Guilty Via Media: Is Media Liable For Kangaroo Justice?

[Syriusly]

[ He may have had sex with the 17 year old after she forced herself on him repeatedly. As 17 year old girls sometimes do.

Wow- in order to defend your bizarre theory of censorship of the media- you accuse the 17 year old of being the sex abuser- and the adult Rep- as the victim?

You have actually done- what you accused the media of doing.

 

[Skylar]

[ He may have had sex with the 17 year old after she forced herself on him repeatedly. As 17 year old girls sometimes do.

Wow- in order to defend your bizarre theory of censorship of the media- you accuse the 17 year old of being the sex abuser- and the adult Rep- as the victim?

You have actually done- what you accused the media of doing.

Sil doesn't apply her standards to *herself*, Sy. You know that. They only apply to other people.

 

[Silhouette]

Wow- in order to defend your bizarre theory of censorship of the media- you accuse the 17 year old of being the sex abuser- and the adult Rep- as the victim?.

No. I said it was possible the 17 year old threw herself at him. But that we'll never know now thanks to the punishment phase of the kangaroo media court.

 

[Skylar]

Wow- in order to defend your bizarre theory of censorship of the media- you accuse the 17 year old of being the sex abuser- and the adult Rep- as the victim?.

No. I said it was possible the 17 year old threw herself at him. But that we'll never know now thanks to the punishment phase of the kangaroo media court.

You made an accusation you have nothing to back up, pulled from your imagination. And there's no evidence that the 17 year old 'threw herself' at the Rep.

See, you're brushing up against ACTUAL defamation. When you make up inaccurate claims. And of course, since you didn't dedicate half your post to the denials by the accused, you're also brushing up against violations of your own imaginary version of defamation.

As always, Sil......you never apply your standards to yourself. If even you are going to ignore your standards, surely you can understand why they don't mean a thing to us either.

 

[Silhouette]

You made an accusation you have nothing to back up, pulled from your imagination. And there's no evidence that the 17 year old 'threw herself' at the Rep.

Correct. We'll never know one way or the other to resolve the questions because the net effect of the media trial/punishment was suicide of the accused. You're catching on. Good for you!

 

[Skylar]

You made an accusation you have nothing to back up, pulled from your imagination. And there's no evidence that the 17 year old 'threw herself' at the Rep.

Correct. We'll never know one way or the other to resolve the questions because the net effect of the media trial/punishment was suicide of the accused. You're catching on. Good for you!

There was no 'trial'. There was no 'punishment'. There was no defamation. There was an accurate media report.

Remember, Sil.....your imagination isn't a legal standard. And your imagination is all you have.

 

[Syriusly]

Wow- in order to defend your bizarre theory of censorship of the media- you accuse the 17 year old of being the sex abuser- and the adult Rep- as the victim?.

No. I said it was possible the 17 year old threw herself at him. .

Here is what you said: "He may have had sex with the 17 year old after she forced herself on him repeatedly. As 17 year old girls sometimes do."

You did exactly what you claimed the media should not do. You smeared the 17 year old girl who said that this guy molested her.

We might have found out the truth in the matter- if the guy hadn't chosen to commit suicide. After being accused of sexually molesting a minor.

 

[Syriusly]

You made an accusation you have nothing to back up, pulled from your imagination. And there's no evidence that the 17 year old 'threw herself' at the Rep.

Correct. We'll never know one way or the other to resolve the questions because the net effect of the media trial/punishment was suicide of the accused. You're catching on. Good for you!

We may never have known the exact truth- but once the accused chose to commit suicide- rather than have to face his accuser- he took that option away.

 

[Silhouette]

We may never have known the exact truth- but once the accused chose to commit suicide- rather than have to face his accuser- he took that option away.

Do people with documented PTSD "choose" suicide? Or are some of them actually susceptible to suicide upon heaps of stress?

 

[Syriusly]

We may never have known the exact truth- but once the accused chose to commit suicide- rather than have to face his accuser- he took that option away.

