

Post by BTR1701
So a bunch of thugs went wild in Sacramento and looted and torched
multiple businesses and the the newspaper reported on it. Apparently
this upset the looters and thugs because it helped identify who they
were. So the local grievance group complained to the newspaper, which
pulled down the story and the photos to please them rather tell them
them to pound sand, which is what a news organization should do when
someone tries to censor them.
     The story included surveillance photographs of people suspected
     of vandalizing stores in downtown Sacramento following a night
     of protests against police brutality.
     Members of the community asked that the story-- and the
     photographs-- be removed from our website the next day and we
     did so. We apologize for the harm that publishing those photos
     may have caused.
The harm they caused? The harm?!?!
The *harm* was the innocent store owners who were stolen from and had
their livelihoods destroyed by animals. But now we're apologizing to the
animals for harming *them* by showing them committing the crimes.
This sad excuse for a newspaper also says they will no longer use the
word 'looter' or 'looting' because it's racist. It's not, of course,
that's simply a lie-- anyone of any race can and has looted-- but since
in the most recent cases, it was black people doing the looting, the
word must now be declared racist so that critics of this lawless
behavior can be silenced from talking about it under threat of being
declared raaaaccciiiist.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article244097082.html

Here's a tip: stay away from newspapers named after insects.
Idiot.

Or just dress in camo and pretend you're a toy soldier.
--
History will show when Tyranny came to the streets of America, the 3%,
Militiamen and Gun Nuts, who like to dress up as GI Joe in tactical
gear, were nowhere to be seen.
But a bunch of Moms dressed in yellow, wearing bicycle helmets, stood
tall. - Rob Chappell

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20

[trotsky]

Post by FPP

Post by trotsky

Post by BTR1701
So a bunch of thugs went wild in Sacramento and looted and torched
multiple businesses and the the newspaper reported on it. Apparently
this upset the looters and thugs because it helped identify who they
were. So the local grievance group complained to the newspaper, which
pulled down the story and the photos to please them rather tell them
them to pound sand, which is what a news organization should do when
someone tries to censor them.
     The story included surveillance photographs of people suspected
     of vandalizing stores in downtown Sacramento following a night
     of protests against police brutality.
     Members of the community asked that the story-- and the
     photographs-- be removed from our website the next day and we
     did so. We apologize for the harm that publishing those photos
     may have caused.
The harm they caused? The harm?!?!
The *harm* was the innocent store owners who were stolen from and had
their livelihoods destroyed by animals. But now we're apologizing to the
animals for harming *them* by showing them committing the crimes.
This sad excuse for a newspaper also says they will no longer use the
word 'looter' or 'looting' because it's racist. It's not, of course,
that's simply a lie-- anyone of any race can and has looted-- but since
in the most recent cases, it was black people doing the looting, the
word must now be declared racist so that critics of this lawless
behavior can be silenced from talking about it under threat of being
declared raaaaccciiiist.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article244097082.html

Here's a tip: stay away from newspapers named after insects.
Idiot.

Or just dress in camo and pretend you're a toy soldier.

I think he did that his whole life until he was shit-canned.

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by BTR1701
So a bunch of thugs went wild in Sacramento and looted and torched
multiple businesses and the the newspaper reported on it. Apparently
this upset the looters and thugs because it helped identify who they
were. So the local grievance group complained to the newspaper, which
pulled down the story and the photos to please them rather tell them
them to pound sand, which is what a news organization should do when
someone tries to censor them.
The story included surveillance photographs of people suspected
of vandalizing stores in downtown Sacramento following a night
of protests against police brutality.
Members of the community asked that the story-- and the
photographs-- be removed from our website the next day and we
did so. We apologize for the harm that publishing those photos
may have caused.
The harm they caused? The harm?!?!
The *harm* was the innocent store owners who were stolen from and had
their livelihoods destroyed by animals. But now we're apologizing to the
animals for harming *them* by showing them committing the crimes.
This sad excuse for a newspaper also says they will no longer use the
word 'looter' or 'looting' because it's racist. It's not, of course,
that's simply a lie-- anyone of any race can and has looted-- but since
in the most recent cases, it was black people doing the looting, the
word must now be declared racist so that critics of this lawless
behavior can be silenced from talking about it under threat of being
declared raaaaccciiiist.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article244097082.html
Media Corruption

Wrong, pathological liar. It's called media FREEDOM.

[BTR1701]

Post by BTR1701
So a bunch of thugs went wild in Sacramento and looted and torched
multiple businesses and the the newspaper reported on it. Apparently
this upset the looters and thugs because it helped identify who they
were. So the local grievance group complained to the newspaper, which
pulled down the story and the photos to please them rather tell them
them to pound sand, which is what a news organization should do when
someone tries to censor them.
The story included surveillance photographs of people suspected
of vandalizing stores in downtown Sacramento following a night
of protests against police brutality.
Members of the community asked that the story-- and the
photographs-- be removed from our website the next day and we
did so. We apologize for the harm that publishing those photos
may have caused.
The harm they caused? The harm?!?!
The *harm* was the innocent store owners who were stolen from and had
their livelihoods destroyed by animals. But now we're apologizing to the
animals for harming *them* by showing them committing the crimes.
This sad excuse for a newspaper also says they will no longer use the
word 'looter' or 'looting' because it's racist. It's not, of course,
that's simply a lie-- anyone of any race can and has looted-- but since
in the most recent cases, it was black people doing the looting, the
word must now be declared racist so that critics of this lawless
behavior can be silenced from talking about it under threat of being
declared raaaaccciiiist.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article244097082.html
Media Corruption

Wrong, pathological liar. It's called media FREEDOM.

Only the Stupidest Human on Usenet would describe media organs doing the
will of criminal mobs as 'freedom'.

[FPP]

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701
So a bunch of thugs went wild in Sacramento and looted and torched
multiple businesses and the the newspaper reported on it. Apparently
this upset the looters and thugs because it helped identify who they
were. So the local grievance group complained to the newspaper, which
pulled down the story and the photos to please them rather tell them
them to pound sand, which is what a news organization should do when
someone tries to censor them.
The story included surveillance photographs of people suspected
of vandalizing stores in downtown Sacramento following a night
of protests against police brutality.
Members of the community asked that the story-- and the
photographs-- be removed from our website the next day and we
did so. We apologize for the harm that publishing those photos
may have caused.
The harm they caused? The harm?!?!
The *harm* was the innocent store owners who were stolen from and had
their livelihoods destroyed by animals. But now we're apologizing to the
animals for harming *them* by showing them committing the crimes.
This sad excuse for a newspaper also says they will no longer use the
word 'looter' or 'looting' because it's racist. It's not, of course,
that's simply a lie-- anyone of any race can and has looted-- but since
in the most recent cases, it was black people doing the looting, the
word must now be declared racist so that critics of this lawless
behavior can be silenced from talking about it under threat of being
declared raaaaccciiiist.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article244097082.html
Media Corruption

Wrong, pathological liar. It's called media FREEDOM.

Only the Stupidest Human on Usenet would describe media organs doing the
will of criminal mobs as 'freedom'.

The Trump administration calls it "Law and Order". The rest of us call
it a Police State.

And, hey! Still waiting for your comments on those cops slashing tires?
You never have talked about the 'harm' caused when the State commits
crimes, have you?
--
History will show when Tyranny came to the streets of America, the 3%,
Militiamen and Gun Nuts, who like to dress up as GI Joe in tactical
gear, were nowhere to be seen.
But a bunch of Moms dressed in yellow, wearing bicycle helmets, stood
tall. - Rob Chappell

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701
So a bunch of thugs went wild in Sacramento and looted and torched
multiple businesses and the the newspaper reported on it. Apparently
this upset the looters and thugs because it helped identify who they
were. So the local grievance group complained to the newspaper, which
pulled down the story and the photos to please them rather tell them
them to pound sand, which is what a news organization should do when
someone tries to censor them.
      The story included surveillance photographs of people suspected
      of vandalizing stores in downtown Sacramento following a night
      of protests against police brutality.
      Members of the community asked that the story-- and the
      photographs-- be removed from our website the next day and we
      did so. We apologize for the harm that publishing those photos
      may have caused.
The harm they caused? The harm?!?!
The *harm* was the innocent store owners who were stolen from and had
their livelihoods destroyed by animals. But now we're apologizing to the
animals for harming *them* by showing them committing the crimes.
This sad excuse for a newspaper also says they will no longer use the
word 'looter' or 'looting' because it's racist. It's not, of course,
that's simply a lie-- anyone of any race can and has looted-- but since
in the most recent cases, it was black people doing the looting, the
word must now be declared racist so that critics of this lawless
behavior can be silenced from talking about it under threat of being
declared raaaaccciiiist.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article244097082.html
Media Corruption

Wrong, pathological liar. It's called media FREEDOM.

Only the Stupidest Human on Usenet would describe media organs doing the
will of criminal mobs as 'freedom'.

The Trump administration calls it "Law and Order".  The rest of us call
it a Police State.
And, hey!  Still waiting for your comments on those cops slashing tires?
 You never have talked about the 'harm' caused when the State commits
crimes, have you?

He'd need to regrow some testicles to discuss the topic objectively.

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701
So a bunch of thugs went wild in Sacramento and looted and torched
multiple businesses and the the newspaper reported on it. Apparently
this upset the looters and thugs because it helped identify who they
were. So the local grievance group complained to the newspaper, which
pulled down the story and the photos to please them rather tell them
them to pound sand, which is what a news organization should do when
someone tries to censor them.
The story included surveillance photographs of people suspected
of vandalizing stores in downtown Sacramento following a night
of protests against police brutality.
Members of the community asked that the story-- and the
photographs-- be removed from our website the next day and we
did so. We apologize for the harm that publishing those photos
may have caused.
The harm they caused? The harm?!?!
The *harm* was the innocent store owners who were stolen from and had
their livelihoods destroyed by animals. But now we're apologizing to the
animals for harming *them* by showing them committing the crimes.
This sad excuse for a newspaper also says they will no longer use the
word 'looter' or 'looting' because it's racist. It's not, of course,
that's simply a lie-- anyone of any race can and has looted-- but since
in the most recent cases, it was black people doing the looting, the
word must now be declared racist so that critics of this lawless
behavior can be silenced from talking about it under threat of being
declared raaaaccciiiist.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article244097082.html
Media Corruption

Wrong, pathological liar. It's called media FREEDOM.

