Washington Post not unbiased either -- Hungary media law

Remove all ads!

We are discovered, flee!

It wasn't my fault, honest! Ragusa forced me to post it! He had a (water)gun to my head! IT'S NOT MY FAULT I JUST FOLLOW ORDERS!

I can't believe you rumbled it Baronius, we're all against you, it's a conspiracy. Same as how the whole world is conspiring against Hungary. Also, scientists in the year 2084 are sending back images of their present day to Bruce Dickinson in his dreams to warn humanity of their downfall, only he misinterprets and writes them as song lyrics, which is OBVIOUSLY because the CIA are brainwashing him in an attempt to use the visions to defeat the Taliban.

if I were you, i'd get your tinfoil hat.

 

There were 'points'? Guess who's surprised!

As a mighty fire hose of brilliance you are gift that keeps on giving - more than I am willing to reciprocate. Even scratch posts have a due date. Life has many joys, and debating you is not among them. I set my priorities. It's not that I can't react to your 'points' - time is just to precious to waste it on doing so. Because you're utterly impervious to arguments.

Your relentlessness does mean you're right. If you have the last post, now, or in seventeen years, ît doesn't mean you're right. It just means you're tireless enough to continue posting whatever happens.

My wretched minions,
don't abandon me now, only because Baronius' unfailing gaze has discovered my scheming ... schemes! Fall in line! One more push and we will be victorious! Come my children, let's spread more venomous falsehoods about dear leader Victor Orbán, and subversively undermine his glorious image! Together we will vanquish Baronius' righteous presence on these boards, so that Sorcerers Place will forever be remembered as the netherworld of foul mouthed and minded corruptors like us! MWAWAHAHAHA!

 

Interesting, you have that precious time to write continous nonsense (such as your latest post, "mwawhahaha...") against me, in several posts, but no time to actually react to points.

E.g. all you could do regarding my latest 5 points was just to the third:

And here are the five points:

What happened with the other 4, namely 1,2,4, and 5?

Earlier, I got the accusation here that I don't say anything concrete, just that foreign people can't know Hungary as well as I do and thus cannot understand why the media law is correct here. So I wrote those 5 points. It tore apart many of the accusations.

The explanations are based on stable facts:
1) The Ice-T song broadcasted before 21 was investigated PER THE OLD LAW. This is not a question of Baronius' opinion, this is a fact.
2) From the text of the new media law, it is totally clear that the maximum fines can only be given in cases when the entity in question was fined several times beforehand. Someone could say: "so where is the problem? The council can give multiple fines first, and then the maximum to make the entity go bankrupt". This is not true, because all decisions are attackable in COURT. See the next point. The present point, (2), is also a fact. It's in the law's text.
3) All decisions of the media council are attackable in court. This is also a fact, and does not depend whether Baronius agrees or disagrees with the Orbán government's deeds.

These are facts, and disprove most of the accusations that one could hear (and you unconditionally believed that time) in international public media. No wonder the international media is getting more and more silent now, not mentioning the same points. Because the points that made the panic were disproved. Yet you believed them that time unconditionally, like a person with a lawyer diploma should... not.

For example, here is this gem:

Compared to the truth:

Are you making a circus clown from yourself in your latest posts because otherwise you would need to admit that you naively believed all the -- meanwhile-disproved -- hysteric points of international media about the HU media law?

This is again a dirty misrepresentation of my words. I nowhere mentioned the "whole world", because it is not so. Just a significant set of loosely related lobby groups (mostly from two sources: socialists that can't accept their defeat in Hungary, and their European buddies who have really poor positions nowadays in European governments; second, multionational companies and banks who lose billions of profit because of Orbán's new laws). Answer me one question, my naive friend Cap'n CJ, just one question: do you think that the current international anti-Hungarian-government attacks ARE BAD for those groups & companies whose interests were violated by Orbán's decisions?

 

Tal said:

The international media as out to get my country too. They are just jealous of us, because we are so "free" and the "greatest country." Stand firm with us, my brothers!

Spoiler

[ Er...sorry, I just had to join in on all the fun. ]

 

Orbán & his party has always kept a good relationship with the United States, they had meetings behind the scenes even between 2002-2010. USA doesn't like to see communist-related regimes anywhere in the world, so even if silently, it always cooperated with Orbán. Moreover, even if it that also has other reasons, we have only seen very moderate -- and just very very few -- reactions from the American government regarding the new Hungarian media law (my personal opinion is that this is also because USA is much better and fair in many things -- e.g. less hypocricy -- than European countries such as France or Great Britain).