Do people with documented PTSD "choose" suicide? Or are some of them actually susceptible to suicide upon heaps of stress?

Well lets break that down:

1. Did Dan Johnson have 'documented PTSD'? There is no record of that other than his rather bizarre suicide note.
   
2. If Dan Johnson's PTSD was so debilitating that he was one pressure point away from suicide- who was responsible for putting him in a position of stress? That would still be Dan Johnson.

Dan Johnson- as far as I can tell- never said anything about PTSD to anyone- until his suicide. He claims he was at the World Trade Center on 9/11- and maybe he was. Or maybe he made that up too. He might have had PTSD. Or he might have made that up to.

But there is no 'documentation' that he had PTSD. You are shockingly enough- just making it up.

 

[Silhouette]

We may never have known the exact truth- but once the accused chose to commit suicide- rather than have to face his accuser- he took that option away.

Do people with documented PTSD "choose" suicide? Or are some of them actually susceptible to suicide upon heaps of stress?

Well lets break that down:

1. Did Dan Johnson have 'documented PTSD'? There is no record of that other than his rather bizarre suicide note.
   
2. If Dan Johnson's PTSD was so debilitating that he was one pressure point away from suicide- who was responsible for putting him in a position of stress? That would still be Dan Johnson.

Dan Johnson- as far as I can tell- never said anything about PTSD to anyone- until his suicide. He claims he was at the World Trade Center on 9/11- and maybe he was. Or maybe he made that up too. He might have had PTSD. Or he might have made that up to.

But there is no 'documentation' that he had PTSD. You are shockingly enough- just making it up.

So veterans of war and other extreme stresses need a doctor's note to kill themselves from susceptibility to PTSD?

 

[Syriusly]

We may never have known the exact truth- but once the accused chose to commit suicide- rather than have to face his accuser- he took that option away.

Do people with documented PTSD "choose" suicide? Or are some of them actually susceptible to suicide upon heaps of stress?

Well lets break that down:

1. Did Dan Johnson have 'documented PTSD'? There is no record of that other than his rather bizarre suicide note.
   
2. If Dan Johnson's PTSD was so debilitating that he was one pressure point away from suicide- who was responsible for putting him in a position of stress? That would still be Dan Johnson.

Dan Johnson- as far as I can tell- never said anything about PTSD to anyone- until his suicide. He claims he was at the World Trade Center on 9/11- and maybe he was. Or maybe he made that up too. He might have had PTSD. Or he might have made that up to.

But there is no 'documentation' that he had PTSD. You are shockingly enough- just making it up.

So veterans of war and other extreme stresses need a doctor's note to kill themselves from susceptibility to PTSD?

Just pointing out your lie.

1. Did Dan Johnson have 'documented PTSD'? There is no record of that other than his rather bizarre suicide note.
   
2. If Dan Johnson's PTSD was so debilitating that he was one pressure point away from suicide- who was responsible for putting him in a position of stress? That would still be Dan Johnson.

Dan Johnson- as far as I can tell- never said anything about PTSD to anyone- until his suicide. He claims he was at the World Trade Center on 9/11- and maybe he was. Or maybe he made that up too. He might have had PTSD. Or he might have made that up to.

But there is no 'documentation' that he had PTSD. You are shockingly enough- just making it up.

 

[Skylar]

We may never have known the exact truth- but once the accused chose to commit suicide- rather than have to face his accuser- he took that option away.

Do people with documented PTSD "choose" suicide? Or are some of them actually susceptible to suicide upon heaps of stress?

Well lets break that down:

1. Did Dan Johnson have 'documented PTSD'? There is no record of that other than his rather bizarre suicide note.
   
2. If Dan Johnson's PTSD was so debilitating that he was one pressure point away from suicide- who was responsible for putting him in a position of stress? That would still be Dan Johnson.