Only the Stupidest Human on Usenet would describe media organs

What does "media organs" mean?

[BTR1701]

Post by trotsky

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701
So a bunch of thugs went wild in Sacramento and looted and torched
multiple businesses and the the newspaper reported on it. Apparently
this upset the looters and thugs because it helped identify who they
were. So the local grievance group complained to the newspaper, which
pulled down the story and the photos to please them rather tell them
them to pound sand, which is what a news organization should do when
someone tries to censor them.
The story included surveillance photographs of people suspected
of vandalizing stores in downtown Sacramento following a night
of protests against police brutality.
Members of the community asked that the story-- and the
photographs-- be removed from our website the next day and we
did so. We apologize for the harm that publishing those photos
may have caused.
The harm they caused? The harm?!?!
The *harm* was the innocent store owners who were stolen from and had
their livelihoods destroyed by animals. But now we're apologizing to the
animals for harming *them* by showing them committing the crimes.
This sad excuse for a newspaper also says they will no longer use the
word 'looter' or 'looting' because it's racist. It's not, of course,
that's simply a lie-- anyone of any race can and has looted-- but since
in the most recent cases, it was black people doing the looting, the
word must now be declared racist so that critics of this lawless
behavior can be silenced from talking about it under threat of being
declared raaaaccciiiist.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article244097082.html
Media Corruption

Wrong, pathological liar. It's called media FREEDOM.

Only the Stupidest Human on Usenet would describe media organs

What does "media organs" mean?

Crack a book some time, Hutt, you pulsing horror.

Pay attention to definitions 3 and 4:

or'gan / noun

1 BODY PART
a part of the body, such as the heart or lungs, that has a particular
purpose the liver, heart, and other internal organs loss of blood flow
to his vital organs

Extra doses of the hormone caused the animals reproductive
organs to develop sooner than usual.

In Arizona, 480 people are waiting for organ transplants.
dying people who have agreed to be organ donors

2 MUSICAL INSTRUMENT
a) (also pipe organ) a large musical instrument used especially in
churches, with keys like a piano and large pipes that air passes through
to produce the sound
b) an electronic musical instrument that produces music similar to a
pipe organ, but that does not have pipes; an electronic organ

3 ORGANIZATION (formal) an organization that is part of, or works for, a
larger organization or group (organ of)

The courts are organs of government.
The decision-making organs.

4 NEWSPAPER/MAGAZINE (formal) a newspaper or magazine which gives
information, news etc for an organization or group (organ of)

The official news organ of the Communist Party.

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by trotsky

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701
So a bunch of thugs went wild in Sacramento and looted and torched
multiple businesses and the the newspaper reported on it. Apparently
this upset the looters and thugs because it helped identify who they
were. So the local grievance group complained to the newspaper, which
pulled down the story and the photos to please them rather tell them
them to pound sand, which is what a news organization should do when
someone tries to censor them.
The story included surveillance photographs of people suspected
of vandalizing stores in downtown Sacramento following a night
of protests against police brutality.
Members of the community asked that the story-- and the
photographs-- be removed from our website the next day and we
did so. We apologize for the harm that publishing those photos
may have caused.
The harm they caused? The harm?!?!
The *harm* was the innocent store owners who were stolen from and had
their livelihoods destroyed by animals. But now we're apologizing to the
animals for harming *them* by showing them committing the crimes.
This sad excuse for a newspaper also says they will no longer use the
word 'looter' or 'looting' because it's racist. It's not, of course,
that's simply a lie-- anyone of any race can and has looted-- but since
in the most recent cases, it was black people doing the looting, the
word must now be declared racist so that critics of this lawless
behavior can be silenced from talking about it under threat of being
declared raaaaccciiiist.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article244097082.html
Media Corruption

Wrong, pathological liar. It's called media FREEDOM.

Only the Stupidest Human on Usenet would describe media organs

What does "media organs" mean?

Crack a book some time, Hutt, you pulsing horror.
or'gan / noun
1 BODY PART
a part of the body, such as the heart or lungs, that has a particular
purpose the liver, heart, and other internal organs loss of blood flow
to his vital organs
Extra doses of the hormone caused the animals reproductive
organs to develop sooner than usual.
In Arizona, 480 people are waiting for organ transplants.
dying people who have agreed to be organ donors
2 MUSICAL INSTRUMENT
a) (also pipe organ) a large musical instrument used especially in
churches, with keys like a piano and large pipes that air passes through
to produce the sound
b) an electronic musical instrument that produces music similar to a
pipe organ, but that does not have pipes; an electronic organ
3 ORGANIZATION (formal) an organization that is part of, or works for, a
larger organization or group (organ of)
The courts are organs of government.
The decision-making organs.
4 NEWSPAPER/MAGAZINE (formal) a newspaper or magazine which gives
information, news etc for an organization or group (organ of)
The official news organ of the Communist Party.

I've lived in America for 56 of my 58 years and have never heard anyone
speak like that. And as you already know, I'm a pretty good student of
the language. So, sadly, the onus is on you, anus, to show that is in
any way part of the American vernacular. And be quick about it.

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701
So a bunch of thugs went wild in Sacramento and looted and torched
multiple businesses and the the newspaper reported on it. Apparently
this upset the looters and thugs because it helped identify who they
were. So the local grievance group complained to the newspaper, which
pulled down the story and the photos to please them rather tell them
them to pound sand, which is what a news organization should do when
someone tries to censor them.
The story included surveillance photographs of people suspected
of vandalizing stores in downtown Sacramento following a night
of protests against police brutality.
Members of the community asked that the story-- and the
photographs-- be removed from our website the next day and we
did so. We apologize for the harm that publishing those photos
may have caused.
The harm they caused? The harm?!?!
The *harm* was the innocent store owners who were stolen from and had
their livelihoods destroyed by animals. But now we're apologizing to the
animals for harming *them* by showing them committing the crimes.
This sad excuse for a newspaper also says they will no longer use the
word 'looter' or 'looting' because it's racist. It's not, of course,
that's simply a lie-- anyone of any race can and has looted-- but since
in the most recent cases, it was black people doing the looting, the
word must now be declared racist so that critics of this lawless
behavior can be silenced from talking about it under threat of being
declared raaaaccciiiist.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article244097082.html
Media Corruption

Wrong, pathological liar. It's called media FREEDOM.

Only the Stupidest Human on Usenet would describe media organs doing the
will of criminal mobs as 'freedom'.

You're just mad because media freedom wins again.

[RichA]

Post by BTR1701
So a bunch of thugs went wild in Sacramento and looted and torched
multiple businesses and the the newspaper reported on it. Apparently
this upset the looters and thugs because it helped identify who they
were. So the local grievance group complained to the newspaper, which
pulled down the story and the photos to please them rather tell them
them to pound sand, which is what a news organization should do when
someone tries to censor them.
The story included surveillance photographs of people suspected
of vandalizing stores in downtown Sacramento following a night
of protests against police brutality.
Members of the community asked that the story-- and the
photographs-- be removed from our website the next day and we
did so. We apologize for the harm that publishing those photos
may have caused.
The harm they caused? The harm?!?!
The *harm* was the innocent store owners who were stolen from and had
their livelihoods destroyed by animals. But now we're apologizing to the
animals for harming *them* by showing them committing the crimes.
This sad excuse for a newspaper also says they will no longer use the
word 'looter' or 'looting' because it's racist. It's not, of course,
that's simply a lie-- anyone of any race can and has looted-- but since
in the most recent cases, it was black people doing the looting, the
word must now be declared racist so that critics of this lawless
behavior can be silenced from talking about it under threat of being
declared raaaaccciiiist.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article244097082.html

It's becoming like England where thugs are protected to the exclusion of all else, because as we know, "society created them and their situation" therefore they aren't to blame.

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701
So a bunch of thugs went wild in Sacramento and looted and torched
multiple businesses and the the newspaper reported on it. Apparently
this upset the looters and thugs because it helped identify who they
were. So the local grievance group complained to the newspaper, which
pulled down the story and the photos to please them rather tell them
them to pound sand, which is what a news organization should do when
someone tries to censor them.
The story included surveillance photographs of people suspected
of vandalizing stores in downtown Sacramento following a night
of protests against police brutality.
Members of the community asked that the story-- and the
photographs-- be removed from our website the next day and we
did so. We apologize for the harm that publishing those photos
may have caused.
The harm they caused? The harm?!?!
The *harm* was the innocent store owners who were stolen from and had
their livelihoods destroyed by animals. But now we're apologizing to the
animals for harming *them* by showing them committing the crimes.
This sad excuse for a newspaper also says they will no longer use the
word 'looter' or 'looting' because it's racist. It's not, of course,
that's simply a lie-- anyone of any race can and has looted-- but since
in the most recent cases, it was black people doing the looting, the
word must now be declared racist so that critics of this lawless
behavior can be silenced from talking about it under threat of being
declared raaaaccciiiist.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article244097082.html

Yes, deprecating 'looter' as racist is racist. But withholding
photographs that imply criminality, pre-trial, seems correct.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
So a bunch of thugs went wild in Sacramento and looted and torched
multiple businesses and the the newspaper reported on it. Apparently
this upset the looters and thugs because it helped identify who they
were. So the local grievance group complained to the newspaper, which
pulled down the story and the photos to please them rather tell them
them to pound sand, which is what a news organization should do when
someone tries to censor them.
The story included surveillance photographs of people suspected
of vandalizing stores in downtown Sacramento following a night
of protests against police brutality.
Members of the community asked that the story-- and the
photographs-- be removed from our website the next day and we
did so. We apologize for the harm that publishing those photos
may have caused.
The harm they caused? The harm?!?!
The *harm* was the innocent store owners who were stolen from and had
their livelihoods destroyed by animals. But now we're apologizing to the
animals for harming *them* by showing them committing the crimes.
This sad excuse for a newspaper also says they will no longer use the
word 'looter' or 'looting' because it's racist. It's not, of course,
that's simply a lie-- anyone of any race can and has looted-- but since
in the most recent cases, it was black people doing the looting, the
word must now be declared racist so that critics of this lawless
behavior can be silenced from talking about it under threat of being
declared raaaaccciiiist.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article244097082.html

Yes, deprecating 'looter' as racist is racist. But withholding
photographs that imply criminality, pre-trial, seems correct.