OK, let's see the few politicians then who were the LOUDEST in the European Parliament against Orbán, attacking the new media law. Let's see who they're.

Daniel Cohn-Bendit



Daniel Cohn-Bendit, the loudest person, also the one who used the "Chávez" comparison linked so carefully by Taluntain as well. Some entities of the Hungarian press reported about the event that the "legendary figure of the 1968 student rebellion in Paris gave a lesson to Orbán" etc. They missed to mention that this person, formerly known as "Danny the Red" in the Western world, changed from red (probably funded by the KGB) to green, now known as "Danny the Green". In his book, he is known to tell his paedophilic experience with children in the kindergarten he led in 1975. His attack on Orbán wasn't the first one; earlier, Cohn-Bendit insulted the Czech president in his own castle. And this moron is the person who is mentioned as a "legendary student leader" who "tore apart Orbán in the European Parliament" Here is a quote from Cohn-Bendit's book:

Martin Schulz



Let's see the other "hero" who "defeated" Orbán in the European Parliament, Martin Schulz. Schulz is the leader of the Party of European Socialists, Vice-President of the Socialist International (!). The same Socialist International which included and allowed the party of the former Tunisian dictator's (Ben Ali's) party among its members. Yeah, Ben Ali's party was a member of Socialist International until 18th January 2011. Ben Ali was ruling Tunisia with the assistance of a cruel secret service which tortured and killed a lot of people. People in Tunisia during his rulership didn't even hear about PRESS FREEDOM. This summarizes pretty well the hypocrisy and "principles" of Socialist International, which vide-president is Martin Schulz. And the members of this Socialist International, as European Parliament members, dare to protest for Hungarian PRESS FREEDOM. The members of this Socialist International which allowed a country among its members for a long time, a country where PRESS FREEDOM wasn't even remotely known.

These were the "heroes of democracy" against Orbán. A crazy paedophil who became a Green from Red, and a socialist whose party fellows are also members of the Socialist International which allows dictatoric countries to be its members.

 

Stuff like my last post I can write at a drop of a hat. Practically writes itself especially in face of such an inspirational presence such as yours.

 

You have too much personal talk to me. I think you like me. Even from grammar tense it is so obvious. Yeah I also seemed to have much personal talk towards you, but that's because you were disrespectful with my homeland too much. But you... I think you like me. Before dmc would lift his pointing finger like the German finger did to Orbán's company taxes, here are some further on-topic gems:

1. The below photo proves that the liberals in the EP really did not know what they were protesting against. Without the slighest exaggeration, Magyar Hirlap is one of the closest newspapers to the Hungarian conservative right-centre (= Orbán, basically).




2. And then this Cohn-Bendit with Magyar Nemzet, the biggest conservative right-centre newspaper of Hungary (yeah, the press of Orbán...). Priceless!!!




It's just priceless. Protesters protesting against Orbán's media law with the newspapers of Orbán's press in their hand! Priiiiiceless.

 

I’m reminded of the movie “Speed”, with Rags and CJ taking the role of Keanu and Bullock (they can fight it out as to who plays the woman ) trying to rescue a doomed bus, and Baronious as the guy who figures he’s smarter than everyone else. I have my popcorn, and I can’t wait to see how it turns out.

 

Hey Splunge you really look like a member of the rabble who just reads the forum to watch strain and "fight" to be entertained. Rather come to Hungary a bit, to eat a good one, and I'll introduce you to a girl (see below). So instead of eating your popcorn* here in distance, come to Hungary a bit, for two reasons:

1. To feel there is great democracy and press freedom here, and to try our great sausage (kolbász), possibly with your man ideal Orbán:



2. Hungary recently opened the longest bicycling-walking bridge (not that the bridge is walking/bicycling -- you can walk/bike on it) of Central Europe. The bridge is called Tiszavirág (in English: may-fly). The girl on the photo below is called Tisza Virág (surname & firstname). She was there at the inauguration of the new bridge. Note that the bridge wasn't named after her, and she didn't change name to use the name of the bridge. Instead, Tisza is the name of the river under the newly opened bridge.




*In my university, a few years ago, a professor of Computer Graphics told to his students: "computer graphics is like sex: it's not enough to watch it, you have to do it!"

 

Says the guy who insists on wanting to have a beer with me.

Has it ever occurred to you that the character, association and past of the critics of the law is not material do the discussion about whether Hungary's media law is problematic or not?

