Guilty Via Media: Is Media Liable For Kangaroo Justice?

[John Shaw]

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 know what? I don't fucking care. Was he a baby boomer? If so, I'm glad he's dead.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ That is SO not the topic of this thread.

You are arguing against Freedom of the Press and the Constitution.

Because you believe the press must be forced to give equal time to the accused- so that someone like Jeffrey Dahmer can have as much space to explain his point of view- as the prosecution does.

In Obergefell your ilk was arguing against the Freedom of the States to define marriage (as upheld 56 times in Windsor 2013), and for a new contract to banish children for life from either a mother or father, outside permission to do so from the Infancy Doctrine. WITHOUT getting sidetracked on that other topic, the point is ,it's fine for your ilk to use sympathy and the like to curb Constitutional protections and other ironclad protections of law when it suits your dogma, but it's suddenly not OK for me to argue that people need to not be tried (and punished) before a court hearing in the mass media.

 

[Syriusly]

^^ That is SO not the topic of this thread.

You are arguing against Freedom of the Press and the Constitution.

Because you believe the press must be forced to give equal time to the accused- so that someone like Jeffrey Dahmer can have as much space to explain his point of view- as the prosecution does.

In Obergefell .

So not the topic of this thread- Obergefell does not have anything to do with the topic of this thread.

You have presented the argument that the accused must get equal time from the press.

So I posit this question to you: If a Jeffrey Dahmer or Charles Manson are accused of murder- is the press obligated to give them equal press to present their story?

 

[Silhouette]

Yes. They sit in jail until trial & they are presumed innocent until the facts are presented at a fair trial. Were you just born yesterday or were you raised in Mexico under napoleonic law?

 

[Syriusly]

Yes. They sit in jail until trial & they are presumed innocent until the facts are presented at a fair trial. Were you just born yesterday or were you raised in Mexico under napoleonic law?

Are you talking to yourself again Silly?

 

[Silhouette]

No. But I'm beginning to think you enjoy just bumping my threads. Or are you paid per post?

 

[Silhouette]

In the US, the media - especially the print media - have a role in the checks & balances designed into the system of government. Basically, they're whistleblowers - if they find issues, they're encouraged to bring those issues to light. I didn't read/watch the coverage on this particular issue. But a member of Congress should certainly understand that he/she lives & operates in a bubble that's fairly transparent to the World. & that any action too far outside the mainstream will draw attention from the press.

Yes. There's bringing issues to light . And then there's the presumption of innocence. With the left MSM's monopoly using mass broadcasting and instant alerts to hundreds of millions, they have a duty to give equal air time to presumption of innocence once the story breaks.

 

[hoosier88]

In the US, the media - especially the print media - have a role in the checks & balances designed into the system of government. Basically, they're whistleblowers - if they find issues, they're encouraged to bring those issues to light. I didn't read/watch the coverage on this particular issue. But a member of Congress should certainly understand that he/she lives & operates in a bubble that's fairly transparent to the World. & that any action too far outside the mainstream will draw attention from the press.

Yes. There's bringing issues to light . And then there's the presumption of innocence. With the left MSM's monopoly using mass broadcasting and instant alerts to hundreds of millions, they have a duty to give equal air time to presumption of innocence once the story breaks.

presumption of innocence is a legal concept. As long as the media don't libel someone - fabricate stories out of whole cloth - & report accurately, they've performed their duty (as considered by the Founding Fathers). The left MSM's monopoly - for one, the MSM are corporate - Disney, Comcast, & so on. (Disney, I'll grant you, is the big Show Biz/fantasy gorilla in the room - but they're corporate anymore.) Murdoch's outfits are hardly Left, & they're in the US media mix in a big way. I thought equal air time was a big conservative bugaboo to begin with. In any event, it's dead, I don't see it coming back.

 

[Silhouette]

If there's a lawsuit it could be coming back...

 

[Skylar]

Meanwhile your ilk bears the double standard. It's fine & dandy to warp the Constitution when it promotes you dogma of victimhood as force. But when it's to protect a persons right to an unbiased tribunal, suddenenly feelings don't matter and you take a hard line defending media libel.

Save of course that a media report isn't a trial. Remember, your quite confused about the meaning of words. And we're not changing the constitution, the meaning of defamation and abandoning about half of the first amendment because you're committed to a false equivalency fallacy.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes. There's bringing issues to light . And then there's the presumption of innocence. With the left MSM's monopoly using mass broadcasting and instant alerts to hundreds of millions, they have a duty to give equal air time to presumption of innocence once the story breaks.

presumption of innocence is a legal concept. As long as the media don't libel someone - fabricate stories out of whole cloth - & report accurately, they've performed their duty (as considered by the Founding Fathers).

It's HOW they report it accurately. I'm alleging they're using a loophole under "reporting accurately" to report lopsidedly. And when this happens, it becomes a form of libel in itself.

