One wealthy benefactor contributed $725,000 and another gave $200,000. Lawyers for Edwards argue that donors were not solicited for the purpose of influencing an election for federal office, but to save his terminally ill wife from more outrageous attacks on the couples privacy and familial dignity. The litmus test seems to be whether the money used for Edwards’ personal expenses would have been given irrespective of his candidacy.

Prospective jurors were asked their opinions of Mr. Edwards, their views on adultery, and their political leanings. Similar to the media coverage of the affair, none of these issues relate to issues of justice and fairness in democracy, nor has the case sparked any meaningful debate about campaign finance laws in general. It also failed to address the question of why Edwards was arrested so long after the alleged conspiracy took place. The former Senator faces a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison and $1.5 million in fines.

Ravi faces up to 10 years in jail and deportation back to India.

Ravi’s attorneys argued that it was a thoughtless, immature, mistake.  Many people would argue that had his actions only led to a complaint to the university rather than the victim’s suicide, we wouldn’t be where we are now.  Except that we are, and his actions warrant time in jail so that he (and other immature folks) have an opportunity to learn that with freedom comes responsibility.

He is directly responsible for the loss of Tyler Clemente’s life; the well-being of his roomate’s partner is still tenuous at best, and he thinks that this warrants community service?  Ravi is justified in believing that he has become the poster-boy for American homophobia, and that is clearly true.  The question is why.

Free speech has been invoked to protect Reverend Fred Phelps who openly runs a so-called church-based website with the moniker “god hates fags.”  His wealth comes from a rampant and viral expression of homophobia that publically celebrates this suicide, the vicious murder of Matthew Shepard and the killing of our troops, on the theory that they should all die because God is not pleased with our tolerance of homosexuality.  In the meantime, the gay teen suicide rate continues apace and the federal courts have framed this as an issue of speech instead of the toxic insanity that it really is, and impossible to justify for the proclaimed leader of the free world.

 Lyons is using the wrong standard.  It is not about the value of one Tech Company against another.  Facebook v. Google in the social networking sphere in relation to revenue is not the true measure of Facebook’s value.  Like Google, it might possibly be worth twice as much to certain members of the 1%. Facebook may only be seven years old, but even if you agreed that it has “a great story and an amazing brand,” that’s not an indication of its true value.  Lyons admits: “Who hasn’t heard of Facebook? Who doesn’t use it?” Half a billion people use Facebook every day.  Those in the know have noted the introduction of TIMELINE.  The feature promises to reveal, “All your stories, all your apps, and a new way to express who you are; it boils down to a single scrolling page that contains much of your Facebook existence, chronicling everything that you have done.” Select any year and Timeline will show you what happened in your life in that year.” Next, there is the new OpenGraph feature, which continuously updates your profile, as it discovers new things from your friends. The music application alone is designed to constantly keep the world informed as to what a person is listening to.  Lifestyle apps will track what you eat, where you jog, play, work, PERMANENTLY. The Facebook F8 Developer conference unveiled the company’s plan: to execute agreements with a number of companies to bring the content that Facebook users are watching or listening to around the web into their Facebook profile in real-time.

If multi-billionaires are on the verge of securing that highly coveted a 9% tax plan that brought the likes of Herman Cain into the national spotlight, what’s a mere 100 billion between them to secure the kind of power that having that much information on the whole of the electorate can ultimately buy.

And other outlets have piled on: “When you buy something from a charity auction, you usually assume that 100%, or at least a large portion, of the proceeds are going to charity. Stop doing this! According to Fox News, a handful of celebrities including Kim and Khloe only donate a paltry 10%.” 

So the public’s attention is shifted away from the joblessness, homelessness and panic that has resulted from corporate raiding by the wealthy elite or the court case that has enabled unnamed billionaires to skew what may be the nation’s most important presidential election since Lincoln.  No, the public is being asked to condemn the 10%-ers.

This is hardly the Fourth Estate that Edmund Burke, an 18th-century British politician, is credited with crowning as a watchdog over government and industry.  To the extent that the clause guaranteeing freedom of the press was designed to create a mechanism outside of governmental control as an additional check on the three  branches of government, we have some tweaking to do.