And moviePig is in full-on asshole mode with his criminal assault upon
the English language.

That's not what "imply" means, you blithering idiot. A photograph taken
of the criminal committing a crime isn't an implication of any kind.
It's witnessing a crime in progress.

Also, in the free world, criminal trials take place AFTER the crime was
committed, not pre-crime. If the photojournalist took a picture of a
looting or vandalism or other criminal act while it was being committed
by the perpetrator, then of course the photograph was taken before the
trial. That would be a photograph taken during commission of a crime.

[moviePig]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
So a bunch of thugs went wild in Sacramento and looted and torched
multiple businesses and the the newspaper reported on it. Apparently
this upset the looters and thugs because it helped identify who they
were. So the local grievance group complained to the newspaper, which
pulled down the story and the photos to please them rather tell them
them to pound sand, which is what a news organization should do when
someone tries to censor them.
The story included surveillance photographs of people suspected
of vandalizing stores in downtown Sacramento following a night
of protests against police brutality.
Members of the community asked that the story-- and the
photographs-- be removed from our website the next day and we
did so. We apologize for the harm that publishing those photos
may have caused.
The harm they caused? The harm?!?!
The *harm* was the innocent store owners who were stolen from and had
their livelihoods destroyed by animals. But now we're apologizing to the
animals for harming *them* by showing them committing the crimes.
This sad excuse for a newspaper also says they will no longer use the
word 'looter' or 'looting' because it's racist. It's not, of course,
that's simply a lie-- anyone of any race can and has looted-- but since
in the most recent cases, it was black people doing the looting, the
word must now be declared racist so that critics of this lawless
behavior can be silenced from talking about it under threat of being
declared raaaaccciiiist.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article244097082.html

Yes, deprecating 'looter' as racist is racist. But withholding
photographs that imply criminality, pre-trial, seems correct.

And moviePig is in full-on asshole mode with his criminal assault upon
the English language.
That's not what "imply" means,

What isn't?

Post by Adam H. Kerman
you blithering idiot. ...

I hope do you wear a bib when you post this shit...

[FPP]

Post by moviePig

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by BTR1701
So a bunch of thugs went wild in Sacramento and looted and torched
multiple businesses and the the newspaper reported on it. Apparently
this upset the looters and thugs because it helped identify who they
were. So the local grievance group complained to the newspaper, which
pulled down the story and the photos to please them rather tell them
them to pound sand, which is what a news organization should do when
someone tries to censor them.
     The story included surveillance photographs of people suspected
     of vandalizing stores in downtown Sacramento following a night
     of protests against police brutality.
     Members of the community asked that the story-- and the
     photographs-- be removed from our website the next day and we
     did so. We apologize for the harm that publishing those photos
     may have caused.
The harm they caused? The harm?!?!
The *harm* was the innocent store owners who were stolen from and had
their livelihoods destroyed by animals. But now we're apologizing to the
animals for harming *them* by showing them committing the crimes.
This sad excuse for a newspaper also says they will no longer use the
word 'looter' or 'looting' because it's racist. It's not, of course,
that's simply a lie-- anyone of any race can and has looted-- but since
in the most recent cases, it was black people doing the looting, the
word must now be declared racist so that critics of this lawless
behavior can be silenced from talking about it under threat of being
declared raaaaccciiiist.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article244097082.html

Yes, deprecating 'looter' as racist is racist.  But withholding
photographs that imply criminality, pre-trial, seems correct.

And moviePig is in full-on asshole mode with his criminal assault upon
the English language.
That's not what "imply" means,

What isn't?

Post by Adam H. Kerman
you blithering idiot. ...

I hope do you wear a bib when you post this shit...

I kinda imagine him wearing a bib all the time... and clutching a
rattle, too.
--
History will show when Tyranny came to the streets of America, the 3%,
Militiamen and Gun Nuts, who like to dress up as GI Joe in tactical
gear, were nowhere to be seen.
But a bunch of Moms dressed in yellow, wearing bicycle helmets, stood
tall. - Rob Chappell

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20

[FPP]

Post by BTR1701
So a bunch of thugs went wild in Sacramento and looted and torched
multiple businesses and the the newspaper reported on it. Apparently
this upset the looters and thugs because it helped identify who they
were. So the local grievance group complained to the newspaper, which
pulled down the story and the photos to please them rather tell them
them to pound sand, which is what a news organization should do when
someone tries to censor them.
     The story included surveillance photographs of people suspected
     of vandalizing stores in downtown Sacramento following a night
     of protests against police brutality.
     Members of the community asked that the story-- and the
     photographs-- be removed from our website the next day and we
     did so. We apologize for the harm that publishing those photos
     may have caused.
The harm they caused? The harm?!?!
The *harm* was the innocent store owners who were stolen from and had
their livelihoods destroyed by animals. But now we're apologizing to the
animals for harming *them* by showing them committing the crimes.
This sad excuse for a newspaper also says they will no longer use the
word 'looter' or 'looting' because it's racist. It's not, of course,
that's simply a lie-- anyone of any race can and has looted-- but since
in the most recent cases, it was black people doing the looting, the
word must now be declared racist so that critics of this lawless
behavior can be silenced from talking about it under threat of being
declared raaaaccciiiist.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article244097082.html

Yes, deprecating 'looter' as racist is racist.  But withholding
photographs that imply criminality, pre-trial, seems correct.

Generally, this is where Thanny would jump in and scream 'due process!',
followed by the observation that they should be considered 'innocent
until proven guilty!'.

Then he'd blame them for doxxing private citizens - but only if it was
CNN reporting on it.
--
History will show when Tyranny came to the streets of America, the 3%,
Militiamen and Gun Nuts, who like to dress up as GI Joe in tactical
gear, were nowhere to be seen.
But a bunch of Moms dressed in yellow, wearing bicycle helmets, stood
tall. - Rob Chappell

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20

[BTR1701]

Post by BTR1701
So a bunch of thugs went wild in Sacramento and looted and torched
multiple businesses and the the newspaper reported on it. Apparently
this upset the looters and thugs because it helped identify who they
were. So the local grievance group complained to the newspaper, which
pulled down the story and the photos to please them rather tell them
them to pound sand, which is what a news organization should do when
someone tries to censor them.
The story included surveillance photographs of people suspected
of vandalizing stores in downtown Sacramento following a night
of protests against police brutality.
Members of the community asked that the story-- and the
photographs-- be removed from our website the next day and we
did so. We apologize for the harm that publishing those photos
may have caused.
The harm they caused? The harm?!?!
The *harm* was the innocent store owners who were stolen from and
had their livelihoods destroyed by animals. But now we're apologizing
to the animals for harming *them* by showing them committing the
crimes.
This sad excuse for a newspaper also says they will no longer use the
word 'looter' or 'looting' because it's racist. It's not, of course,
that's simply a lie-- anyone of any race can and has looted-- but
since in the most recent cases, it was black people doing the
looting, the word must now be declared racist so that critics of
this lawless behavior can be silenced from talking about it under
threat of being declared raaaaccciiiist.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article244097082.html

Yes, deprecating 'looter' as racist is racist. But withholding
photographs that imply criminality, pre-trial, seems correct.

It's absurd to say that the media shouldn't even report on-- they pulled
the whole story down, not just photographs, remember-- let alone show
pics and footage of crimes in progress just because the people who are
committing the crimes are stupid enough to be DOING IT ON CAMERA.

The presumption of innocence pertains to the burden of proof the state
must meet to take away a person's freedom or property. It has no
relevance to how the public at large must treat one another. Never in
the 200+ years of this country's existence has it been seriously
suggested that the media be gagged from pre-trial crime reporting, let
alone that media should gag itself.

Even OJ Simpson's most ardent supporters never claimed it was
inappropriate for the media to report on the story or cover his trial
pre-verdict.

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701
So a bunch of thugs went wild in Sacramento and looted and torched
multiple businesses and the the newspaper reported on it. Apparently
this upset the looters and thugs because it helped identify who they
were. So the local grievance group complained to the newspaper, which
pulled down the story and the photos to please them rather tell them
them to pound sand, which is what a news organization should do when
someone tries to censor them.
The story included surveillance photographs of people suspected
of vandalizing stores in downtown Sacramento following a night
of protests against police brutality.
Members of the community asked that the story-- and the
photographs-- be removed from our website the next day and we
did so. We apologize for the harm that publishing those photos
may have caused.
The harm they caused? The harm?!?!
The *harm* was the innocent store owners who were stolen from and
had their livelihoods destroyed by animals. But now we're apologizing
to the animals for harming *them* by showing them committing the
crimes.
This sad excuse for a newspaper also says they will no longer use the
word 'looter' or 'looting' because it's racist. It's not, of course,
that's simply a lie-- anyone of any race can and has looted-- but
since in the most recent cases, it was black people doing the
looting, the word must now be declared racist so that critics of
this lawless behavior can be silenced from talking about it under
threat of being declared raaaaccciiiist.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article244097082.html

Yes, deprecating 'looter' as racist is racist. But withholding
photographs that imply criminality, pre-trial, seems correct.

It's absurd to say that the media shouldn't even report on-- they pulled
the whole story down, not just photographs, remember-- let alone show
pics and footage of crimes in progress just because the people who are
committing the crimes are stupid enough to be DOING IT ON CAMERA.
The presumption of innocence pertains to the burden of proof the state
must meet to take away a person's freedom or property. It has no
relevance to how the public at large must treat one another. Never in
the 200+ years of this country's existence has it been seriously
suggested that the media be gagged from pre-trial crime reporting, let
alone that media should gag itself.
Even OJ Simpson's most ardent supporters never claimed it was
inappropriate for the media to report on the story or cover his trial
pre-verdict.

If I were ruling on it, I think I'd be asking (myself) whether the
photographs contain information that the public has a valid interest in,
beyond gawking. (And, I'm wondering why identities can't be masked.)