I also believe I made out a trend that you have a hard time staying on topic in general, speaking of spicy sausages and chicks with bridge names. Confused?

 

The only person who has problems staying on-topic is yourself. I asked you on-topic questions (associated with strictly factual points) on this post of mine, and still waiting for your answer. But it seems you're too cowardly or proud to admit that you were wrong in those cases, e.g. you completely were misled in the Ice-T case by the news you read (because you wrote here that it's the first application of the new law, while still the old version of the law was used ).

And again about who cannot stay on-topic, you even admitted it's better that you're playing a clown because that needs little effort:

Good good good! You spent your previous time to read my above post, otherwise you wouldn't know it's about "spicy sausages and chicks with bridge names". How many sleepless nights did Baronius cause you on the forum?

My last post was a recommendation to Splunge. Since I was still waiting that you react to any of my latest objective points, I thought I would advise Splunge to ACT instead of WATCHING (i.e. visiting Hungary instead of eating his popcorn in AoDA).

Retreating, eh, Ragusa lawyer?

 

Baronius,
I'm sure it continues to elude even after reading this, you but that part where I mock your idea that I and my minions are ganging up against Hungary, not just dear leader Orbán, and against you, their staunchest defender, is a direct response to this little gem of yours, directed at Cap'n CJ:

As I said, I couldn't write stuff like that without your inspiring presence, because I seriously doubt I could make it up.

And just to repeat that, slowly this time, people who are not responding to these 'points' that you bring up in your bloated rants, are likely simply not terminally bored and have better things to do. For instance I post this to bridge the time until dinner is ready.

Anyway, as for that little 'point' you triumphantly keep bringing up about that "the ICE-T SONG WAS INVESTIGATED per the OLD VERSION of the media law" is not a point but the result of sloppy wording on my part. Censoring that song was the first action of the new media council, which was established under the media law. That's all. That is not a 'point', but something that is a point only in the desolate wasteland of your barren mind. I presume you have to take what you get.

 

I think there is a difference between sloppy and totally incorrect. Originally, you wrote:

"In a first application of the new media law Hungary has just found Ice-T to be too foul to be broadcasted in Hungary. "

And now you say:
"Censoring that song was the first action of the new media council, which was established under the media law."

It's crystally clear to everyone that a lawyer knows the difference between "application of a law" and "action of a new media council established under the law". And that lawyer EXACTLY knows the two things are totally different. It is ridiculous that you try to pretend that you used a "sloppy wording". You had incorrect information. And this is similar to your other points too, that is why you are avoiding the reaction to them. Let's just see it:

What a cheap excuse! During the time you spent writing your latest 2-3 posts, you could have reacted to my sound points IF YOU COULD. But you can't. You were so busy writing pages of the text at the beginning when you were self-confident in yourself and in your "truth" about the media law, but now that many of the points you believed from press were disproved, you are retreating. Let's see what is "bloated rant" then, again:

(I intentionally skipped point (3), because that's the only point you tried to give some sort of reaction.)

So, where is "bloated rant" there? I think they are all factual, and you are unable to say anything about them. Because even the international media is silent about them now, as it's now crystally clear to everyone that most of those points were totally hysteric and baseless.

 

Feeling a little light in the head again? You feel you deserve a response that says what you want to hear? You need to do something about these delusions of grandeur of yours. I owe you nothing.

Last time you got a nuanced response, you didn't like what you got to read, and it sent you off ranting incoherently that it wasn't true and you kept reiterating ad nauseam that nonsense that you always reiterate ad nauseam - that dear leader Orbán is wise and just, that his laws are awesome, and that we are all wrong, hate Hungary, and that you alone are right etc pp. Been there, done that, and it starts to not even be entertaining any more. So why should I want to take part in that?

 

I think the below facts have nothing to do with Orbán, "his laws are awesome" etc. If I have received a nounced response to the below from you, please kindly provide me a link.

 

No answer from Ragusa

Drew, Drew, getting excited to post when you believe I'm not able to react to it any more? That apparently gave you a lot of courage, considering you didn't make any post in the thread beforehand.

Some readers asked me why I write so self-confidently in these media law threads while apparently have objections with others doing the same. First of all, I already told this in my other posts: you never see me writing self-confident (let alone arrogant) posts in topics where I'm not familiar with the subject. On the other hand, I know the present topic very well, so while every constructive or at least tactful comment is welcome, I expect a humble approach from those who don't know the topic well enough yet feel the urge to tell something about it...

