Guilty Via Media: Is Media Liable For Kangaroo Justice?

[Silhouette]

How many of you think that the widow of the representative who killed himself this week should sue media outlets who dispense un-tried kangaroo-evidence to produce the effects (suicide) of a guilty verdict without a trial?

People who are accused of a crime in the US need and deserve a fair trial by unbiased peers. Media smear campaigns effectively try and destroy/punish the accused before he ever sees a judge or jury. Regardless of the merits or nonmerits of the accusing woman, should the punishment part (ruination of career & marriage and reputation) begin before a trial is held? Remember, no matter which party you belong to, you could be accused next.

Vote in the poll.

 

[Skylar]

How many of you think that the widow of the representative who killed himself this week should sue media outlets who dispense un-tried kangaroo-evidence to produce the effects (suicide) of a guilty verdict without a trial?

People who are accused of a crime in the US need and deserve a fair trial by unbiased peers. Media smear campaigns effectively try and destroy/punish the accused before he ever sees a judge or jury. Regardless of the merits or nonmerits of the accusing woman, should the punishment part (ruination of career & marriage and reputation) begin before a trial is held? Remember, no matter which party you belong to, you could be accused next.

Vote in the poll.

You're confusing criminal penalties with private consequence. Being fired from one's job isn't a criminal penalty. Having your wife file for divorce isn't a criminal penalty.

And trials only cover crimes. Not personal consequence.

 

[Silhouette]

You're confusing criminal penalties with private consequence.

What's the difference when kangaroo media courts produce a de facto punishment before a trial? Especially when the result is suicide?

 

[Skylar]

You're confusing criminal penalties with private consequence.

What's the difference when kangaroo media courts produce a de facto punishment before a trial? Especially when the result is suicide?

The 'media' doesn't decide the consequence. One's wife or husband does. Or one's employer. Or one's friends.

Again, you really can't tell the difference between a criminal penalty.....and someone getting fired or divorced?

If so, um....wow.

 

[Silhouette]

The 'media' doesn't decide the consequence.
.

So if you were accused of cheating on your spouse and the media went full-frenzy on the accusations, smearing/belittling every attempt you made to refute the allegations in full-bias mode before trial, to the point where your career was ruined and your spouse left you, you'd not feel suicidal?

Punishment is punishment. And don't forget all these (especially conservative) politicians and celebrities know the treatment coming for them in the (especially liberal) media when the kangaroo-winds start to blow. I say the widow has a case.

 

[Skylar]

The 'media' doesn't decide the consequence.
.

So if you were accused of cheating on your spouse and the media went full-frenzy on the accusations, smearing/belittling every attempt you made to refute the allegations in full-bias mode before trial, to the point where your career was ruined and your spouse left you, you'd not feel suicidal?

Again, my 'feelings' aren't a criminal penalty. You really don't get how our legal system works. As me 'feeling' something isn't a trial, a conviction, a criminal punishment, anything.

You're making an emotional argument on criminal penalties.

I'll stick with the law, thanks.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The American Press is just the propaganda arm of the Corrupt Democratic Party.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Can't really vote. You can't have freedom of speech and support this.
I hate what the media does but criminalizing it is not the answer.

 

[Silhouette]

Can't really vote. You can't have freedom of speech and support this.
I hate what the media does but criminalizing it is not the answer.

Didn't say criminalizing. I said "tort". As in the civil arena.

An accurate report (post #9 below) vv would include NOT hastily approving of allegations or promoting them as true in obvious fashion while simultaneously beating down the accused protests to the opposite, using the media as a form of case-presentation.

These types of cases should be reported very simply, "A woman accused this man of sexual misconduct. The man denies the charges and we should respect his innocence until after the trial." PERIOD. Not one more word, nor trumping up, nor sequential reporting in a fashion that drums up animosity towards the accused. If other women step forward accusing, media-silence. They can join the suit quietly since to report these accusations would set up a "guilty" verdict in the public's mind...which is what causes the real punishment the accused experiences before trial.

The woman should frame her suit such that it accuses the media of gaining profits from trying her husband before court in a conspicuous fashion for the purposes of making money...acts which ended in her husband killing himself to keep from the shame of this vexatious exposure before the facts were known.

 

[Skylar]

Can't really vote. You can't have freedom of speech and support this.
I hate what the media does but criminalizing it is not the answer.

Didn't say criminalizing. I said "tort". As in the civil arena.

What civil law would they be liable for? You'd have to show that their reporting was inaccurate and maliciously so. And by all accounts, the media accurately reported the accusations against the man.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Can't really vote. You can't have freedom of speech and support this.
I hate what the media does but criminalizing it is not the answer.

Didn't say criminalizing. I said "tort". As in the civil arena.

Indeed, I guess I just glossed over that.
I don't know much about tort laws so I still can't vote lol.

But I get your point and tend to agree.

 

[Skylar]

Can't really vote. You can't have freedom of speech and support this.
I hate what the media does but criminalizing it is not the answer.

Didn't say criminalizing. I said "tort". As in the civil arena.

Indeed, I guess I just glossed over that.
I don't know much about tort laws so I still can't vote lol.

But I get your point and tend to agree.

It would be very difficult to apply any civil penalty without being able to cite both inaccuracy in the reporting and malice in that inaccuracy.

And by all accounts the media's reporting of the accusation has been accurate. Accuracy is a pretty iron clad defense against libel or slander.

Also, you'd need a specific litigant. 'The Media' isn't a legal entity. So you couldn't sue them anymore than you could 'Conservatives' or 'Pet Owners'. You'd need a specific media outlet, based on a specific story that was demonstrably inaccurate in its reporting.