[BTR1701]

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701
So a bunch of thugs went wild in Sacramento and looted and torched
multiple businesses and the the newspaper reported on it. Apparently
this upset the looters and thugs because it helped identify who they
were. So the local grievance group complained to the newspaper, which
pulled down the story and the photos to please them rather tell them
them to pound sand, which is what a news organization should do when
someone tries to censor them.
The story included surveillance photographs of people suspected
of vandalizing stores in downtown Sacramento following a night
of protests against police brutality.
Members of the community asked that the story-- and the
photographs-- be removed from our website the next day and we
did so. We apologize for the harm that publishing those photos
may have caused.
The harm they caused? The harm?!?!
The *harm* was the innocent store owners who were stolen from and
had their livelihoods destroyed by animals. But now we're apologizing
to the animals for harming *them* by showing them committing the
crimes.
This sad excuse for a newspaper also says they will no longer use the
word 'looter' or 'looting' because it's racist. It's not, of course,
that's simply a lie-- anyone of any race can and has looted-- but
since in the most recent cases, it was black people doing the
looting, the word must now be declared racist so that critics of
this lawless behavior can be silenced from talking about it under
threat of being declared raaaaccciiiist.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article244097082.html

Yes, deprecating 'looter' as racist is racist. But withholding
photographs that imply criminality, pre-trial, seems correct.

It's absurd to say that the media shouldn't even report on-- they
pulled the whole story down, not just photographs, remember-- let
alone show pics and footage of crimes in progress just because
the people who are committing the crimes are stupid enough to be
DOING IT ON CAMERA.
The presumption of innocence pertains to the burden of proof the state
must meet to take away a person's freedom or property. It has no
relevance to how the public at large must treat one another. Never in
the 200+ years of this country's existence has it been seriously
suggested that the media be gagged from pre-trial crime reporting, let
alone that the media should gag itself.
Even OJ Simpson's most ardent supporters never claimed it was
inappropriate for the media to report on the story or cover his trial
pre-verdict.

If I were ruling on it, I think I'd be asking (myself) whether the
photographs contain information that the public has a valid interest in,
beyond gawking. (And, I'm wondering why identities can't be masked.)

Why should they be masked? If I have a picture of a shitbag hurling a
Molotov cocktail through a storefront, why should he be given the
courtesy of having his identity masked? If you don't want to be
plastered all over the news committing crime, there's a 100% effective
way of guaranteeing that never happens to you: don't go out and commit
crime. You choose to do that and you get whatever comes with it. It's
called consequences.

And regardless of the thug's criminal trial, it gives the INNOCENT store
owner a place to start to pursue a civil claim against the guy who
destroyed his property. Why aren't we more concerned about restitution
for the victim than worrying about how a criminal's picture in the paper
might make his life more difficult for him?

And yes, the public most certainly has an interest in a night of rioting
and lawlessness in their city, along with how the city government
responded (or purposely didn't respond, as the case may be).

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701
So a bunch of thugs went wild in Sacramento and looted and torched
multiple businesses and the the newspaper reported on it. Apparently
this upset the looters and thugs because it helped identify who they
were. So the local grievance group complained to the newspaper, which
pulled down the story and the photos to please them rather tell them
them to pound sand, which is what a news organization should do when
someone tries to censor them.
The story included surveillance photographs of people suspected
of vandalizing stores in downtown Sacramento following a night
of protests against police brutality.
Members of the community asked that the story-- and the
photographs-- be removed from our website the next day and we
did so. We apologize for the harm that publishing those photos
may have caused.
The harm they caused? The harm?!?!
The *harm* was the innocent store owners who were stolen from and
had their livelihoods destroyed by animals. But now we're apologizing
to the animals for harming *them* by showing them committing the
crimes.
This sad excuse for a newspaper also says they will no longer use the
word 'looter' or 'looting' because it's racist. It's not, of course,
that's simply a lie-- anyone of any race can and has looted-- but
since in the most recent cases, it was black people doing the
looting, the word must now be declared racist so that critics of
this lawless behavior can be silenced from talking about it under
threat of being declared raaaaccciiiist.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article244097082.html

Yes, deprecating 'looter' as racist is racist. But withholding
photographs that imply criminality, pre-trial, seems correct.

It's absurd to say that the media shouldn't even report on-- they
pulled the whole story down, not just photographs, remember-- let
alone show pics and footage of crimes in progress just because
the people who are committing the crimes are stupid enough to be
DOING IT ON CAMERA.
The presumption of innocence pertains to the burden of proof the state
must meet to take away a person's freedom or property. It has no
relevance to how the public at large must treat one another. Never in
the 200+ years of this country's existence has it been seriously
suggested that the media be gagged from pre-trial crime reporting, let
alone that the media should gag itself.
Even OJ Simpson's most ardent supporters never claimed it was
inappropriate for the media to report on the story or cover his trial
pre-verdict.

If I were ruling on it, I think I'd be asking (myself) whether the
photographs contain information that the public has a valid interest in,
beyond gawking. (And, I'm wondering why identities can't be masked.)

Why should they be masked? If I have a picture of a shitbag hurling a
Molotov cocktail through a storefront, why should he be given the
courtesy of having his identity masked? If you don't want to be
plastered all over the news committing crime, there's a 100% effective
way of guaranteeing that never happens to you: don't go out and commit
crime. You choose to do that and you get whatever comes with it. It's
called consequences.
And regardless of the thug's criminal trial, it gives the INNOCENT store
owner a place to start to pursue a civil claim against the guy who
destroyed his property. Why aren't we more concerned about restitution
for the victim than worrying about how a criminal's picture in the paper
might make his life more difficult for him?
And yes, the public most certainly has an interest in a night of rioting
and lawlessness in their city, along with how the city government
responded (or purposely didn't respond, as the case may be).

Okay, my view has to do with the difficulty of avoiding pre-judgement in
a jury (or judge) pool for a trial, and whether/when there's an
immediate public interest that overrides that. But, no, I can't get
behind the newspaper's stated reasoning, which indeed seems scary.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701
So a bunch of thugs went wild in Sacramento and looted and torched
multiple businesses and the the newspaper reported on it. Apparently
this upset the looters and thugs because it helped identify who they
were. So the local grievance group complained to the newspaper, which
pulled down the story and the photos to please them rather tell them
them to pound sand, which is what a news organization should do when
someone tries to censor them.
The story included surveillance photographs of people suspected
of vandalizing stores in downtown Sacramento following a night
of protests against police brutality.
Members of the community asked that the story-- and the
photographs-- be removed from our website the next day and we
did so. We apologize for the harm that publishing those photos
may have caused.
The harm they caused? The harm?!?!
The *harm* was the innocent store owners who were stolen from and
had their livelihoods destroyed by animals. But now we're apologizing
to the animals for harming *them* by showing them committing the
crimes.
This sad excuse for a newspaper also says they will no longer use the
word 'looter' or 'looting' because it's racist. It's not, of course,
that's simply a lie-- anyone of any race can and has looted-- but
since in the most recent cases, it was black people doing the
looting, the word must now be declared racist so that critics of
this lawless behavior can be silenced from talking about it under
threat of being declared raaaaccciiiist.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article244097082.html

Yes, deprecating 'looter' as racist is racist. But withholding
photographs that imply criminality, pre-trial, seems correct.

It's absurd to say that the media shouldn't even report on-- they
pulled the whole story down, not just photographs, remember-- let
alone show pics and footage of crimes in progress just because
the people who are committing the crimes are stupid enough to be
DOING IT ON CAMERA.
The presumption of innocence pertains to the burden of proof the state
must meet to take away a person's freedom or property. It has no
relevance to how the public at large must treat one another. Never in
the 200+ years of this country's existence has it been seriously
suggested that the media be gagged from pre-trial crime reporting, let
alone that the media should gag itself.
Even OJ Simpson's most ardent supporters never claimed it was
inappropriate for the media to report on the story or cover his trial
pre-verdict.

If I were ruling on it, I think I'd be asking (myself) whether the
photographs contain information that the public has a valid interest in,
beyond gawking. (And, I'm wondering why identities can't be masked.)

Why should they be masked? If I have a picture of a shitbag hurling a
Molotov cocktail through a storefront, why should he be given the
courtesy of having his identity masked? If you don't want to be
plastered all over the news committing crime, there's a 100% effective
way of guaranteeing that never happens to you: don't go out and commit
crime. You choose to do that and you get whatever comes with it. It's
called consequences.
And regardless of the thug's criminal trial, it gives the INNOCENT store
owner a place to start to pursue a civil claim against the guy who
destroyed his property. Why aren't we more concerned about restitution
for the victim than worrying about how a criminal's picture in the paper
might make his life more difficult for him?
And yes, the public most certainly has an interest in a night of rioting
and lawlessness in their city, along with how the city government
responded (or purposely didn't respond, as the case may be).

Okay, my view has to do with the difficulty of avoiding pre-judgement in
a jury (or judge) pool for a trial, and whether/when there's an
immediate public interest that overrides that. But, no, I can't get
behind the newspaper's stated reasoning, which indeed seems scary.

No, you're lying. This is crap you just came up with yesterday to
justify your pro-censorship position. It never bothered you earlier that
newspapers write about crime and show pictures of criminals, any of
which could have influenced opinions of a potential jury pool.

Maybe there should have been no newspaper coverage of Watergate.

Maybe the Pentagon Papers shouldn't have been published, given their
potential to influence opinion.

Do you even understand the role of a newspaper in society? It's supposed
to point out problems that elected officials are ignoring, like sucking
up to the so-called George Floyd protestors, calling everybody peaceful,
while ignoring massive amounts of ordinary crime taking place that
couldn't have possibly been caused by police brutality.

And when a newspaper actually has a photographer on scene while genuine
news is taking place and takes a photograph illustrating what's going
on, you don't condemn them and question whether the public should be
interested in widespread crime taking place. You buy a copy to show
support because they're doing their job.

[moviePig]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701
So a bunch of thugs went wild in Sacramento and looted and torched
multiple businesses and the the newspaper reported on it. Apparently
this upset the looters and thugs because it helped identify who they
were. So the local grievance group complained to the newspaper, which
pulled down the story and the photos to please them rather tell them
them to pound sand, which is what a news organization should do when
someone tries to censor them.
The story included surveillance photographs of people suspected
of vandalizing stores in downtown Sacramento following a night
of protests against police brutality.
Members of the community asked that the story-- and the
photographs-- be removed from our website the next day and we
did so. We apologize for the harm that publishing those photos
may have caused.
The harm they caused? The harm?!?!
The *harm* was the innocent store owners who were stolen from and
had their livelihoods destroyed by animals. But now we're apologizing
to the animals for harming *them* by showing them committing the
crimes.
This sad excuse for a newspaper also says they will no longer use the
word 'looter' or 'looting' because it's racist. It's not, of course,
that's simply a lie-- anyone of any race can and has looted-- but
since in the most recent cases, it was black people doing the
looting, the word must now be declared racist so that critics of
this lawless behavior can be silenced from talking about it under
threat of being declared raaaaccciiiist.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article244097082.html

Yes, deprecating 'looter' as racist is racist. But withholding
photographs that imply criminality, pre-trial, seems correct.

