Guilty Via Media: Is Media Liable For Kangaroo Justice?

[Silhouette]

And there's no precedent set for forcing Christian adoption agencies to adopt vulnerable children to gay pride parade enthusiasts yet. So by your rationale, there never will be.

There is thorough precedent for forcing Christians to follow the law even if they have religious objections.

There's also precedent for forcing people to stop spreading untried rumors (libel) about people in public in a manner that destroys lives.

 

[Skylar]

And there's no precedent set for forcing Christian adoption agencies to adopt vulnerable children to gay pride parade enthusiasts yet. So by your rationale, there never will be.

There is thorough precedent for forcing Christians to follow the law even if they have religious objections.

There's also precedent for forcing people to stop spreading untried rumors (libel) about people in public in a manner that destroys lives.

Libel requires inaccuracy. You have none. The media accurately reported the accusations.

Your imaginary version of defamation has no reflection in the law. Nor does your imaginary version of a 'trial'. Your imagination simply isn't a legal standard.

You're stuck.

 

[Skylar]

Clearly the media reporting accusations is a trial b/c...gay marriage.

Sil's personal obsessions always creep back in.

That's what obsessions do.

 

[mdk]

Clearly the media reporting accusations is a trial b/c...gay marriage.

Sil's personal obsessions always creep back in.

That's what obsessions do.

No matter the topic- all roads lead to gay marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

And there's no precedent set for forcing Christian adoption agencies to adopt vulnerable children to gay pride parade enthusiasts yet. So by your rationale, there never will be.

There is thorough precedent for forcing Christians to follow the law even if they have religious objections.

There's also precedent for forcing people to stop spreading untried rumors (libel) about people in public in a manner that destroys lives.

Yes libel laws are on the books and anyone can use them.

Which is why this thread of yours is so idiotic.

 

[Silhouette]

A trial is inaccurate when the accused doesn't get equal air time to the prosecutor. So then a court would have to determine if media coverage resulted in punishment.. the end product of a trial to see if kangaroo justice went down.

 

[Skylar]

A trial is inaccurate when the accused doesn't get equal air time to the prosecutor.

A media report is not a trial. Again, Sil......in the law, words have meanings. You arbitrarily imagining up new definitions doesn't change the law.

Do you have anything beyond offering us your imagination as the law? Because that seems to be your only shtick.

So then a court would have to determine if media coverage resulted in punishment.. the end product of a trial to see if kangaroo justice went down.

Again, someone committing suicide isn't a 'punishment' from the media. You imagined that.

 

[mamooth]

People who are accused of a crime in the US need and deserve a fair trial by unbiased peers.

So you seem to be saying that the whole media and most conservatives in the USA should be face civil liability for lying so big about Clinton, Obama, and many others.

Is that what you really want? Making it easier to sue over lies is going to burn conservatives, not liberals, because conservatives lie much more often.

 

[Skylar]

People who are accused of a crime in the US need and deserve a fair trial by unbiased peers.

So you seem to be saying that the whole media and most conservatives in the USA should be face civil liability for lying so big about Clinton, Obama, and many others.

Is that what you really want? Making it easier to sue over lies is going to burn conservatives, not liberals, because conservatives lie much more often.

Oh, no. Not sue about lies. Sil openly admits that the reporting was accurate.

She proposes reimagining Defamation to include accurate reporting that an accusation *exists*. As she imagines that an accurate media report is a 'trial'. And thus reporting on an accusation robs a defendant of 'due process' because of the 'presumption of innocence'. And of course, 'de facto'.

And yes, its a pseudo-legal word salad that has nothing to do with the law. But its Sil's.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ No, we'll never know if it was accurate because the accused never stood trial on the facts. All we have are presumptions...that punished him before a trial.

 

[Silhouette]

People who are accused of a crime in the US need and deserve a fair trial by unbiased peers.

So you seem to be saying that the whole media and most conservatives in the USA should be face civil liability for lying so big about Clinton

, Obama, and many others.

Is that what you really want? Making it easier to sue over lies is going to burn conservatives, not liberals, because conservatives lie much more often.

As long as they did it publicly and in a way that was lopsided resulting in harm to Clinton, then yes, absolutely. Which as I recall was the case. For the record, I loved that president. The US under his rule,( except NAFTA his huge blunder) was doing very very well.

This isn't a partisan proposal, this lawsuit. It's a proposal that's long overdue for the good of our nation. If everyone who thinks about running for office is thinking of facing, eventually, this type of media kangaroo court if a rival wants their seat, then the only people who will run for office and run our country therefore will be those people so obsessed with power for its own sake and narcissistic attention, and/or stupid beyond belief. And guess what we have running our country right now? Yeah. It's a problem.

Our best and brightest should not fear persecution via the press if they step up to serve our country in leadership. This lawsuit would make bright people rethink running for office again. Maybe then we'd be able to solve many more of our problems.

