 | You are viewing ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} jerodast's journalLog in Create a LiveJournal Account Learn more | Explore LJ: Life Entertainment Music Culture News & Politics Technology |
From IMDB news...from all the celebrity news I follow, I consider paparazzi to be the scum of the earth (you don't expect people to get pissed off when you make it your job to be perpetually annoying and invade privacy? Really?). But that doesn't mean I usually celebrate when one is hurt in the inevitable reprisal. However, in this case, the phrase "a group of disgruntled surfers" just made me laugh. It's like imagining the sheeplike herd of paparazzi wandering around and then being attacked by a group of happy-go-lucky monkeys. Who saw that coming!?McConaughey Photos Spark Violent Beach Brawl
Matthew McConaughey was at the center of what became a violent beach brawl after a mass of surfers came to his defense on Sunday and attacked a group of photographers following the actor. A group of approximately twelve photographers were taking snaps of the star enjoying the surf on a Malibu, California beach when a group of disgruntled surfers launched an all-out attack, allegedly leaving one paparazzo with a broken nose after being struck in the face. Another photographer was allegedly thrown into a mound of rocks by the group of angry surfers, leaving his camera equipment damaged. Police have confirmed a battery report has been filed by one photographer - though no arrests have been made, according to the website. McConaughey, an avid surfer, was not involved in the incident.
Dutch TV Stations Reject Anti-Islam FilmLet me start off by saying that I find any anti-demographic (racist, sexist, religiousist (?)) film to be as offensive as the next guy. But I also believe in free speech. You CAN'T FUCKING KILL PEOPLE because they say something you don't like. You CAN'T FUCKING COMMIT ACTS OF TERRORISM, EVEN IF someone says they don't like YOU. You are just supporting THEIR absurd argument and fueling the fire. I have no problem with TV stations refusing to show the film - perhaps they don't think it will be successful, perhaps they wish to promote a certain viewpoint that this film contradicts, well within their rights. But it is INSULTING and BACKWARDS to say that if someone commits acts of violence due to another person's words, then THE SPEAKER is held responsible. It is entirely and blatantly wrong. It is the violent offender who is at fault. Those violent groups need to differentiate between one person's opinion and the opinion of the whole, which is almost always divided and more complex than you might want. And regardless of what is EXPRESSED, even IF it's expressed by the whole, they cannot respond with violence. You cannot blame the speaker for speaking, and if you do you are quite literally letting the terrorists win.
The government of the Netherlands has raised its terrorism alert level to "substantial" in the wake of rising anger in Muslim countries to reports that Dutch television may broadcast a 10-minute film by a national political leader critical of the Koran. The Dutch government has warned television networks that the film, which maintains that the Muslim holy book foments violence and religious hatred, could trigger unrest among the country's large Muslim population. Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende has warned producer Geert Wilders, leader of the rightist Dutch Freedom Party, that he must be held responsible if the release of the film results in deaths. Earlier in the week, hundreds of Afghan demonstrators in Mazar-i-Sharif burned Dutch flags and demanded the withdrawal of Dutch troops from the country. NATO General Secretary Jaap de Hoop expressed "fear that our soldiers will come under fire because of this film." On Thursday Wilders told the Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad that he was disappointed that thus far no Dutch TV station had agreed to show it. Dutch reports also indicated that if they continue to shun the film, he will screen it at the Nieuwspoort Press Centre in The Hague on March 28. Press reports quoted the chairman of the center as saying that Wilders would be welcome to show the film there, provided proper security measures are undertaken, citing the principle of freedom of speech. Wilders has also said that he intends to post the film on his website, FitnaTheMovie.com, which is hosted by Network Solutions. The provider has indicated that it is preparing for possible denial-of-service attacks -- attempts by outsiders to prevent access to the site.
U.K. Broadcasters To Offer Shows on the Net
Britain's three biggest broadcasters, the BBC (its Worldwide unit), ITV, and Channel Four have agreed to set up a video-on-demand Internet service that will contain more than 10,000 hours of their programs. The service, curiously titled Kangaroo, will provide some programming via download, other programming via streaming. Some programs will be free. Others can be purchased. Still others can be rented. In a joint announcement, the three companies said that they plan to launch the service next year but gave no specific target date. Reporting on the agreement, today's (Wednesday) London Financial Times commented that it "represents a giant leap for the traditionally combative broadcasters as they come to terms with changing customer behavior and the growing importance of on-demand content."
"NBC recently pulled its shows off the iTunes store, and on Monday made most of them available on Hulu, a website it is creating with Fox. . . . Although Hulu received much applause from analysts and online critics Monday, Hulu's own feedback page quickly filled up with angry complaints from users. Many were upset that the site's 'streaming' content could not be uploaded onto their video iPods or iPhones and similar devices. Others complained that Hulu shows and movies could not be viewed overseas. Several remarked that they now intend to download NBC shows illegally, noting that they had willingly been paying for them on iTunes in the past. 'You guys are pretty stupid,' one writer concluded."