It's absurd to say that the media shouldn't even report on-- they
pulled the whole story down, not just photographs, remember-- let
alone show pics and footage of crimes in progress just because
the people who are committing the crimes are stupid enough to be
DOING IT ON CAMERA.
The presumption of innocence pertains to the burden of proof the state
must meet to take away a person's freedom or property. It has no
relevance to how the public at large must treat one another. Never in
the 200+ years of this country's existence has it been seriously
suggested that the media be gagged from pre-trial crime reporting, let
alone that the media should gag itself.
Even OJ Simpson's most ardent supporters never claimed it was
inappropriate for the media to report on the story or cover his trial
pre-verdict.

If I were ruling on it, I think I'd be asking (myself) whether the
photographs contain information that the public has a valid interest in,
beyond gawking. (And, I'm wondering why identities can't be masked.)

Why should they be masked? If I have a picture of a shitbag hurling a
Molotov cocktail through a storefront, why should he be given the
courtesy of having his identity masked? If you don't want to be
plastered all over the news committing crime, there's a 100% effective
way of guaranteeing that never happens to you: don't go out and commit
crime. You choose to do that and you get whatever comes with it. It's
called consequences.
And regardless of the thug's criminal trial, it gives the INNOCENT store
owner a place to start to pursue a civil claim against the guy who
destroyed his property. Why aren't we more concerned about restitution
for the victim than worrying about how a criminal's picture in the paper
might make his life more difficult for him?
And yes, the public most certainly has an interest in a night of rioting
and lawlessness in their city, along with how the city government
responded (or purposely didn't respond, as the case may be).

Okay, my view has to do with the difficulty of avoiding pre-judgement in
a jury (or judge) pool for a trial, and whether/when there's an
immediate public interest that overrides that. But, no, I can't get
behind the newspaper's stated reasoning, which indeed seems scary.

No, you're lying. This is crap you just came up with yesterday to
justify your pro-censorship position. It never bothered you earlier that
newspapers write about crime and show pictures of criminals, any of
which could have influenced opinions of a potential jury pool.

Before "yesterday", I hadn't even thought about it ...nor about
"looters" being racist. While saying I wasn't bothered by it may be
technically correct, it probably applies to everyone about lots of
things, so I wouldn't hurry to sew it into your battle flag.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Maybe there should have been no newspaper coverage of Watergate.

Maybe. Unless there was somehow an overriding public interest...

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Maybe the Pentagon Papers shouldn't have been published, given their
potential to influence opinion.

Maybe. Unless there was somehow an overriding public interest...

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Do you even understand the role of a newspaper in society? It's supposed
to point out problems that elected officials are ignoring, like sucking
up to the so-called George Floyd protestors, calling everybody peaceful,
while ignoring massive amounts of ordinary crime taking place that
couldn't have possibly been caused by police brutality.

Newspapers everywhere thank you for your impassioned definition.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
And when a newspaper actually has a photographer on scene while genuine
news is taking place and takes a photograph illustrating what's going
on, you don't condemn them and question whether the public should be
interested in widespread crime taking place. You buy a copy to show
support because they're doing their job.

An incendiary photo that provides no additional information other than
the possible identification of a suspect seems to me objectionably
prejudicial, especially when introduced via media frenzy.

[BTR1701]

Post by moviePig

Post by Adam H. Kerman
And when a newspaper actually has a photographer on scene while genuine
news is taking place and takes a photograph illustrating what's going
on, you don't condemn them and question whether the public should be
interested in widespread crime taking place. You buy a copy to show
support because they're doing their job.

An incendiary photo that provides no additional information other than
the possible identification of a suspect

The additional information was the entire fucking news article that
accompanied the photo, which was also taken down by the cowards running
this newspaper along with the photo.

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by Adam H. Kerman
And when a newspaper actually has a photographer on scene while genuine
news is taking place and takes a photograph illustrating what's going
on, you don't condemn them and question whether the public should be
interested in widespread crime taking place. You buy a copy to show
support because they're doing their job.

An incendiary photo that provides no additional information other than
the possible identification of a suspect

The additional information was the entire fucking news article that
accompanied the photo, which was also taken down by the cowards running
this newspaper along with the photo.

Yes, I admit I'm not seeing good things here about the Sacramento Bee.

[anim8rfsk]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by Adam H. Kerman
And when a newspaper actually has a photographer on scene while genuine
news is taking place and takes a photograph illustrating what's going
on, you don't condemn them and question whether the public should be
interested in widespread crime taking place. You buy a copy to show
support because they're doing their job.

An incendiary photo that provides no additional information other than
the possible identification of a suspect

The additional information was the entire fucking news article that
accompanied the photo, which was also taken down by the cowards running
this newspaper along with the photo.

And since when is identifying a suspect a bad thing?

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by Adam H. Kerman
And when a newspaper actually has a photographer on scene while genuine
news is taking place and takes a photograph illustrating what's going
on, you don't condemn them and question whether the public should be
interested in widespread crime taking place. You buy a copy to show
support because they're doing their job.

An incendiary photo that provides no additional information other than
the possible identification of a suspect

The additional information was the entire fucking news article that
accompanied the photo, which was also taken down by the cowards running
this newspaper along with the photo.

And since when is identifying a suspect a bad thing?

Because obtaining evidence is prejudicial. The judge might think the
prosecution made a prima facie case. The jury might find the evidence
compelling and convict.

[anim8rfsk]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by Adam H. Kerman
And when a newspaper actually has a photographer on scene while genuine
news is taking place and takes a photograph illustrating what's going
on, you don't condemn them and question whether the public should be
interested in widespread crime taking place. You buy a copy to show
support because they're doing their job.

An incendiary photo that provides no additional information other than
the possible identification of a suspect

The additional information was the entire fucking news article that
accompanied the photo, which was also taken down by the cowards running
this newspaper along with the photo.

And since when is identifying a suspect a bad thing?

Because obtaining evidence is prejudicial. The judge might think the
prosecution made a prima facie case. The jury might find the evidence
compelling and convict.

Gasp!

[BTR1701]

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by Adam H. Kerman
And when a newspaper actually has a photographer on scene while genuine
news is taking place and takes a photograph illustrating what's going
on, you don't condemn them and question whether the public should be
interested in widespread crime taking place. You buy a copy to show
support because they're doing their job.

An incendiary photo that provides no additional information other than
the possible identification of a suspect

The additional information was the entire fucking news article that
accompanied the photo, which was also taken down by the cowards running
this newspaper along with the photo.

And since when is identifying a suspect a bad thing?

Since 'progressive' leftism and critical race theory.

[FPP]

Post by BTR1701

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by Adam H. Kerman
And when a newspaper actually has a photographer on scene while genuine
news is taking place and takes a photograph illustrating what's going
on, you don't condemn them and question whether the public should be
interested in widespread crime taking place. You buy a copy to show
support because they're doing their job.

An incendiary photo that provides no additional information other than
the possible identification of a suspect

The additional information was the entire fucking news article that
accompanied the photo, which was also taken down by the cowards running
this newspaper along with the photo.

And since when is identifying a suspect a bad thing?

Since 'progressive' leftism and critical race theory.

Gee... when CNN only threatened to out someone's identity, you cried
like a little girl who skinned her knee.

And the perp apologized even for his transgression - and you wailed even
louder!
One would almost think somebody had pulled on your pigtails.
--
History will show when Tyranny came to the streets of America, the 3%,
Militiamen and Gun Nuts, who like to dress up as GI Joe in tactical
gear, were nowhere to be seen.
But a bunch of Moms dressed in yellow, wearing bicycle helmets, stood
tall. - Rob Chappell

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20

[BTR1701]

Post by FPP

Post by BTR1701

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by Adam H. Kerman
And when a newspaper actually has a photographer on scene while genuine
news is taking place and takes a photograph illustrating what's going
on, you don't condemn them and question whether the public should be
interested in widespread crime taking place. You buy a copy to show
support because they're doing their job.

An incendiary photo that provides no additional information other than
the possible identification of a suspect

The additional information was the entire fucking news article that
accompanied the photo, which was also taken down by the cowards running
this newspaper along with the photo.

And since when is identifying a suspect a bad thing?

Since 'progressive' leftism and critical race theory.

Gee... when CNN only threatened to out someone's identity, you cried
like a little girl who skinned her knee.
And the perp apologized even for his transgression

He wasn't a 'perp', dipshit. He didn't commit any criminal act. He just
made fun of CNN.

[FPP]

Post by BTR1701

Post by FPP

Post by BTR1701

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by Adam H. Kerman
And when a newspaper actually has a photographer on scene while genuine
news is taking place and takes a photograph illustrating what's going
on, you don't condemn them and question whether the public should be
interested in widespread crime taking place. You buy a copy to show
support because they're doing their job.

An incendiary photo that provides no additional information other than
the possible identification of a suspect

The additional information was the entire fucking news article that
accompanied the photo, which was also taken down by the cowards running
this newspaper along with the photo.

And since when is identifying a suspect a bad thing?

Since 'progressive' leftism and critical race theory.

Gee... when CNN only threatened to out someone's identity, you cried
like a little girl who skinned her knee.
And the perp apologized even for his transgression

He wasn't a 'perp', dipshit. He didn't commit any criminal act. He just
made fun of CNN.

Sorry, counselor. Wrong again. There's that shitty LIMITED reading
comprehension again!

Definition of perp
: a perpetrator especially of a crime
: US slang : a person who commits a crime or does something wrong

"or does something wrong"... Did you get that part? Because the guy
apologizing to CNN indicates HE thinks HE did 'something wrong'.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perp

Fuck, I don't BELIEVE I have to tell a supposed loyer what words mean!
--
History will show when Tyranny came to the streets of America, the 3%,
Militiamen and Gun Nuts, who like to dress up as GI Joe in tactical
gear, were nowhere to be seen.
But a bunch of Moms dressed in yellow, wearing bicycle helmets, stood
tall. - Rob Chappell

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by FPP

Post by BTR1701

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by Adam H. Kerman
And when a newspaper actually has a photographer on scene while genuine
news is taking place and takes a photograph illustrating what's going
on, you don't condemn them and question whether the public should be
interested in widespread crime taking place. You buy a copy to show
support because they're doing their job.