Dan Johnson- as far as I can tell- never said anything about PTSD to anyone- until his suicide. He claims he was at the World Trade Center on 9/11- and maybe he was. Or maybe he made that up too. He might have had PTSD. Or he might have made that up to.

But there is no 'documentation' that he had PTSD. You are shockingly enough- just making it up.

So veterans of war and other extreme stresses need a doctor's note to kill themselves from susceptibility to PTSD?

Just pointing out your lie.

1. Did Dan Johnson have 'documented PTSD'? There is no record of that other than his rather bizarre suicide note.
   
2. If Dan Johnson's PTSD was so debilitating that he was one pressure point away from suicide- who was responsible for putting him in a position of stress? That would still be Dan Johnson.

Dan Johnson- as far as I can tell- never said anything about PTSD to anyone- until his suicide. He claims he was at the World Trade Center on 9/11- and maybe he was. Or maybe he made that up too. He might have had PTSD. Or he might have made that up to.

But there is no 'documentation' that he had PTSD. You are shockingly enough- just making it up.

Sil making up nonsense from nothing and then insisting that we change the law based on her imagination?

Color me shocked.

 

[Silhouette]

No, I'm proposing the widow of the KY Rep file suit and change the law based on the facts. But nice ad hominem spin though.

 

[Syriusly]

No, I'm proposing the widow of the KY Rep file suit and change the law based on the facts. But nice ad hominem spin though.

File suit against who- for what?

And what law do you want changed? Specifically?

 

[Skylar]

No, I'm proposing the widow of the KY Rep file suit and change the law based on the facts. But nice ad hominem spin though.

More accurately, you're imagining that the KY Rep had PTSD's....a claim pulled sideways out of your ass. And then insisting that the media should assume that all 'accused' have PTSDs....because you imagined it.

Um, no. Your imagination isn't a rational standard any more than it is a legal one. We're not changing our defamation laws just because you made up a story.

 

[Silhouette]

No, I'm proposing the widow of the KY Rep file suit and change the law based on the facts. But nice ad hominem spin though.

More accurately, you're imagining that the KY Rep had PTSD's....a claim pulled sideways out of your ass. And then insisting that the media should assume that all 'accused' have PTSDs....because you imagined it.

All of that would come out in discovery. You know, whether or not I'm "imagining" that the media tries people and punishes them before they ever see a judge or jury.

You aren't afraid of testing this are you? I think you are. Strange for someone so certain of winning....

 

[Skylar]

No, I'm proposing the widow of the KY Rep file suit and change the law based on the facts. But nice ad hominem spin though.

More accurately, you're imagining that the KY Rep had PTSD's....a claim pulled sideways out of your ass. And then insisting that the media should assume that all 'accused' have PTSDs....because you imagined it.

All of that would come out in discovery. You know, whether or not I'm "imagining" that the media tries people and punishes them before they ever see a judge or jury.

You aren't afraid of testing this are you? I think you are. Strange for someone so certain of winning....

Laughing....and now we need court proceedings because you imagined something?

Sil, we're simply not altering our laws because of your imagination. We're not destroying the Free Press and Free Speech because you imagined something. We're not holding court hearings because you make something up.

Your imagination has no legal relevance. Its why every legal prediction you've ever made has been wrong. Because the law doesn't give a shit what you make up. And neither do we.

 

[Silhouette]

Again, all lawsuits start first as someone's imagination. Then the test comes in discovery and briefs and finally the Hearing.

 

[Skylar]

Again, all lawsuits start first as someone's imagination. Then the test comes in discovery and briefs and finally the Hearing.

And nothing you've ever predicted about the law has ever happened. Your record of pre

The litigation you're referring to is imaginary. Your changes to the law, imaginary. The PTSD's that you insist that the KY Rep had....you made up based on nothing. Your conclusions that a 17 year old girl 'forced herself' on a full grown man....imaginary.

Your imagination is not a legal standard, Sil. And that is literally all you've ever offered us.

No thank you.