Message from @Arch-Fiend
Discord ID: 541709608809398429
However, the point of contention from the DM's point of view is that a) the organisation will be free to slander my government however they wish to the rest of the universe, and b) by suppressing the corporation I am violating their freedom of speech
Who would you guys say is in the right or wrong here? Is it that black and white? I know this might seem like a silly situation to some of you due to the format, but I think it raises some interesting questions about how a government should respond to the news media breaking the law
your hypothetical scenario is that there a multiple broadcasting laws that the company violated with a premise that the nation upholds a value of liberty in the law. this is a situation of interpriation of freedom which one group does not agree with while another group does agree to. this is likely to be due to the contradictory libertys of privacy and freedom of expression. if the nation has agreed there is limitation of the freedom of expression where it runs into the liberty of privacy which is covered specificly in this scenario than the nation agreed to it, thats law, and breaking the law means challanging the agreement the nation made (Which there may be more context like the decition to make legislation like that origenally was not unanimus). but they certainly cant argue ignorence of the law, what they are doing is arguing hypocracy of the state by singling out one provision of the law over another where a clear contradiction MUST exist (not mearly does exist).
It's more that they broke multiple laws- not only did they violate freedom of association/privacy for the families and the deceased, there is a reasonable assumption that you should warn someone before showing them shocking material as they have the freedom to choose not to see it. Showing the footage was not necessary to the purpose of the broadcast. As well as this, the slanderous comments made are highly damaging as they're essentially telling the universe that my government are invalid. It is entirely unreasonable to assume that it is okay in this society to air unedited footage of a gruesome battlefield with mutilated soldiers' corpses- this is why the argument of "freedom of expression" fails, from my point of view, in the example; because they violated multiple other laws in the process
specification for law is challanged while the constitution remains unchallangible. in a country like the united states we have this conflict of liberty between multiple rights given to people and corporations within the united states. verious actors use these contradictions against eachother to abuse one or the other freedoms in order to get tangible power, either silencing speech for privacy or abusing privacy for speech (or protection which isint a right but a fuction of the state). specific laws and boundrys to this are flexible, the court decides where these conflict of libertys meet and that changes depending on case by case.
the corporation could leevy that the state is supressing their freedom of expression in order for the state to get away with using the liberty of privacy to hide what the government is doing to the nations citizines in the war. also is the company slandering the nation by saying they believe the state is abusing its power and their freedom of speech? as already expressed the point at which the 2 rights meet is subjective even if the court has argued where it should be, that can change and the corporation is within its right to try and change that while arguing what it thinks the state is doing in its attempt to stop them.
theres a fine line between slander, libal, and accusation of intent
This all assumes that they have the right to freedom of the press
Because it would be very strange for a police state like nation to allow freedom of the press
The company's slander came from a place of them accusing the government of suppressing the media needlessly, for requesting a cease-and-desist
The press are a corporation at the end of the day and so are subject to the same laws as any other business with a public broadcast
Does freedom of the press exist in your definitely not orwellian nation ?
personally its my opinion that its subjective where the line between privacy and expression is made in the case of military opperations because i dont actually trust militarys to be within the best interest of their soldiers but at the same time i dont want to give the media the right to claim anything they want to claim and have complete control over the narritive of what the military does nor the ability to be absolved of all laws while doing it
If this helps understand the dispute, the combat was between space soldiers and a hiveminded suicide-bombing race of aliens
"the government supressing the media needlessly" is an opinion, it cant be slander even if you think its objectively true
How would that help?
They could have asked for consent and the government would have given it, as long as there was a shock warning
It was mainly a reference to the earlier point of the citizenry needing to know what the government had done in battle
Accountability is welcome but there are correct channels to go through for thatr
slander would be saying the government actually did something it didint do and the government having evidence to the contrary
the media didint do that, all they did was say in their opinion what the government was doing violated what the government should do
An intergalactic mega corp is basically a nation unto themselves
Treat them as a foreign nation, not as a business
i think they are entitled but they arnt slanderous
if they said the govenrment threatened them with more than a cease and dissist and it wasent true then that would count
Just level a massive fine against them with the stated intent to distribute it to the families of the soldiers
Point to the laws they broke and say that if they cannot abide by the rules their operating permits will be revoked
That's the general process, Blackhawk- if they refuse to pay the fine we're shutting them down
yeah its more useful to be a hardass than play their game, if you come at them with the "you told teacher on me" arguement its not going to work out well for you, and if the dm simply thinks your wrong and has control over the entire universe and will punish you nomatter what you do so coming down on them fairly leads them turning the universe against you even though that should be a stupid event for anyone in the universe to do that for then your dm is a dick or ignorent or both
Speaking as a DM theres nothing worse than being questioned and I have no idea how mature whoever is running this game
Id guess they're in highschool
its john cena
Its not a dick move so much as it is a punishment tactic
Nothing pisses people off more than one player wasting time by arguing with the DM
it can be a dick move
agreed
Im also guessing that this hypothetical mega corp has a very large security force
stupid and evil sit shoulder to shoulder on the bus
Be prepared for something dumb to happen as you shut them down
I think what's going to happen is the DM is gonna have their security kill a bunch of my men, then there'll be a slanderous news broadcast about me to other nations
So I'm just launching my own broadcast