Comments on: New Wikipedia post rules

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:55:38 +0000

Considering this guy is a big wig in the traditional print media, we should first remember that his industry will suffer very badly as the world moves online.

Secondly, there is nothing defamatory about the deleted Wikipedia article.

Secondly point One - He could have removed it himself instead of complaining about it.

Thirdly, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG with people excercising their constitutional rights to free speech? Just because you don’t like what they say does not give you grounds for criticising the laws that allow them to say it.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 03:21:51 +0000

Seigenthaler is a waste of life, miserable failure, and a poor excuse for a journalist. In the USA Today article he writes how he went to great lengths to find the indentity of the person, because it upset him so much.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 02:48:01 +0000

To quote the wikipedia posting>
>>>
For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby.
<<<

IT’S FUCKING TRUE, he was THOUGHT to be involved. It DOES NOT say he WAS involved. THIS IS NOT ACTIONABLE, yet Seigenthaler wants to declare a thought-crime immediately. Imagine if he would have successfully identified the poster… not for a legitimate lawsuit, because there is nothing that could be sued for, but just to intimidate and harass.

I also like the parting shot at the first amendment and congress at the end. I guess this ass thinks critisizing an ‘elite’ such as himself should warrent the death penalty.

FUCK YOU JOHN SEIGENTHALER, in my constitutionally protected opinion you probably were involved.