An incendiary photo that provides no additional information other than
the possible identification of a suspect

The additional information was the entire fucking news article that
accompanied the photo, which was also taken down by the cowards running
this newspaper along with the photo.

And since when is identifying a suspect a bad thing?

Since 'progressive' leftism and critical race theory.

Gee... when CNN only threatened to out someone's identity, you cried
like a little girl who skinned her knee.
And the perp apologized even for his transgression

He wasn't a 'perp', dipshit. He didn't commit any criminal act. He just
made fun of CNN.

Sorry, counselor.  Wrong again.  There's that shitty LIMITED reading
comprehension again!
Definition of perp
: a perpetrator especially of a crime
: US slang : a person who commits a crime or does something wrong
"or does something wrong"...  Did you get that part?  Because the guy
apologizing to CNN indicates HE thinks HE did 'something wrong'.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perp
Fuck, I don't BELIEVE I have to tell a supposed loyer what words mean!

Why do you always fall for this? He's just redirecting because you
nailed his ass to the wall as usual.

[FPP]

Post by BTR1701

Post by FPP

Post by BTR1701

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by Adam H. Kerman
And when a newspaper actually has a photographer on scene while genuine
news is taking place and takes a photograph illustrating what's going
on, you don't condemn them and question whether the public should be
interested in widespread crime taking place. You buy a copy to show
support because they're doing their job.

An incendiary photo that provides no additional information other than
the possible identification of a suspect

The additional information was the entire fucking news article that
accompanied the photo, which was also taken down by the cowards running
this newspaper along with the photo.

And since when is identifying a suspect a bad thing?

Since 'progressive' leftism and critical race theory.

Gee... when CNN only threatened to out someone's identity, you cried
like a little girl who skinned her knee.
And the perp apologized even for his transgression

He wasn't a 'perp', dipshit. He didn't commit any criminal act. He just
made fun of CNN.

Sorry, counselor.  Wrong again.  There's that shitty LIMITED reading
comprehension again!
Definition of perp
: a perpetrator especially of a crime
: US slang : a person who commits a crime or does something wrong
"or does something wrong"...  Did you get that part?  Because the guy
apologizing to CNN indicates HE thinks HE did 'something wrong'.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perp
Fuck, I don't BELIEVE I have to tell a supposed loyer what words mean!

Why do you always fall for this?  He's just redirecting because you
nailed his ass to the wall as usual.

You can't go wrong with more nails...
--
History will show when Tyranny came to the streets of America, the 3%,
Militiamen and Gun Nuts, who like to dress up as GI Joe in tactical
gear, were nowhere to be seen.
But a bunch of Moms dressed in yellow, wearing bicycle helmets, stood
tall. - Rob Chappell

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20

[Ed Stasiak]

Post by FPP
FPP
Gee... when CNN only threatened to out someone's identity,
you cried like a little girl who skinned her knee.
And the perp apologized even for his transgression

So now posting a meme about a mega-bazillion dollar Wall Street
media corporation makes one a “perp” requiring an “apology” for
the “transgression” of what, hurting their feelings?

Post by FPP
Because the guy apologizing to CNN indicates HE thinks HE did
’something wrong'.

He was forced to apologize because a mega-bazillion dollar Wall
Street media corporation threatened to dox him, releasing his
personal info into the wilds of the Internet, potentially putting
his very life at risk.

Something you gleefully cheered on...

[FPP]

Post by Ed Stasiak

Post by FPP
FPP
Gee... when CNN only threatened to out someone's identity,
you cried like a little girl who skinned her knee.
And the perp apologized even for his transgression

So now posting a meme about a mega-bazillion dollar Wall Street
media corporation makes one a “perp” requiring an “apology” for
the “transgression” of what, hurting their feelings?

Post by FPP
Because the guy apologizing to CNN indicates HE thinks HE did
’something wrong'.

He was forced to apologize because a mega-bazillion dollar Wall
Street media corporation threatened to dox him, releasing his
personal info into the wilds of the Internet, potentially putting
his very life at risk.
Something you gleefully cheered on...

Yup. It's called accountability. No freedom in the Constitution from
it, Ed.
--
History will show when Tyranny came to the streets of America, the 3%,
Militiamen and Gun Nuts, who like to dress up as GI Joe in tactical
gear, were nowhere to be seen.
But a bunch of Moms dressed in yellow, wearing bicycle helmets, stood
tall. - Rob Chappell

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by FPP

Post by BTR1701

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by Adam H. Kerman
And when a newspaper actually has a photographer on scene while genuine
news is taking place and takes a photograph illustrating what's going
on, you don't condemn them and question whether the public should be
interested in widespread crime taking place. You buy a copy to show
support because they're doing their job.

An incendiary photo that provides no additional information other than
the possible identification of a suspect

The additional information was the entire fucking news article that
accompanied the photo, which was also taken down by the cowards running
this newspaper along with the photo.

And since when is identifying a suspect a bad thing?

Since 'progressive' leftism and critical race theory.

Gee... when CNN only threatened to out someone's identity, you cried
like a little girl who skinned her knee.
And the perp apologized even for his transgression

He wasn't a 'perp', dipshit. He didn't commit any criminal act. He just
made fun of CNN.

You don't understand what the word "perpetrator" means either, or are
you just running interference again because FPP has you dead to rights
and you lack the fucking balls to own up to it?

[trotsky]

Post by FPP

Post by BTR1701

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by Adam H. Kerman
And when a newspaper actually has a photographer on scene while genuine
news is taking place and takes a photograph illustrating what's going
on, you don't condemn them and question whether the public should be
interested in widespread crime taking place. You buy a copy to show
support because they're doing their job.

An incendiary photo that provides no additional information other than
the possible identification of a suspect

The additional information was the entire fucking news article that
accompanied the photo, which was also taken down by the cowards running
this newspaper along with the photo.

And since when is identifying a suspect a bad thing?

Since 'progressive' leftism and critical race theory.

Gee... when CNN only threatened to out someone's identity, you cried
like a little girl who skinned her knee.
And the perp apologized even for his transgression - and you wailed even
louder!
One would almost think somebody had pulled on your pigtails.

They weren't pigtails they were pubes that Anim8r carefully braided.

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by Adam H. Kerman
And when a newspaper actually has a photographer on scene while genuine
news is taking place and takes a photograph illustrating what's going
on, you don't condemn them and question whether the public should be
interested in widespread crime taking place. You buy a copy to show
support because they're doing their job.

An incendiary photo that provides no additional information other than
the possible identification of a suspect

The additional information was the entire fucking news article that
accompanied the photo, which was also taken down by the cowards running
this newspaper along with the photo.

Fuck yeah, those B list newspapers aren't even trying to make the A
list!! If only they could be more like the NY Times, right?

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by moviePig

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701
So a bunch of thugs went wild in Sacramento and looted and torched
multiple businesses and the the newspaper reported on it. Apparently
this upset the looters and thugs because it helped identify who they
were. So the local grievance group complained to the newspaper, which
pulled down the story and the photos to please them rather tell them
them to pound sand, which is what a news organization should do when
someone tries to censor them.
The story included surveillance photographs of people suspected
of vandalizing stores in downtown Sacramento following a night
of protests against police brutality.
Members of the community asked that the story-- and the
photographs-- be removed from our website the next day and we
did so. We apologize for the harm that publishing those photos
may have caused.
The harm they caused? The harm?!?!
The *harm* was the innocent store owners who were stolen from and
had their livelihoods destroyed by animals. But now we're apologizing
to the animals for harming *them* by showing them committing the
crimes.
This sad excuse for a newspaper also says they will no longer use the
word 'looter' or 'looting' because it's racist. It's not, of course,
that's simply a lie-- anyone of any race can and has looted-- but
since in the most recent cases, it was black people doing the
looting, the word must now be declared racist so that critics of
this lawless behavior can be silenced from talking about it under
threat of being declared raaaaccciiiist.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article244097082.html

Yes, deprecating 'looter' as racist is racist. But withholding
photographs that imply criminality, pre-trial, seems correct.

It's absurd to say that the media shouldn't even report on-- they
pulled the whole story down, not just photographs, remember-- let
alone show pics and footage of crimes in progress just because
the people who are committing the crimes are stupid enough to be
DOING IT ON CAMERA.
The presumption of innocence pertains to the burden of proof the state
must meet to take away a person's freedom or property. It has no
relevance to how the public at large must treat one another. Never in
the 200+ years of this country's existence has it been seriously
suggested that the media be gagged from pre-trial crime reporting, let
alone that the media should gag itself.
Even OJ Simpson's most ardent supporters never claimed it was
inappropriate for the media to report on the story or cover his trial
pre-verdict.

If I were ruling on it, I think I'd be asking (myself) whether the
photographs contain information that the public has a valid interest in,
beyond gawking. (And, I'm wondering why identities can't be masked.)

Why should they be masked? If I have a picture of a shitbag hurling a
Molotov cocktail through a storefront, why should he be given the
courtesy of having his identity masked? If you don't want to be
plastered all over the news committing crime, there's a 100% effective
way of guaranteeing that never happens to you: don't go out and commit
crime. You choose to do that and you get whatever comes with it. It's
called consequences.
And regardless of the thug's criminal trial, it gives the INNOCENT store
owner a place to start to pursue a civil claim against the guy who
destroyed his property. Why aren't we more concerned about restitution
for the victim than worrying about how a criminal's picture in the paper
might make his life more difficult for him?
And yes, the public most certainly has an interest in a night of rioting
and lawlessness in their city, along with how the city government
responded (or purposely didn't respond, as the case may be).

Okay, my view has to do with the difficulty of avoiding pre-judgement in
a jury (or judge) pool for a trial, and whether/when there's an
immediate public interest that overrides that. But, no, I can't get
behind the newspaper's stated reasoning, which indeed seems scary.

No, you're lying. This is crap you just came up with yesterday to
justify your pro-censorship position. It never bothered you earlier that
newspapers write about crime and show pictures of criminals, any of
which could have influenced opinions of a potential jury pool.