 

[Skylar]

People who are accused of a crime in the US need and deserve a fair trial by unbiased peers.

So you seem to be saying that the whole media and most conservatives in the USA should be face civil liability for lying so big about Clinton

, Obama, and many others.

Is that what you really want? Making it easier to sue over lies is going to burn conservatives, not liberals, because conservatives lie much more often.

As long as they did it publicly and in a way that was lopsided resulting in harm to Clinton, then yes, absolutely. Which as I recall was the case. For the record, I loved that president. The US under his rule,( except NAFTA his huge blunder) was doing very very well.

This isn't a partisan proposal, this lawsuit.

There is no lawsuit. Nothing you've talked about has been filed. Nor has it been accepted in any court has having any merit. What you're proposing is *imaginary*. ANd has nothing to do with the actual law.

Defamation isn't what you've imagined. It requires inaccuracies. And you can cite none in the media reporting.

It's a proposal that's long overdue for the good of our nation. If everyone who thinks about running for office is thinking of facing, eventually, this type of media kangaroo court if a rival wants their seat, then the only people who will run for office and run our country therefore will be those people so obsessed with power for its own sake and narcissistic attention, and/or stupid beyond belief. And guess what we have running our country right now? Yeah. It's a problem.

There's nothing 'good' about yoru proposal. First, your redefinition of defamation would make a person infinitely liable....as it would apply to what they *didn't* say. Not what they did. Defamation applies to the words a person actually uttered or wrote. You'd hold someone liable for words they NEVER uttered or NEVER wrote.

Which is a ludicrous standard. As there is literally an infinite combination of words that are NEVER uttered by any individual. Any individual would be infinitely liable on any word spoken or written as they would be responsible for all the other words that they didn't write or say.

It would decimate the entire press and virtually end free speech. Either that, or it would be overturned by the 14th amendments equal protection clause. As your imaginary standard would either apply to everyone on all topics, or none.

No thank you.

 

[Silhouette]

Of course there's no lawsuit...yet... This thread proposes the idea to resolve the chilling effect media kangaroo court has on our best and brightest wanting to run for office. It's a discussion of whether or not this phenomenon is happening (it is), and whether this happening is bad for national security. And, if something should be done about that by a strategic lawsuit. You know about strategic lawsuits since the group you pitch avidly for uses the courts like greased skid rails they can run their clumsy logs into any agenda they can think of.

 

[Silhouette]

Skylar? Chilling effect or no?

 

[Skylar]

Of course there's no lawsuit...yet... This thread proposes the idea to resolve the chilling effect media kangaroo court has on our best and brightest wanting to run for office. It's a discussion of whether or not this phenomenon is happening (it is), and whether this happening is bad for national security. And, if something should be done about that by a strategic lawsuit. You know about strategic lawsuits since the group you pitch avidly for uses the courts like greased skid rails they can run their clumsy logs into any agenda they can think of.

There's no basis for a lawsuit. You're reimagining the law based on several made up definitions that you've invented. Your version of 'defamation' has nothing to do with the actual definition. And you've made up your own version of 'trials'.

Neither of your reimaginings have a thing to do with the actual law.

Additionally, your application of your imagination is unconstitutionally discriminatory. As you would apply it only to 'the media'. Which would run smack into 14th amendment violations. Defamation applies to everyone. Not just the selection groups you want to target. And if your imagination did apply to everyone it would devastate the free press and essentially end free speech.

As bizarrely, you've insisted that folks be held liable for words they've never uttered. Rather than held accountable for the accuracy of those things they actually said.

Your imaginings are terrible ideas. We won't be redefining defamation and trials to match your made up meanings as they would either be unconstitutional or devastating to free speech and a free press.

No thank you.

 

[Silhouette]

But does what happened to the KY Rep have a chilling effect on our best and brightest running to serve our country? ie: is it a national security matter?

 

[Skylar]

But does what happened to the KY Rep have a chilling effect on our best and brightest running to serve our country? ie: is it a national security matter?

Look who got unbanned!

Was it the “gay mafioso kill squads murdering children to garner sympathy for LGBT” that did it?

 

[Skylar]

But does what happened to the KY Rep have a chilling effect on our best and brightest running to serve our country? ie: is it a national security matter?

The free press accurately reporting the news is a national security threat?

LMAO!

 

[Syriusly]

But does what happened to the KY Rep have a chilling effect on our best and brightest running to serve our country? ie: is it a national security matter?

I am hoping our 'best and brightest' are not so mentally fragile that they will commit suicide as soon as they get accused of molesting a teenager.

 

[Syriusly]

But does what happened to the KY Rep have a chilling effect on our best and brightest running to serve our country? ie: is it a national security matter?

The free press accurately reporting the news is a national security threat?

LMAO!

Well it is the free press- and Silhouette can't have that.