...because it has happened. And some people fell into the trap that they think they can talk self-confidently purely from "common sense" and "explicit knowledge", forgetting they don't have expertise and implicit knowledge (including cultural knowledge) in the topic. The argument "law is law everywhere" is very poor, we all know that (despite of the fact all are democracies) law has many forms and many specifics in different cultures and regions.

Having the courage to form a strong (often arrogant) opinion on a matter outside of your nation, a matter you do not know, reflects that the poster in question is quite conceited or just lost. I remember an interview with a Professor of Philosophy, who was asked about the purposes of philosophy. The professor included in his answer: "and apparently, there is no need for philosophy anymore, as nowadays we can see two things on online web forums: endless wisdom and endless conceitedness". Well, that is what we could experience in these topics when some people ADMIT that they didn't follow the thread (or that they didn't want to "get involved") AND at the same time, they tell their precious and (surprise!) SELF-CONFIDENT opinion/criticism in the topic. Or just a Latin saying.

A hint: using Latin doesn't give you endless wisdom. In fact, it does not make you look more clever, even if it appears to be so.

Certain people think that it works in this way:
- I tell my criticism on the ridiculous attacks on the Media Law
- They tell their answer according to common sense
- I can't convince them with their "common sense", which means "they are right" and "I was unable to defend the undefendable".

Wrong. If I can't convince certain people, with or without arguments they "like", it doesn't mean they are right. I have a practice and implicit knowledge in the matter I opened my threads about, so I do not need to convince anyone to be right. The practice, on the other hand, will prove me. And it already did, in several matters. (The funniest thing was when someone wrote that Slovaks don't try to defend their antidemocratic laws because they're undefendable, while I come here and start defending the Hungarian media law and "that's wrong" etc. Again, what a "clever" person he was. Or just very naive to believe all the lies in the media about the HU media law, and at the same time, he forgot he should be humble in a matter what he doesn't know well enough.)

So enough introduction. A lot of things happened lately, and I didn't have the time to write, and even now I don't intend to write about all. Just the most important points...

The practice already starts proving me. Let's see a gem from Ragusa (bold added by me):

Notice that Ragusa doesn't write "probably will end" or "and if it does". He writes in total certainty. He uses the word "when". Then I offered a bet, which he stayed silent about

He didn't. And then:
http://mti.hu/english/article/2011/...ommission_agree_on_media_law_amendment-532577

Some people shout happily, "but the Law was amended, while Orbán said it wouldn't be". Well, he never said that it wouldn't be. When Orbán was asked the first time, he answered according to that situation, in present tense.

And how was it amended? What kind of things were changed from those that were criticized? Practically nothing!

Just ridiculous minor things were changed. Private blogs not required to register anymore... or that blogs and other on-demand services don't need to be balanced anymore Quote:

It was all a threatre, in this case too. The EU can say now that they investigated the law and it was also changed. The reality is, the changes have nothing to do with the crazy criticism and hysteria that it received.

Ragusa, why the law isn't in the European Court now? How come the European Commission says it's fine No court? Because of the minor laughable changes?

 

First, I am not in the business of answering to you. And second, you know, Orbán wrote that law as it originally was, only to amend it to prevent it from getting to the European Court - proving his detractors wrong. That was his cunning plan all along!

That he changed his mind to amend it is simply a result of the great and quiet pressure he was subjected to. It doesn't give him credit that he eventually amended the law when he simply had no choice.

Also, a few weeks time and no case means nothing. Such things take (a longer) time (time as in years). Your glee may just turn out to be premature.

And just out of curiosity, weren't you supposed to rather not post here?

[That was a temporary ban that has expired - BTA]

 

It was a just a break I agreed too so everyone is happy now

Originally, you were. Until you realized you can't support your points at all. Just like those hysteric people in many countries who attacked the law with crazy irrealistic accusations.

You try to pretend that the fact I mentioned doesn't exist: those amendments are so funny and negligible (nothing about content of Media Council, about the requirement of balanced informing, about the fines etc. that the criticism was about!).

Second, he is a good diplomat. If he starts with a weaker law already, then it might have turned out to be even less strict after the amendments. In this way, at least there was some basis to take from.

Yeears?! During years, much bigger things change. Maybe Orbán's style and approach to many things will instead SPREAD in Europe. E.g. recently Orbán criticized your Merkel's concept of two-speed Europe, and Merkel's own party-members supported Orbán in it The article says that Orbán was practically considered a hero.