Before "yesterday", I hadn't even thought about it

And yet we have a long history of you favoring censorship based on
different crap. This was merely the crap you came up with yesterday.

Post by moviePig
...nor about "looters" being racist.

Nice tangent, entirely irrelevant to your pro-censorship position.
moviePig couldn't help going into Usenet's Biggest Asshole mode what
with double quotes about "looters". No, moviePig, if someone is
photographed or videoed carrying goods out of a retail store that
weren't paid for is a looter. That is actual evidence that he committed
acts of looting.

This is actual English, a noncontroversial word use, regardless of
whether you question that someone caught looting is a looter.

Post by moviePig
While saying I wasn't bothered by it may be technically correct,

Then why the fuck are you arguing if I didn't get it wrong?

Post by moviePig
it probably applies to everyone about lots of things, so I wouldn't
hurry to sew it into your battle flag.

How does that excuse your pro-censorship un-American attitude, moviePig?
That doesn't make any sense especially the battle flag bit.

Post by moviePig

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Maybe there should have been no newspaper coverage of Watergate.

Maybe. Unless there was somehow an overriding public interest...

Where do I find in civil rights law that a criminal has a right to privacy
during commission of a crime and cannot have a photograph taken by a
newspaper published in said newspaper?

There was no public interest. Public confidence had to be maintained in
the federal government, that no one was failing to conduct criminal
investigations and that government personnel themselves weren't part of
a criminal conspiracy being directed from the Office of the President.

Post by moviePig

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Maybe the Pentagon Papers shouldn't have been published, given their
potential to influence opinion.

Maybe. Unless there was somehow an overriding public interest...

There wasn't any. The public interest was in maintaining public support
for the war. The public wasn't entitled to know that learned people
advising military questioned both policy, objectives, and tactics, that
there was no way to win the war as it was being fought, and no important
American interests were at stake.

Post by moviePig

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Do you even understand the role of a newspaper in society? It's supposed
to point out problems that elected officials are ignoring, like sucking
up to the so-called George Floyd protestors, calling everybody peaceful,
while ignoring massive amounts of ordinary crime taking place that
couldn't have possibly been caused by police brutality.

Newspapers everywhere thank you for your impassioned definition.

You should thank lexicographers everywhere for not getting angry enough
at your deliberate misuse of words to beat you to death.

That's not a "definition", you blithering idiot.

Post by moviePig

Post by Adam H. Kerman
And when a newspaper actually has a photographer on scene while genuine
news is taking place and takes a photograph illustrating what's going
on, you don't condemn them and question whether the public should be
interested in widespread crime taking place. You buy a copy to show
support because they're doing their job.

An incendiary photo that provides no additional information other than
the possible identification of a suspect seems to me objectionably
prejudicial, especially when introduced via media frenzy.

It documents that anyone going into areas in which widespread looting
was taking place would be able to witness looting, that using ordinary
observational skills, photographic evidence of crimes being committed
could be obtained and, therefore, crimes like this aren't impossible to
solve. It's evidence that even police offices patrolling on their
regular beats would have been able to catch criminals in the act of
committing crimes because they're being so very blatant about it.

It demonstrates that the mayor and city council and police had no actual
interest in arresting actual criminals committing actual crimes during
crime sprees, which might have brought the crime spree to an end much
much sooner.

Your legal theory is so specious, I predict that your next argument will
be that the prosecutor should be prevented from introducing evidence of
the crime as that would prejudice the jury to find that the facts do
indeed provide evidence of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's prejudicial!

[moviePig]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by moviePig

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701
So a bunch of thugs went wild in Sacramento and
looted and torched multiple businesses and the the
newspaper reported on it. Apparently this upset the
looters and thugs because it helped identify who
they were. So the local grievance group complained to
the newspaper, which pulled down the story and the
photos to please them rather tell them them to pound
sand, which is what a news organization should do
when someone tries to censor them.
The story included surveillance photographs of people
suspected of vandalizing stores in downtown
Sacramento following a night of protests against
police brutality.
Members of the community asked that the story-- and
the photographs-- be removed from our website the
next day and we did so. We apologize for the harm
that publishing those photos may have caused.
The harm they caused? The harm?!?!
The *harm* was the innocent store owners who were
stolen from and had their livelihoods destroyed by
animals. But now we're apologizing to the animals for
harming *them* by showing them committing the
crimes.
This sad excuse for a newspaper also says they will
no longer use the word 'looter' or 'looting' because
it's racist. It's not, of course, that's simply a
lie-- anyone of any race can and has looted-- but
since in the most recent cases, it was black people
doing the looting, the word must now be declared
racist so that critics of this lawless behavior can
be silenced from talking about it under threat of
being declared raaaaccciiiist.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article244097082.html

Yes, deprecating 'looter' as racist is racist. But
withholding photographs that imply criminality,
pre-trial, seems correct.

It's absurd to say that the media shouldn't even report
on-- they pulled the whole story down, not just
photographs, remember-- let alone show pics and footage
of crimes in progress just because the people who are
committing the crimes are stupid enough to be DOING IT ON
CAMERA.
The presumption of innocence pertains to the burden of
proof the state must meet to take away a person's freedom
or property. It has no relevance to how the public at
large must treat one another. Never in the 200+ years of
this country's existence has it been seriously suggested
that the media be gagged from pre-trial crime reporting,
let alone that the media should gag itself.
Even OJ Simpson's most ardent supporters never claimed it
was inappropriate for the media to report on the story or
cover his trial pre-verdict.

If I were ruling on it, I think I'd be asking (myself)
whether the photographs contain information that the public
has a valid interest in, beyond gawking. (And, I'm
wondering why identities can't be masked.)

Why should they be masked? If I have a picture of a shitbag
hurling a Molotov cocktail through a storefront, why should
he be given the courtesy of having his identity masked? If
you don't want to be plastered all over the news committing
crime, there's a 100% effective way of guaranteeing that
never happens to you: don't go out and commit crime. You
choose to do that and you get whatever comes with it. It's
called consequences.
And regardless of the thug's criminal trial, it gives the
INNOCENT store owner a place to start to pursue a civil claim
against the guy who destroyed his property. Why aren't we
more concerned about restitution for the victim than worrying
about how a criminal's picture in the paper might make his
life more difficult for him?
And yes, the public most certainly has an interest in a night
of rioting and lawlessness in their city, along with how the
city government responded (or purposely didn't respond, as
the case may be).

Okay, my view has to do with the difficulty of avoiding
pre-judgement in a jury (or judge) pool for a trial, and
whether/when there's an immediate public interest that
overrides that. But, no, I can't get behind the newspaper's
stated reasoning, which indeed seems scary.

No, you're lying. This is crap you just came up with yesterday
to justify your pro-censorship position. It never bothered you
earlier that newspapers write about crime and show pictures of
criminals, any of which could have influenced opinions of a
potential jury pool.

Before "yesterday", I hadn't even thought about it

And yet we have a long history of you favoring censorship based on
different crap. This was merely the crap you came up with yesterday.

Post by moviePig
...nor about "looters" being racist.

Nice tangent, entirely irrelevant to your pro-censorship position.
moviePig couldn't help going into Usenet's Biggest Asshole mode what
with double quotes about "looters". No, moviePig, if someone is
photographed or videoed carrying goods out of a retail store that
weren't paid for is a looter. That is actual evidence that he
committed acts of looting.
This is actual English, a noncontroversial word use, regardless of
whether you question that someone caught looting is a looter.

Post by moviePig
While saying I wasn't bothered by it may be technically correct,

Then why the fuck are you arguing if I didn't get it wrong?

Post by moviePig
it probably applies to everyone about lots of things, so I
wouldn't hurry to sew it into your battle flag.

How does that excuse your pro-censorship un-American attitude,
moviePig? That doesn't make any sense especially the battle flag
bit.

Post by moviePig

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Maybe there should have been no newspaper coverage of Watergate.

Maybe. Unless there was somehow an overriding public interest...

Where do I find in civil rights law that a criminal has a right to
privacy during commission of a crime and cannot have a photograph
taken by a newspaper published in said newspaper?
There was no public interest. Public confidence had to be maintained
in the federal government, that no one was failing to conduct
criminal investigations and that government personnel themselves
weren't part of a criminal conspiracy being directed from the Office
of the President.

Post by moviePig

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Maybe the Pentagon Papers shouldn't have been published, given
their potential to influence opinion.

Maybe. Unless there was somehow an overriding public interest...

There wasn't any. The public interest was in maintaining public
support for the war. The public wasn't entitled to know that learned
people advising military questioned both policy, objectives, and
tactics, that there was no way to win the war as it was being fought,
and no important American interests were at stake.

Post by moviePig

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Do you even understand the role of a newspaper in society? It's
supposed to point out problems that elected officials are
ignoring, like sucking up to the so-called George Floyd
protestors, calling everybody peaceful, while ignoring massive
amounts of ordinary crime taking place that couldn't have
possibly been caused by police brutality.

Newspapers everywhere thank you for your impassioned definition.

You should thank lexicographers everywhere for not getting angry
enough at your deliberate misuse of words to beat you to death.
That's not a "definition", you blithering idiot.

Post by moviePig

Post by Adam H. Kerman
And when a newspaper actually has a photographer on scene while
genuine news is taking place and takes a photograph illustrating
what's going on, you don't condemn them and question whether the
public should be interested in widespread crime taking place. You
buy a copy to show support because they're doing their job.

An incendiary photo that provides no additional information other
than the possible identification of a suspect seems to me
objectionably prejudicial, especially when introduced via media
frenzy.

It documents that anyone going into areas in which widespread
looting was taking place would be able to witness looting, that using
ordinary observational skills, photographic evidence of crimes being
committed could be obtained and, therefore, crimes like this aren't
impossible to solve. It's evidence that even police offices
patrolling on their regular beats would have been able to catch
criminals in the act of committing crimes because they're being so
very blatant about it.
It demonstrates that the mayor and city council and police had no
actual interest in arresting actual criminals committing actual
crimes during crime sprees, which might have brought the crime spree
to an end much much sooner.

Hmm, seems like that would all be 'additional information'...

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Your legal theory is so specious, I predict that your next argument
will be that the prosecutor should be prevented from introducing
evidence of the crime as that would prejudice the jury to find that
the facts do indeed provide evidence of guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt.
It's prejudicial!

Golly, how ever shall I become exonerated of your predictions...

