Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
☭proletarian☭;1974484 said:
☭proletarian☭;1972325 said:That Fox lies is a fact. It was established in a court of law. Fox fought for the right to lie.
and a jury of 12 people apparently agreed.....
Were you born stupid or is it something you strive for? Fact is dumbass the trial had nothing to do with whether or not "lies" had or had not been told or demanded. Even after I posted the facts of the case you ignorant fucks still don't get it.
and a jury of 12 people apparently agreed.....
Were you born stupid or is it something you strive for? Fact is dumbass the trial had nothing to do with whether or not "lies" had or had not been told or demanded. Even after I posted the facts of the case you ignorant fucks still don't get it.
i was born stupid?.....was this not a jury trial?.....did not the jury agree with Fox....
☭proletarian☭;1974484 said:
Hey stupid for one thing even if Fox did want them to lie, lying is not illegal! But that wasn't the purpose of the lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed because the two reporters felt that they were wrongfully terminated.
Were you born stupid or is it something you strive for? Fact is dumbass the trial had nothing to do with whether or not "lies" had or had not been told or demanded. Even after I posted the facts of the case you ignorant fucks still don't get it.
i was born stupid?.....was this not a jury trial?.....did not the jury agree with Fox....
There were two trials, the first one found in favor of one of the reporters, the second trial overturned that decision.
☭proletarian☭;1974813 said:☭proletarian☭;1974484 said:
Hey stupid for one thing even if Fox did want them to lie, lying is not illegal! But that wasn't the purpose of the lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed because the two reporters felt that they were wrongfully terminated.
That was Fox's whole case- that they are allowed to lie all they want, therefore the people fired didn't get whistleblower protection.
You just argued my case for me.
☭proletarian☭;1974815 said:i was born stupid?.....was this not a jury trial?.....did not the jury agree with Fox....
There were two trials, the first one found in favor of one of the reporters, the second trial overturned that decision.
The second hearing ruled with fox, saying that Fox has a right to lie all it wants.
☭proletarian☭;1974813 said:Hey stupid for one thing even if Fox did want them to lie, lying is not illegal! But that wasn't the purpose of the lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed because the two reporters felt that they were wrongfully terminated.
That was Fox's whole case- that they are allowed to lie all they want, therefore the people fired didn't get whistleblower protection.
You just argued my case for me.
No the difference is you and others painted the trial as being about Fox's right to lie or some such nonsense and the fact is the trial was about whether they terminated the two reporters with just cause. Fact is reporters embellish the truth and that is not illegal.
http://www.2dca.org/opinions/Opinion_Pages/Opinion_Page_2003/February/February 14, 2003/2D01-529.pdfWe agree with WTVT that
the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news – which the FCC has
called its “news distortion policy” – does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or
regulation” under section 448.102.
...
Because the FCC’s news distortion policy is not a “law, rule, or regulation”
under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's
statute. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment in her favor and remand for entry of a
judgment in favor of WTVT.
☭proletarian☭;1975238 said:☭proletarian☭;1974813 said:That was Fox's whole case- that they are allowed to lie all they want, therefore the people fired didn't get whistleblower protection.
You just argued my case for me.
No the difference is you and others painted the trial as being about Fox's right to lie or some such nonsense and the fact is the trial was about whether they terminated the two reporters with just cause. Fact is reporters embellish the truth and that is not illegal.
It wasn't over just cause, you twit. It was over whether they were allowed to lie, because that determined whether whistle blower protection was applicable.
☭proletarian☭;1975248 said:http://www.2dca.org/opinions/Opinion_Pages/Opinion_Page_2003/February/February 14, 2003/2D01-529.pdfWe agree with WTVT that
the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news – which the FCC has
called its “news distortion policy” – does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or
regulation” under section 448.102.
...
Because the FCC’s news distortion policy is not a “law, rule, or regulation”
under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's
statute. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment in her favor and remand for entry of a
judgment in favor of WTVT.
On the grounds that Fox is allowed to lie, therefore it's not a crime, therefore whistle blower status wasn't applicable.By the way this is the appellate court (the second trial) that reversed the the ruling against Fox.
the lawsuit that was filed was for wrongful termination, it had nothing to do with anyone being allowed to lie..
☭proletarian☭;1970772 said:Who the hell is Stephanie Miller?
