Murdoch slams White House over SOPA in Twitter row

The rich and powerful have their own set of laws, whose leniency is proportional to your net worth.

You obviously aren't power-crazed, or else you would know exactly how to do it.

Reading the recent Vanity Fair (character assassination) piece on Rebekah Brooks[1], you come to realize that she and Kissinger share a great many traits, being power-crazed the least amongst them. So, to answer your question, just look at what Brooks did and you will know how Murdoch does it, as she is him, exemplified. The essence is 'plausible deniability' and getting others to do stuff for you without you explicitly knowing the details. This leads to the non-existence of a "smoking gun", which any prosecutor would need considering you have some very select 'friends' in very high places (Prime Minister level etc).

Some select quotes:

"It was not that Brooks ever lied. She simply “allowed myths to grow and never challenged them,” says Roy Greenslade, the media commentator, who has known her for..."

"I ran the same department that she did, and every week we’d see the bills from the private investigators: £2,000, £4,000.” However, he can’t be sure she always knew what they were doing."

"“She’d get you to do things,” says another former News of the World reporter. “She had this charisma, this magnetic attraction,” he says. “She would praise to high heaven, make you feel like you were on top of the world. It was only afterwards that you realized you were manipulated.”

"Even out drinking after work, “she did not get pissed, ever. She never let her guard down,” and never spoke about her past."

"“Rebekah Wade used to have dinner with Blair and Brown and play them off against each other.” It was artful, he says, the way she made each man think that she was on his side."

[1] http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2012/02/rebekah-brooks-20...

Fox is the entertainment industry. He's just playing more games.

I thought they fought in court to be able to force their employees to lie (or be fired)? Or are you thinking of another case?

I can't quite keep up with all the things they've done lately, especially all the hacking scandals. Actually, that raises another point: if someone were, hypothetically, to register a copyright on those hacked voicemails, couldn't they get shut down for having used them? I guess those might have been UK emails, and I'm less sure how they do things.

No, because if you made a good faith claim that thesun.co.uk exists primarily to infringe copyrights, the judge would lock YOU up for perjury. What you can do, right now, is sue them for copyright infringement. That's already illegal, of course.

Really, I was just about to say "Awesome tweets, the human headline!" ?