Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (15536)	3/30/2006 10:12:25 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541780

Given that you're a lawyer I find it puzzling that you'd bring up the First Amendment -- if the New York Times decided not to print an ad, that wouldn't be state action. Perhaps you were simply speaking generally. As you may know, publications have editorial guidelines about what sort of ads they will and won't take. I recall from other circumstances that this is the type of thing that they have guidelines about, although I don't have access to those guidelines. But I've seen similar ads for many countries in the Washington Post as well as the Washington Times. Israel. South Africa. China. Saudi Arabia. No doubt there are many who objected to these, as well, for equally good reasons, no doubt, but an entire country is not to be judged on just one issue. The government of Sudan, unlike the Russian mafia, is not a criminal enterprise. At any rate, if it were your publication, you wouldn't have to run the ad. And you didn't have any respect for the New York Times to begin with, so slamming it for this is just gravy for you. Or are we supposed to believe that the NYTimes approves of Sudanese policies about everything in general because the NYTimes let them run an ad? Am I missing something here?