Picture the following scenario. A woman gossip (perfect analogy for the media), hears her neighbor's teen daughter is pregnant. Let's say she hears it from a reputable source that saw the girl throwing a positive pregnancy test away in the trash at school. Then let's say the gossip goes around telling everyone in town what she heard, coming from a reputable source. Even when the girl hears this broadcasting, she denies being pregnant and says she was throwing away the device for a friend, the gossip only laughs at her and amplifies the broadcasting. Finally the entire town thinks she's an unwed pregnant teen. Her boyfriend runs away, freaking out that he's going to be a father and under the shame now of the entire town. The girl in the throes of adolescent heartache, hurls herself off a bridge.

This is the type of real trial and consequence "accurate reporting" can do to people without a trial on the facts and equal weight in coverage to presumed innocence; and, respect for the accused no matter how heinous the alleged crime.. So the "accurate source" loophole can't be overused at the expense of the accused.

This KY Rep. had a history of PTSD. People who have this just cannot cope with large amounts of stress. And he knew large amounts of stress were what the media planned for his kangaroo trial. So he took his own life. He may have had sex with the 17 year old after she forced herself on him repeatedly. As 17 year old girls sometimes do. So instead of his taking advantage of her, she may have been tempting him beyond the pale. If he did, he shouldn't have done her. But the circumstances untried (and now never will be), are not known. The media portrayed the allegations as "the girl said he molested her". When in reality she may have found him coming home drunk, pulled his pants down at his protests and started on him herself. But we'll never know thanks to the media trial that delivered real punishment to this PTSD sufferer.

One (or no) potential act of transgression in an otherwise flawless marriage in a time of great temptation? Is that worthy of a de facto death penalty? The media should assume all their targets have PTSD. They should regard their presumed innocence with the respect and decorum it deserves and not hold trial before the public airways.

 

[Skylar]

Yes. There's bringing issues to light . And then there's the presumption of innocence. With the left MSM's monopoly using mass broadcasting and instant alerts to hundreds of millions, they have a duty to give equal air time to presumption of innocence once the story breaks.

presumption of innocence is a legal concept. As long as the media don't libel someone - fabricate stories out of whole cloth - & report accurately, they've performed their duty (as considered by the Founding Fathers).

It's HOW they report it accurately. I'm alleging they're using a loophole under "reporting accurately" to report lopsidedly.

Again, your conceptions of what's 'fair' has nothing to do with defamation. Defamation is about inaccuracies. And accuracy

You're literally arguing that people should be held liable for defamation for words that they never uttered. Which is wildly foolish. As its an infinite standard. The quantity of words that you've never uttered is incalculable. While *actual* defamation is limited to the words that you did say, a much more finite number.

No

And when this happens, it becomes a form of libel in itself.

No, it doesn't. Actual libel requires inaccuracies. Your imaginary version of libel doesn't. The law is bound to the actual definitions and not to your imagination.

This is the type of real trial and consequence "accurate reporting" can do to people without a trial on the facts and equal weight in coverage to presumed innocence; and, respect for the accused no matter how heinous the alleged crime.. So the "accurate source" loophole can't be overused at the expense of the accused.

An accurate media report is not a 'trial'. Again, you're offering us imaginary definitions and then insisting that the law be changed to match them.

Um, no. We're not doing that.

One (or no) potential act of transgression in an otherwise flawless marriage in a time of great temptation? Is that worthy of a de facto death penalty? The media should assume all their targets have PTSD. They should regard their presumed innocence with the respect and decorum it deserves and not hold trial before the public airways.

A man commiting suicide is not a 'de facto death penalty'. Again, words have meanings. Your imagination does not. And we're not making your imagination law.

And no, the media should not assume that everyone has PTSDs. The media should accurately report the news.

 

[hoosier88]

...

It's HOW they report it accurately. I'm alleging they're using a loophole under "reporting accurately" to report lopsidedly. And when this happens, it becomes a form of libel in itself.

Picture the following scenario. A woman gossip (perfect analogy for the media), hears her neighbor's teen daughter is pregnant. ...

This is the type of real trial and consequence "accurate reporting" can do to people without a trial on the facts and equal weight in coverage to presumed innocence; and, respect for the accused no matter how heinous the alleged crime.. So the "accurate source" loophole can't be overused at the expense of the accused.

This KY Rep. had a history of PTSD. People who have this just cannot cope with large amounts of stress. ...

One (or no) potential act of transgression in an otherwise flawless marriage in a time of great temptation? Is that worthy of a de facto death penalty? The media should assume all their targets have PTSD. They should regard their presumed innocence with the respect and decorum it deserves and not hold trial before the public airways.

