On Tue, 04 May 2004 17:33:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


Dave....thiMk. Do you suppose a TV producer's legal staff might explain
to
him that there are laws which permit activities that the audience would
be
better off not knowing about, and that the show would be better off not
televising cases which expose those laws?

So you are now championing the idea that the government should keep
the people in the dark, and media are their instruments?

As of this moment, I have decided that you have either lied about your
profession (some sort of telecommunications thing, if I recall), or you're
nothing but the janitor at a phone company facility. Nobody with such
pathetic powers of deduction could possibly be competent in a technical
capacity.

And your reasoning is nothing short of "helicopter theory" paranoia.
Show me some proof.


Hint: None of your "Judge Judy" shows has ever, or will ever televise a case
involving the application of the RICO statutes to white collar crime. The
audience couldn't understand it.

That may be true. But they certainly understand one neighbor shooting
another's dog, which is the subject we were talking about.


None of your legal shows will air anything
about the way the police evaluate gun permit applications in cities where
the laws are especially intricate or draconian.

There's no "entertainment value" in this. But not all legal shows are
of the "Judge Judy" variety. The stuff I watch is usually either on
Court TV, TLC, or C-Span.



Using google, I ran across an article about a guy in Utah who shot 73 deer
in one year, legally, because the law says that even though his alfalfa crop
is totally fenced, the deer were still destroying it and he can eradicate
any and all animals which do that.

But nothing about dogs? Why am I not surprised.


Do you think Judge Judy would present
such a case?

I wouldn't know, and it's not relevant.



Every hunter in Utah who wanted to take more than the limit
would plant 1/8 acre of alfalfa, put a fence around it, and buy another deep
freeze for the unlimited deer he could then shoot. Better for people to find
out about some regulations with a little effort on their part.

So you are advocating the practice of clandestine usage of legal
loopholes to your own advantage. You must be a big fan of Ken Lay.


There's nothing shady going on here, Dave.

Really? Then why hide it?


The laws in most states occupy
enormous books. Your TV shows are involved only with the simplest laws, and
the ones which are likely to affect the largest number of people.

Like people shooting their neighbor's dogs.


Otherwise,
we would've already seen a show about NY insurance regulation #60. You know
what that is, right?

You're slipping into the outer limits of reality again Doug.


With all the liberal (Insert item of the week)-rights groups around,
do you think that they would allow the press to sit on such practices?

Yes. Evil in-house lawyers telling broadcasters what's safe to show. It's a
big secret. Wake up, Dave.

Safe? What's unsafe about interesting legal cases?


I mean, let's face it: An audience
which gets its legal advice from television is, without question, an
audience of idiots.

So, you are also proposing that people ignore informative programming
because it is presented on the TV as its forum?

That's not what I said.

But it's what you implied. What do you expect someone to infer from
that statement? For further illustration, lets apply the converse
logic to that statement then:

"Any intelligent audience, gets their all their legal information from
venues other than television".

You attempted to make the connection between a person's intelligence
and the venue by which they get their information. You also make no
allowances for other sources of legal information. Because one case
was presented over the forum of TV, does not mean that the TV is the
exclusive source for all legal information.

Your statement is prejudicial.


So, let me get this straight. If the "info" comes from such bastions
of credibility such as (cough...Jayson Blair) the New York Times,
it should be taken as above reproach. But if the same material is
presented on the TV, it should be automatically suspect?

You really are a man full of bias......

We're talking about a half hour or one hour lightweight entertainment
program, Dave. Tell me about the most complex case you've ever seen on a
courtroom (production)

The O.J. Simpson trial?


drama.

That implies a contrived show edited and produced for purely
entertainment value, the truth of which is secondary. I've already
told you, the stuff I watch is done for purely educational reasons,
and are not produced with the "American Idol" mentality in mind.

Besides, you keep missing (or deliberately deflecting) the point.
Whatever your "beef" with the venue of television, while you may argue
the absence of many valid, but not particularly interesting legal
cases, the fact that the "dog case" was broadcast does seem to define
it as "interesting" from a public perspective.

You keep bringing up the things you won't see on TV court shows. Fine,
I can accept that. But this was a case which was presented. Are you
trying to build the position that the case was fallacious because it
was presented on TV?

Dave