 Women accused in the disappearance of their kids no matter the reason, become an instant obsession of public media and targets of the blogosphere.  While media coverage is often sparse when men kill their kids, there is a noticeable proclivity in those cases to focus extensively on how the wife or mother’s behavior was a trigger for the crime.

 Ms. Anthony’s daughter went missing in mid- 2008 and the child’s dead body discovered later that year.  By all accounts the evidence against her was circumstantial.  It was the media frenzy surrounding this case which fortified those inferences by holding Anthony’s social behavior, both before and after her child was missing, under a high powered microscope.  The public sentiment is that Ms. Anthony has not behaved as a mother would or should was enough to convict in the minds of most bloggers.  According to one: “She partied and stayed at her new boyfriend house almost every night” a month after the child disappeared.  Anthony’s entire family was defamed in the process, implicating the grandmother as the controlling matriarch who raised the heartless child-murderer.  

 Nearing the end of her current probation, after being acquitted of murder but convicted of obstruction of justice, Anthony suffered a privacy breach of the same magnitude as the phone hacking scandal in the UK that led to the arrest of several high profile News of the World editors.  The 4 minute video released this week was produced for private use.  Yet, major media outlets continue to focus upon her appearance, whether the video provides clues as to her whereabouts, her failure to mention the toddler’s name, her obsessive focus upon herself, and speculation that she is gearing up to profit from the celebrity persona that they created.

 Major news outlets hastily confirmed that it was Anthony on camera.  The real question is how much time, energy and resources will these same outlets spend investigating the status of the presumably ongoing criminal investigation into the toddlers disappearance or informing the public as to whether Anthony’s acquittal means that police are obligated to continue the search.  How about a documentary or extended report on the role of politics in this made for TV criminal case?  A prosecutor in the Casey Anthony trial recently announced he will run for the state attorney’s office in Florida.

By competing in the world’s coolest marathon, the North Pole Marathon, you will become one of a truly select few to race at the top of the world – at the Geographic North Pole. And you will feel on top of the world when you manage to overcome the extreme sub-zero temperatures to finish 26.2 miles in one of the remotest parts of the planet.  

But first you must ask yourself if you have got the nerve and drive to travel to the North Pole and run on Arctic ice floes, with 6 to 12 feet separating you from 12,000 feet of Arctic Ocean? Can you handle the extreme cold? Are you fit enough? Do you want to push yourself to the edge? If the answer is yes, then you are ready for the North Pole Marathon. Join race director Richard Donovan, the first marathoner at both the North and South Poles, in a trip of a lifetime. Remember, this marathon is not run on land – it is run ‘on’ water, frozen water, in the high Arctic Ocean. You will never have a greater adventure marathon story. http://www.npmarathon.com/

 Business was great until Donovan allowed a writer for Forbes Magazine to tag along for the 2006 race.  The trip and the race were a success.  The sensationalized, fabrications published by the magazine and distributed to 5 million readers a short time later was nothing short of a travesty that caused a 50% decline in business.  Forbes may have been banking on the lack of enforcement of libel laws in the US to protect them, in much the same fashion of sleazy tabloids.  However, Donovan experienced a high-level victory because he hired famed media libel lawyer Paul Tweed.  Tweed’s legendary BBC documentaries See You in Court, features Episode 3: 12 April 201, that covers his work on behalf of Richard Donovan.  Way to Go Paul!  Congratulations Mr. Donovan.

Chairman, Rt Hon. Lord Mawhinney said:

“Defamation proceedings are far too expensive, which is a barrier to all but the richest. Our recommendations should help minimise the reliance on expensive lawyers and the courts, bringing defamation action into the reach of ordinary people who find themselves needing to protect their reputation or defend their right to freedom of speech. They are based upon firm principles, which I am sure the Government will support.”    

The unanimously-agreed report proposes many detailed amendments to the defences available against libel claims, mainly designed to strike a fairer balance between the protection of reputation and freedom of speech. For example, greater protection is proposed for scientists and academics writing in peer-reviewed articles and for publishers in reporting on their debates at conferences.

Key problems

The report argues that the Government’s proposals do not do enough to address the key problems in defamation law – the “unacceptably” high costs which make access to justice difficult for many.  The committee proposes a series of reforms aimed at ensuring that disputes are generally resolved rapidly by mediation or arbitration, rather than via the courts.

For entire article see: http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/joint-select/draft-defamation-bill1/news/publication-report/