If there's a charge of libel, the widow can pursue a case in court. I don't think there is, & I don't know that any reputable attorney would either. But if she insists, she can pay her money & take her chances.

scenario? The courts don't run on analogy, they have lots of precedence & training that they do run on. I don't know where respect for the accused comes from; it's not a journalistic standard. If the deceased had PTSD, he shouldn't have been in Congress. Just getting the nomination can induce killer stress, let alone becoming the flash point for sexual allegations. That's on him - the best defense would be to lead a blameless life - which doesn't seem to be the case here.

de facto death penalty? Nah, death penalty requires a trial & all the other accompanying procedures. In this case, it was a suicide. decorum sounds to me like language that goes with a legislature more than a judicial proceeding. If the widow feels a crime was committed upon her spouse, she can proceed to file charges. But I don't think there's anything there.​

 

[Silhouette]

Well I think there's a sentiment that the media has gotten out of control witch-hunting particularly conservative targets with sex charges; effectively trying the case in public opinion before it makes it to court. Way out of hand. So maybe a case like this is LONG overdue to see what the courts think about this type of de facto persecution & punishment before a trial.

 

[Skylar]

Well I think there's a sentiment that the media has gotten out of control witch-hunting particularly conservative targets with sex charges;

How are they 'getting out of control' by accurately reporting accusations? Again, your proposed 'solution' causes massive harm, would almost certainly fail a 14th amendment challenge as it only applies to the 'media', would hold someone liable for words they never uttered, and is horrendously subjective.

No thank you.

effectively trying the case in public opinion before it makes it to court. Way out of hand. So maybe a case like this is LONG overdue to see what the courts think about this type of de facto persecution & punishment before a trial.

Accurately reporting on an accusation is not a 'trial'. No matter how many times you imagine it is. Nor is putting the words 'de facto' in front of your imagination change it into a fact. There is no 'punishment'. There is accurate reporting. The media didn't kill him. He killed himself. The media didn't divorce him. His wife did based on the accusations against him.

Your entire argument is based on replacing the actual law, the actual meaning of defamation and actual precedent....with your imagination.

No thank you.

 

[Silhouette]

Accurately reporting on an accusation is not a 'trial'.

We've been round and round about this Skylar. You say any amount of public accusation in the mainstream media without a trial is not a problem. I say the opposite; particularly if the coverage is lopsided against the accused's claims of innocence. This is the point of contention that, if you were truly confident, wouldn't bother you to come before a panel of judges eventually in the appellate system where it surely would end up, being a question of two conflicting constitutional rights.

You would slap down such a case. I say it should go forward and the problems and questions be answered. That's the loggerheads we're at on this.

 

[Skylar]

Accurately reporting on an accusation is not a 'trial'.

We've been round and round about this Skylar.

We have. And nothing you've described is defamation. You're insisting we ignore actual defamation and replace it with your imaginary version. And I've told you why its an awful, awful idea.

1) You'd be holding people infinitely liable for words they never uttered.

2) Your standard would either destroy the free press and free speech.....or be overturned due to 14th amendment equal protection clauses. Such a standard would have to apply to everyone, or no one.

You say any amount of public accusation in the mainstream media without a trial is not a problem.

I say that the media's responsibility is to accuracy in reporting allegations. And that accurate media reporting is not a 'trial'.

The law would concur on both counts.

I say the opposite; particularly if the coverage is lopsided against the accused's claims of innocence. This is the point of contention that, if you were truly confident, wouldn't bother you to come before a panel of judges eventually in the appellate system where it surely would end up, being a question of two conflicting constitutional rights.

Sil, as always....your imagination is not a legal standard. You're imagining that a panel of judges would magically 'reimagine' all of defamation, apply to words that the defendant *never* uttered, undermine the 1st amendment and ignore the 14th.....because you do.

Your record for accurately predicting legal outcomes is literally zero. You've never once correctly predicted a case. And the reason is obvious: you keep pretending your imagination is the law.

And it isn't.

 

[Syriusly]

No. But I'm beginning to think you enjoy just bumping my threads. Or are you paid per post?

Talking to yourself again Spamouette?

 

[Syriusly]

In the US, the media - especially the print media - have a role in the checks & balances designed into the system of government. Basically, they're whistleblowers - if they find issues, they're encouraged to bring those issues to light. I didn't read/watch the coverage on this particular issue. But a member of Congress should certainly understand that he/she lives & operates in a bubble that's fairly transparent to the World. & that any action too far outside the mainstream will draw attention from the press.

Yes. There's bringing issues to light . And then there's the presumption of innocence. With the left MSM's monopoly using mass broadcasting and instant alerts to hundreds of millions, they have a duty to give equal air time to presumption of innocence once the story breaks.

So once again- do you believe that the media had a duty to give Jeffrey Dahmer and Charles Manson 'equal air time' to their presumption of innocence?

 

[Syriusly]

If there's a lawsuit it could be coming back...

There has never since the beginning of time- been a lawsuit based upon one of your insane ideas.