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701
So a bunch of thugs went wild in Sacramento and looted and torched
multiple businesses and the the newspaper reported on it. Apparently
this upset the looters and thugs because it helped identify who they
were. So the local grievance group complained to the newspaper, which
pulled down the story and the photos to please them rather tell them
them to pound sand, which is what a news organization should do when
someone tries to censor them.
The story included surveillance photographs of people suspected
of vandalizing stores in downtown Sacramento following a night
of protests against police brutality.
Members of the community asked that the story-- and the
photographs-- be removed from our website the next day and we
did so. We apologize for the harm that publishing those photos
may have caused.
The harm they caused? The harm?!?!
The *harm* was the innocent store owners who were stolen from and
had their livelihoods destroyed by animals. But now we're apologizing
to the animals for harming *them* by showing them committing the
crimes.
This sad excuse for a newspaper also says they will no longer use the
word 'looter' or 'looting' because it's racist. It's not, of course,
that's simply a lie-- anyone of any race can and has looted-- but
since in the most recent cases, it was black people doing the
looting, the word must now be declared racist so that critics of
this lawless behavior can be silenced from talking about it under
threat of being declared raaaaccciiiist.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article244097082.html

Yes, deprecating 'looter' as racist is racist. But withholding
photographs that imply criminality, pre-trial, seems correct.

It's absurd to say that the media shouldn't even report on-- they pulled
the whole story down, not just photographs, remember-- let alone show
pics and footage of crimes in progress just because the people who are
committing the crimes are stupid enough to be DOING IT ON CAMERA.
The presumption of innocence pertains to the burden of proof the state
must meet to take away a person's freedom or property. It has no
relevance to how the public at large must treat one another. Never in
the 200+ years of this country's existence has it been seriously
suggested that the media be gagged from pre-trial crime reporting, let
alone that media should gag itself.
Even OJ Simpson's most ardent supporters never claimed it was
inappropriate for the media to report on the story or cover his trial
pre-verdict.

If I were ruling on it, I think I'd be asking (myself) whether the
photographs contain information that the public has a valid interest in,
beyond gawking. (And, I'm wondering why identities can't be masked.)

The journalist is a witness to history. In this case, he's a witness to
crimes in progress. It's news.

Who the fuck asked you to rule on it? We just don't have prior restraint
against the press in this country, as you've been told 200 times
already. But you weren't listening. There's just no ruling to make, no
way to take a newspaper into court.

I have no idea why you think newspapers shouldn't report on crimes in
progress when they just happen to be there, but then, you've just made
yourself into Usenet's biggest asshole.

[moviePig]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701
So a bunch of thugs went wild in Sacramento and looted and torched
multiple businesses and the the newspaper reported on it. Apparently
this upset the looters and thugs because it helped identify who they
were. So the local grievance group complained to the newspaper, which
pulled down the story and the photos to please them rather tell them
them to pound sand, which is what a news organization should do when
someone tries to censor them.
The story included surveillance photographs of people suspected
of vandalizing stores in downtown Sacramento following a night
of protests against police brutality.
Members of the community asked that the story-- and the
photographs-- be removed from our website the next day and we
did so. We apologize for the harm that publishing those photos
may have caused.
The harm they caused? The harm?!?!
The *harm* was the innocent store owners who were stolen from and
had their livelihoods destroyed by animals. But now we're apologizing
to the animals for harming *them* by showing them committing the
crimes.
This sad excuse for a newspaper also says they will no longer use the
word 'looter' or 'looting' because it's racist. It's not, of course,
that's simply a lie-- anyone of any race can and has looted-- but
since in the most recent cases, it was black people doing the
looting, the word must now be declared racist so that critics of
this lawless behavior can be silenced from talking about it under
threat of being declared raaaaccciiiist.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article244097082.html

Yes, deprecating 'looter' as racist is racist. But withholding
photographs that imply criminality, pre-trial, seems correct.

It's absurd to say that the media shouldn't even report on-- they pulled
the whole story down, not just photographs, remember-- let alone show
pics and footage of crimes in progress just because the people who are
committing the crimes are stupid enough to be DOING IT ON CAMERA.
The presumption of innocence pertains to the burden of proof the state
must meet to take away a person's freedom or property. It has no
relevance to how the public at large must treat one another. Never in
the 200+ years of this country's existence has it been seriously
suggested that the media be gagged from pre-trial crime reporting, let
alone that media should gag itself.
Even OJ Simpson's most ardent supporters never claimed it was
inappropriate for the media to report on the story or cover his trial
pre-verdict.

If I were ruling on it, I think I'd be asking (myself) whether the
photographs contain information that the public has a valid interest in,
beyond gawking. (And, I'm wondering why identities can't be masked.)

The journalist is a witness to history. In this case, he's a witness to
crimes in progress. It's news.
Who the fuck asked you to rule on it? ...

Here we see the pathological, poleaxed by the hypothetical...

[Rhino]

Post by BTR1701
So a bunch of thugs went wild in Sacramento and looted and torched
multiple businesses and the the newspaper reported on it. Apparently
this upset the looters and thugs because it helped identify who they
were. So the local grievance group complained to the newspaper, which
pulled down the story and the photos to please them rather tell them
them to pound sand, which is what a news organization should do when
someone tries to censor them.
The story included surveillance photographs of people suspected
of vandalizing stores in downtown Sacramento following a night
of protests against police brutality.
Members of the community asked that the story-- and the
photographs-- be removed from our website the next day and we
did so. We apologize for the harm that publishing those photos
may have caused.
The harm they caused? The harm?!?!
The *harm* was the innocent store owners who were stolen from and had
their livelihoods destroyed by animals. But now we're apologizing to the
animals for harming *them* by showing them committing the crimes.
This sad excuse for a newspaper also says they will no longer use the
word 'looter' or 'looting' because it's racist. It's not, of course,
that's simply a lie-- anyone of any race can and has looted-- but since
in the most recent cases, it was black people doing the looting, the
word must now be declared racist so that critics of this lawless
behavior can be silenced from talking about it under threat of being
declared raaaaccciiiist.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article244097082.html

I hope the store owners are able to get a court order preserving the
photos and getting copies that they can use in launching suits against
the malefactors. That's assuming the prosecutors decline to prosecute as
so many blue state prosecutors seem to be doing.

Then again, maybe the police and prosecutors will actually use this
evidence to make some arrests, in other words do their friggin' jobs for
a change!

[FPP]

Post by Rhino

Post by BTR1701
So a bunch of thugs went wild in Sacramento and looted and torched
multiple businesses and the the newspaper reported on it. Apparently
this upset the looters and thugs because it helped identify who they
were. So the local grievance group complained to the newspaper, which
pulled down the story and the photos to please them rather tell them
them to pound sand, which is what a news organization should do when
someone tries to censor them.
     The story included surveillance photographs of people suspected
     of vandalizing stores in downtown Sacramento following a night
     of protests against police brutality.
     Members of the community asked that the story-- and the
     photographs-- be removed from our website the next day and we
     did so. We apologize for the harm that publishing those photos
     may have caused.
The harm they caused? The harm?!?!
The *harm* was the innocent store owners who were stolen from and had
their livelihoods destroyed by animals. But now we're apologizing to the
animals for harming *them* by showing them committing the crimes.
This sad excuse for a newspaper also says they will no longer use the
word 'looter' or 'looting' because it's racist. It's not, of course,
that's simply a lie-- anyone of any race can and has looted-- but since
in the most recent cases, it was black people doing the looting, the
word must now be declared racist so that critics of this lawless
behavior can be silenced from talking about it under threat of being
declared raaaaccciiiist.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article244097082.html

I hope the store owners are able to get a court order preserving the
photos and getting copies that they can use in launching suits against
the malefactors. That's assuming the prosecutors decline to prosecute as
so many blue state prosecutors seem to be doing.
Then again, maybe the police and prosecutors will actually use this
evidence to make some arrests, in other words do their friggin' jobs for
a change!

Sorry... they're too busy beating a bunch of moms to actually do their
jobs. I mean, when there aren't any black people to choke, or shoot in
the back.
--
History will show when Tyranny came to the streets of America, the 3%,
Militiamen and Gun Nuts, who like to dress up as GI Joe in tactical
gear, were nowhere to be seen.
But a bunch of Moms dressed in yellow, wearing bicycle helmets, stood
tall. - Rob Chappell

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by BTR1701
So a bunch of thugs went wild in Sacramento and looted and torched
multiple businesses and the the newspaper reported on it. Apparently
this upset the looters and thugs because it helped identify who they
were. So the local grievance group complained to the newspaper, which
pulled down the story and the photos to please them rather tell them
them to pound sand, which is what a news organization should do when
someone tries to censor them. . . .

From what I observe, they aren't just refusing to stand against
censorship of themselves, they're praising censors as they actively
censor public works of art.

[weary flake]

Post by BTR1701
So a bunch of thugs went wild in Sacramento and looted and torched
multiple businesses and the the newspaper reported on it. Apparently
this upset the looters and thugs because it helped identify who they
were. So the local grievance group complained to the newspaper, which
pulled down the story and the photos to please them rather tell them
them to pound sand, which is what a news organization should do when
someone tries to censor them.

Was the "offending article" printed in the newspaper?
Then the banned article may survive with anyone who kept
the printed issue. It's the web article that was censored.

And why are you assuming the Sac Bee was forced into this?
The Sac Bee management has been in favor of Black on White
violence for a long time, and just wanted a pretext for it's
readers so it could do what it wanted to do anyway.

Post by BTR1701
The story included surveillance photographs of people suspected
of vandalizing stores in downtown Sacramento following a night
of protests against police brutality.
Members of the community asked that the story-- and the
photographs-- be removed from our website the next day and we
did so. We apologize for the harm that publishing those photos
may have caused.
The harm they caused? The harm?!?!
The *harm* was the innocent store owners who were stolen from and had
their livelihoods destroyed by animals. But now we're apologizing to the
animals for harming *them* by showing them committing the crimes.
This sad excuse for a newspaper also says they will no longer use the
word 'looter' or 'looting' because it's racist. It's not, of course,
that's simply a lie-- anyone of any race can and has looted-- but since
in the most recent cases, it was black people doing the looting, the
word must now be declared racist so that critics of this lawless
behavior can be silenced from talking about it under threat of being
declared raaaaccciiiist.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article244097082.html