 

I answered to you simply because some of the less well informed readers here could be, and indeed, initially were, seduced to take you and your ranting defence of your dear leader serious because of viewing this through the prism of American politics, and without the benefit of context. I couldn't possibly let that happen.

Right, that is why he changed that. Because he planned to do so from the onset, including having to spend considerable time on having to defend his law.

They're spinning fast in Hungary, don't they? No he isn't. This was a defeat, and it would have been worse if Hungary hadn't held the EU presidency at the time.

This is especially implausible in light of Orbán enjoying a 2/3 majority in the Hungarian parliament entitling him procedurally to enact whatever he pleases. When he had to make those compromises, because of external pressures.

You delude yourself when you believe that the law was ever intended to be play any role outside Hungary. Orbàn and his party are all about 'Hungary über alles'. They didn't expect this to ever end up in Europe. And when it did, they decided to withhold parts of the legal text. That was probably because they were so well prepared under their cunning master plan. You don't persuade me. You don't even entertain me.

 

The law has a role in Hungary, because it is a Hungarian law (nonetheless, even if silently, its approaches will probably spread in Europe too, but discussing that would be beyond the scope of this topic). Even your German channels coming to Hungary will have to respect it. That's perfectly fine for me. The media and Hungarian internet is full with **** that harms children and those who're sensitive to rude content, so this Media law was really needed for that too. They already suspended a website (which was hosted on a foreign server, but they solved it internationally nicely). I was glad when I read about that. Trust me, things behind the scenes work differently than how you get informed about it in the German press Hungary has more supporters than you would believe, even if you delude yourself about the opposite!

Orbán, with whatever mistakes he has, finally can offer a so-far consistent governing concept to Hungary (something the previous government couldn't) and enjoys the support of a very great majority of Hungarian citizens.

The truth hurts to you, Ragusa. That has been obvious from your words and style since the beginning of this topic. You have a personal dislike to Orbán.

Yes, on the other hand, I seem to support Orbán very much, which certain (misled) people in this thread criticized ironically. As if it was a shame to actually believe in a person (who already proved much, even until 2002). I support him because what he does makes sense (even if non-Hungarians in this thread don't get all of it).

I don't need to persuade you. My writing may be addressed to you, but that's just because this topic is public (and google nicely indexed it too, in a very nice position), and others are interested in certain parts of it too.

It's obvious that you're the one who tries to delude yourself. E.g. this is obvious when you're talking about things you don't know anything about and try to interpret them without taking into account the Hungarian mentality and specifics (e.g. the Party "Manifesto" that bites your flesh so much).

I think you are a person who is annoyed in an extraordinary way when things don't go in the direction you wish For some interesting reason, you got emotionally obsessed regarding Hungary and Orbán, and it tooks you weeks to chill a bit.

Don't delude yourself. Orbán knows what he is doing, and no matter how you hate him, he is successful. No matter how many times you repeat he had a defeat in this or that, it really doesn't matter.

It is also part of your fond delusion that you talk about "defeat" and "external pressure". Those readers here who aren't familiar with how the EU works might be misled by that, but others aren't. Everyone knows there are a lot of legal procedures in progress in EU, against countries. Against Germany, against France, against many countries. That's just normal. That's how the EU works: it tries to enforce that all countries follow what they accepted to follow initially. So to my American readers, here is an important point: don't think that in the EU, these procedures against countries are a big deal (and in case of Hungary, it wasn't even an official procedure, just a negotiation with the European Commission). They aren't a big deal, they are normal. It's the duty of the European Commission to make countries harmonize their law etc. So talking of "external pressure" when this "pressure" is in progress against most EU countries in every moment is just a poor attempt to misrepresent how this works in the EU. This "external pressure" is normal in EU. That is one of the reasons the European Commission exists, actually.

All in all, the hysteria regarding the Media Law was just made by certain groups (e.g. Socialists, Liberals), and this is their defeat. Not Orbán's defeat.

"External pressure" or not, Ragusa, we all see that the law's changes were just like in a threatre: no major points were changed. All the things you loved so much -- the "high fines", the members of the Media Council, the requirement for BALANCED informing -- stayed. Don't delude yourself, or you will get obsessed (and ruined) even more.

And try to handle your personal dislike to Orbán somehow. For your own sake, because I see you really suffer because of it. (You'll probably deny that, but I think every reader can see the emotional obsession in your posts, especially in your earlier posts. It's one thing I talk impulsively about a matter regarding MY country, which was ruined by socialists in the past 8 years, but a German getting obsessed with Orbán? Be more easy going, Ragusa )