And in this case, you have none that I'm aware of.

 

[Silhouette]

Who gives a fuck if it's difficult? Real harm happened. And that's where lawsuits begin. Would you discourage justice just because the courts make it difficult? Depending on whose side you're on, I bet you would...

 

[Skylar]

Who gives a fuck if it's difficult? Real harm happened. And that's where lawsuits begin. Would you discourage justice just because the courts make it difficult? Depending on whose side you're on, I bet you would...

Because the legal outcome you're looking for is ludicrously unlikely. You have no litigant as 'the media' isn't a legal entity anymore than 'chocolate lovers' are. You have no basis of slander or libel....as by all accounts the media's reporting of accusations have been accurate. And accuracy is a pretty iron clad defense against libel or slander. And you have no evidence of malice.

Making any civil penalty extremely unlikely.

 

[Silhouette]

We disagree. I say she has a case. Reporting may be accurate. But if its accuracy is drummed up in a conspicuous fashion in which it appears as a trial before a trial, where the accused's protests do not get equal coverage and weight in consideration; and if the mock-trial goes on and on and on in a conspicuous way that gains the outlet profits as it harms the presumed-innocence of the accused, there's a tort and a cause of action for damages.

It's actually a violation of the KY Rep's Constitutional protections. Blatantly so.

 

[Skylar]

We disagree. I say she has a case.

Yeah, but you have no legal basis for your disagreement.

You can't even name a litigant. Or show us a single example of inaccurate reporting. Or demonstrate malice. You'd need all three for civil penalties.

You 'saying' she has cause has no legal relevance. You'd need to demonstrate it using the actual law. And you can't.

 

[Silhouette]

You 'saying' she has cause has no legal relevance. You'd need to demonstrate it using the actual law. And you can't.

I say the press has repeatedly crossed the line below described in a number of these cases:

Defamation Law: The Basics - FindLaw
The term "defamation" is an all-encompassing term that covers any statement that hurts someone's reputation. If the statement is made in writing and published, the defamation is called "libel." If the hurtful statement is spoken, the statement is "slander." The government can't imprison someone for making a defamatory statement since it is not a crime. Instead, defamation is considered to be a civil wrong, or a tort. A person that has suffered a defamatory statement may sue the person that made the statement under defamation law......Defamation law, for as long as it has been in existence in the United States, has had to walk a fine line between the right to freedom of speech and the right of a person to avoid defamation. On one hand, people should be free to talk about their experiences in a truthful manner without fear of a lawsuit if they say something mean, but true, about someone else. On the other hand, people have a right to not have false statements made that will damage their reputation.

If an accusation is true, we don't know until trial. We have to err on the side of the accused in this country. So the assumption has to be that an allegation is false before it is proven true to protect the potential innocence of a criminal defendant. Projecting the statement heavily "as true" in the media is where there's a tort. It is libel and a cause of action.

If a criminal defendant is innocent but kills himself in real punishment from the whip of unbridled libel in the press before his trial, then the media outlets responsible must pay up to the widow because they didn't wait for a trial until they themselves used their power and influence to convince what for all intents and purposes was his entire world jury and executioners "that he is already guilty". Real suffering is real suffering.

 

[Skylar]

Reporting may be accurate. But if its accuracy is drummed up in a conspicuous fashion in which it appears as a trial before a trial, where the accused's protests do not get equal coverage and weight in consideration

There's no 'equal coverage' standard in civil law. The basis of libel or slander.....is inaccuracy with malice. They have to report something that is factually inaccurate with the intent to harm.

And even you've been unable to find a single instance of inaccurate reporting. Accuracy inoculates pretty much anyone from libel or slander accusations.

You have no litigant, you have no inaccuracy, you have no malice.

Without all three, you've got no case.

It's actually a violation of the KY Rep's Constitutional protections. Blatantly so.

Which constitutional protection specifically.

 

[Silhouette]

But they have to presume a mere accusation is inaccurate to protect the accused before trial. To present it as accurate is the de facto kangaroo-trial I'm referring to.

Which constitutional protection?...you're funny playing dumb like that. The right to trial by a jury of his peers instead of trial by kangaroo court presuming/presenting and indeed in this case flaunting his "guilt" by untried facts presented "as true" to the entire world.. That's "what right" he has..

 

[Skylar]

You 'saying' she has cause has no legal relevance. You'd need to demonstrate it using the actual law. And you can't.

I say the press has repeatedly crossed the line below described in a number of these cases:

Defamation Law: The Basics - FindLaw
The term "defamation" is an all-encompassing term that covers any statement that hurts someone's reputation. If the statement is made in writing and published, the defamation is called "libel." If the hurtful statement is spoken, the statement is "slander." The government can't imprison someone for making a defamatory statement since it is not a crime. Instead, defamation is considered to be a civil wrong, or a tort. A person that has suffered a defamatory statement may sue the person that made the statement under defamation law......Defamation law, for as long as it has been in existence in the United States, has had to walk a fine line between the right to freedom of speech and the right of a person to avoid defamation. On one hand, people should be free to talk about their experiences in a truthful manner without fear of a lawsuit if they say something mean, but true, about someone else. On the other hand, people have a right to not have false statements made that will damage their reputation.

If an accusation is true, we don't know until trial. We have to err on the side of the accused in this country. So the assumption has to be that an allegation is false before it is proven true to protect the innocence of a criminal defendant. Projecting the statement heavily "as true" in the media is where there's a tort. It is libel and a cause of action.

And you have no false statements by the media. Without false statements, a specific litigant and malice, you don't have a case.

And you have none of those things.