Wow you just totally libelled that kid. The cop could have been helping fix the bike or just checking it. But now the kid will be thought of as a thief in the court of public opinion.
Two things Charles - one - if the kid is a thief you've just violated the Youth Criminal Justice Act and you might want to take the photo down before you end up in court again.
And two, if the kid isn't a thief you're ruining his reputation. If you're going to play like you're a real journalist, you're going to have to learn the rules or you'll find out the hard way when someone gets around to hauling you in court. Again.
They're right Charles, just because you can't see the face means nothing, you could still 'recognize' the person. As for the headline, that's true as well, if you have a picture of a politician kissing a baby with a headline "Hmmmmmmmm????? Possible Pedophile?????" Well, that's libel, and of course in court a person would simply say that Charles has a regular habit of putting question marks even where there is no question, so that's that.
It's not being touchy and don't assume every poster who criticizes thinks badly of you-far from it. If it's 'the people's blog' then you've got to take the critics serious. And if you want to be taken seriously, you have to learn the responsibility that comes with blogging. Some thought has to go into it, it can't be just point and click and type and 'send it out'. You're in enough trouble, you don't need more.
That's part of the problem Charles. You 'don't see what the big deal is'. The above points are quite clear. Once that picture gets circulated around the net people will have that person picked out in no time.
Try to see the 'big deal' and you'll be a better blogger for it. Otherwise.....do we start calling you Charles Irving?:)
I don't think Charles ever said he wanted to be a journalist. Ever since the inception of this blog, all Charles has ever done is report events and happenings through his own eyes and point of view. Libel or not, there is a thing in this country called free speech, and IMHO, Charles is just exercising this right. If that is the gut feeling he had when he observed that incident, then so be it. I don't see anywhere where this has damaged anybody's reputation? By you stating this anon, you must be clearly speculating as I don't see you in the picture, so how would you know either way?
Charles had national exposure in stories about getting bloggers into the press gallery, and it might have happened if he hadn't been arrested and banned. Clearly that is wanting to be considered a journalist. Perhaps he would be completely incapable of being objective, and that would be ruled out. We don't know. We do know that bad blogging with 'gut reactions' certainly won't give him any credibility, and while there are many posters here who are no fans of Charles I am not one of them. Charles is in enough trouble, the last thing he needs is more.
Gut reactions mean nothing. Charles isn't 'free' to walk past somebody's house and take pictures of the inside. And as the poster above states, photographing youth offenders is illegal. As also said above, his 'gut reaction' could be that a politician is a pedophile just because he kissed a baby. Such things are obviously ridiculous, and we are posting here because we don't want Charles appearing ridiculous.
Bloggers have been prosecuted and sued before, and if a complaint were launched by somebody with Google, Charles could well have his account cut off, and if that happened, then its likely other internet providers would refuse to host his site. He'd have 'free speech', but nobody would allow him to use it on the web.
That's serious stuff, all for the sake of asking a dumb question on an incident he knows nothing about. It would be easy enough to walk up to the police officer and ask if that is actually what happened, but do libel a kid as a thief just because he was talking to a cop is pretty bad blogging, and certainly isn't good journalism.
I don't like to speculate either, anon. But when I was a kid, I had a very friendly policemen put my bike in the trunk and drive me home after I had a flat tire.
From what I gather from my experience, the policemen never required a police notepad and pen and never flipped the bike [with two working wheels] over to check the serial number. I will not make any allegations based on photos, but I'm with Charles, it seems a little schetchy to me.
9 comments:
Wow you just totally libelled that kid. The cop could have been helping fix the bike or just checking it. But now the kid will be thought of as a thief in the court of public opinion.
Two things Charles - one - if the kid is a thief you've just violated the Youth Criminal Justice Act and you might want to take the photo down before you end up in court again.
And two, if the kid isn't a thief you're ruining his reputation. If you're going to play like you're a real journalist, you're going to have to learn the rules or you'll find out the hard way when someone gets around to hauling you in court. Again.
Gotta agree with 8:37am on this one.
Did I say the kid stole the bike???
No!!!
The kid might have been driving a bike he bought that was stolen?
You can't see his face anyway.
Some people are just too darn touchy!!!!
They're right Charles, just because you can't see the face means nothing, you could still 'recognize' the person. As for the headline, that's true as well, if you have a picture of a politician kissing a baby with a headline "Hmmmmmmmm????? Possible Pedophile?????" Well, that's libel, and of course in court a person would simply say that Charles has a regular habit of putting question marks even where there is no question, so that's that.
It's not being touchy and don't assume every poster who criticizes thinks badly of you-far from it. If it's 'the people's blog' then you've got to take the critics serious. And if you want to be taken seriously, you have to learn the responsibility that comes with blogging. Some thought has to go into it, it can't be just point and click and type and 'send it out'. You're in enough trouble, you don't need more.
Hey??? If I'm in the wrong? I'll remove the darn blog. But I still say that you can't see his face so really what's the big deal anyway?
That's part of the problem Charles. You 'don't see what the big deal is'. The above points are quite clear. Once that picture gets circulated around the net people will have that person picked out in no time.
Try to see the 'big deal' and you'll be a better blogger for it. Otherwise.....do we start calling you Charles Irving?:)
I don't think Charles ever said he wanted to be a journalist. Ever since the inception of this blog, all Charles has ever done is report events and happenings through his own eyes and point of view. Libel or not, there is a thing in this country called free speech, and IMHO, Charles is just exercising this right. If that is the gut feeling he had when he observed that incident, then so be it. I don't see anywhere where this has damaged anybody's reputation? By you stating this anon, you must be clearly speculating as I don't see you in the picture, so how would you know either way?
Are you clairvoyant?
Charles had national exposure in stories about getting bloggers into the press gallery, and it might have happened if he hadn't been arrested and banned. Clearly that is wanting to be considered a journalist. Perhaps he would be completely incapable of being objective, and that would be ruled out. We don't know. We do know that bad blogging with 'gut reactions' certainly won't give him any credibility, and while there are many posters here who are no fans of Charles I am not one of them. Charles is in enough trouble, the last thing he needs is more.
Gut reactions mean nothing. Charles isn't 'free' to walk past somebody's house and take pictures of the inside. And as the poster above states, photographing youth offenders is illegal. As also said above, his 'gut reaction' could be that a politician is a pedophile just because he kissed a baby. Such things are obviously ridiculous, and we are posting here because we don't want Charles appearing ridiculous.
Bloggers have been prosecuted and sued before, and if a complaint were launched by somebody with Google, Charles could well have his account cut off, and if that happened, then its likely other internet providers would refuse to host his site. He'd have 'free speech', but nobody would allow him to use it on the web.
That's serious stuff, all for the sake of asking a dumb question on an incident he knows nothing about. It would be easy enough to walk up to the police officer and ask if that is actually what happened, but do libel a kid as a thief just because he was talking to a cop is pretty bad blogging, and certainly isn't good journalism.
I don't like to speculate either, anon. But when I was a kid, I had a very friendly policemen put my bike in the trunk and drive me home after I had a flat tire.
From what I gather from my experience, the policemen never required a police notepad and pen and never flipped the bike [with two working wheels] over to check the serial number. I will not make any allegations based on photos, but I'm with Charles, it seems a little schetchy to me.
Post a Comment