Guilty Via Media: Is Media Liable For Kangaroo Justice?

[Skylar]

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.

The law does. Innocent until proven guilty is a legal standard. You can have whatever opinion you'd like. Private citizens can as well. As 'Lock her up! Lock her up!' demonstrated elegantly.

The media merely reported on the accusation itself. And as long as they are accurate in their reporting on the accusation, they have an iron clad defense on any claim of slander or libel.

You have no false statements. Worse, you have no defendant. As 'the media' isn't a legal entity that can be sued. You'd need a specific news organization citing a specific story that the news media inaccuracy reported.

And you have none of those things.

 

[Silhouette]

No asshole. We don't lock up accusers either. Though your hyperbole is a nice strawman.

This case would be ground-breaking. Presumed innocence means we take the accusations "as false" before they're proved otherwise in trial. So even if the woman presented the media with a video tape of her fucking him, we'd have to wait for the trial's conclusion to show it wasn't doctored video and so on. It would set precedent that the media has to respect the presumption of innocence in any allegations..

....and... *smiling*...this would end this bullshit of trial-by-media we see the left using to collar and control conservatives via duress to do their bidding.

 

[Skylar]

That's why this case would be ground-breaking.

And by 'ground breaking', you mean based on your imagination rather than the actual law?

Sil, you're merely presenting another pseudo-legal argument where you ignore the legal precedent, court rulings and law that *actually* exist and insert your own imagination instead. Those never work. Your history of predicting legal outcomes is one of perfect failure because you consistently ignore the law. Just like you are now.

Presumed innocence means we take the accusations "as false" before they're proved otherwise in trial.

Presumption of innocence is a legal standard for criminal prosecutions. It merely states that the prosecution must prove its case. It has nothing to do with the private opinions of citizens. You can believe someone is guilty without any trial, as Trump supporters did regularly with chants of 'Lock Her Up! Lock Her Up!'

Worse for your argument, the media merely reported on the accusation itself. The reporting on the existence of the accusation was accurate.

You have no false statement. 'The media' isn't a defendant. And you have no malice.

Thus you have no case.

 

[hoosier88]

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?

...

You're going to have to make up your mind on this one. She left him, he suicides, & now she may be entitled to damages? On what theory? If she left him, either she couldn't deal with the glare of publicity, or she was convinced that he had betrayed her. Either way, I don't see that she's entitled to damages.

If it turns out that the accusations against him were unfounded, then she might have a case. She'd probably still have to go to court, & prevail there, in order to be awarded damages.

Is there a link to this story? That would be helpful too.

 

[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?

...

You're going to have to make up your mind on this one. She left him, he suicides, & now she may be entitled to damages? On what theory? If she left him, either she couldn't deal with the glare of publicity, or she was convinced that he had betrayed her. Either way, I don't see that she's entitled to damages.

If it turns out that the accusations against him were unfounded, then she might have a case. She'd probably still have to go to court, & prevail there, in order to be awarded damages.

Against the accuser, perhaps. But the media that reported that the accusation existed?

Nope. Not unless the reports were factually inaccurate. And the accusation did indeed exist. With accuracy being an iron clad protection against libel or slander.

Per SIl's bizarre interpretation of the presumption of innocence neither private citizens nor the media would be allowed to acknowledge that charges against a person *even exist* until the person is convicted of that crime. Per Sil's imagination, Fox News wouldn't have been allowed to report on Clinton's impeachment at all.

As the impeachment is merely the initiation of a trial. And Clinton was acquitted by the Senate.

 

[hoosier88]

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.

My sympathies to the widow, their families. The deceased wasn't being tried in fact. Possibly he was being called names (I didn't read nor watch the coverage) - but there's no Constitutional guarantee against that. He was guaranteed a fair trial, with a chance to face his accuser, present evidence, see what evidence she had, & so on. The US system of checks & balances does rely upon the print media (especially) as a means to hold government accountable & transparent, to the extent that it can be so held. I assume that the charges against the deceased are now moot.

What happens next?

 

[Skylar]

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.

My sympathies to the widow, their families. The deceased wasn't being tried in fact. Possibly he was being called names (I didn't read nor watch the coverage) - but there's no Constitutional guarantee against that. He was guaranteed a fair trial, with a chance to face his accuser, present evidence, see what evidence she had, & so on. The US system of checks & balances does rely upon the print media (especially) as a means to hold government accountable & transparent, to the extent that it can be so held. I assume that the charges against the deceased are now moot.

What happens next?

This might be why Sil has yet to cite which constitutional protections were violated by the press.

 

[hoosier88]

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

...

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.[/QUOTE]

Was the deceased accused of a criminal offense? I assume that he was charged with consorting with someone not his wife - which isn't a criminal charge, TMK. So what was he charged with?

 

[Skylar]

Was the deceased accused of a criminal offense? I assume that he was charged with consorting with someone not his wife - which isn't a criminal charge, TMK. So what was he charged with?

Nothing. He was accused of sexual misconduct. His wife left him. He killed himself.

Sil's argument is that because the media reported that he was accused of sexual misconduct before he was convicted of the crime, they can be sued in civil court for defamation.

The only obligation the media has is to accurately report the accusations. Which, by all accounts, they did. And accuracy is an iron clad defense against libel or slander.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

At least you’re consistent in your ignorance of the law.

 

[edthecynic]

It figures that the "Christian" Right will defend their fellow sleazebags. This guy was known to be a pathological liar!

The Pope's Long Con

Long ago, Johnson fashioned an identity as a modern-day American patriot. Pro-gun, pro-God, pro-life. He talked in 2013 about making America great again. He lamented the lack of God in everyone’s lives. He wept over the country’s future.

But behind this persona — cultivated, built up and fine-tuned over decades — is a web of lies and deception. A mysterious fire. Attempted arson and false testimony. Alleged molestation in his church.

In Johnson's wake lies a trail of police records and court files, shattered lives and a flagrant disregard for truth.

This seven-month investigation is based on more than 100 interviews and several thousand pages of public documents. It also included numerous attempts to interview Johnson, who refused all requests.

Over and over, there were warning signs for government officials, law enforcement, political leaders and others. Yet, virtually nothing was done. For years, Johnson broke laws. Now, he helps make them.

 

[Skylar]

For years, Johnson broke laws. Now, he helps make them.

Not anymore.

 

[edthecynic]

For years, Johnson broke laws. Now, he helps make them.

Not anymore.

Thank God!

 

[Silhouette]

It figures that the "Christian" Right will defend their fellow sleazebags. This guy was known to be a pathological liar!

.

That's not the point here. The point is, "can the media try anyone in the public court in such a way that the coverage shows bias one way or the other"

 

[Syriusly]

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?l.

Well thanks for establishing once again your contempt for the Bill of Rights.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Freedom of the press means exactly that. The press reported the accusation.

What happened is a tragedy for his family- but that tragedy is not the fault of the press.

There is a real accuser here- you apparently want to muzzle the press so that they cannot report any accusations until.....when? Until there is an arrest? Until there is a conviction? Until sentencing?

I don't know- and you don't know whether the man here was guilty or innocent- but you certainly have shown your contempt for our Bill of Rights.

 

[Syriusly]

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

In other words, Contards are pissed off that the American Press doesn't just print the GOP propaganda like a good Russian Press would do.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Which constitutional rights?

The press has accurately reported the accusations against the congressman. Whether the accusations are true or false- the accusations were made.

The Kentucky Representatives has Constitutional protections against the government- not against press that upsets him.

 

[Syriusly]

It figures that the "Christian" Right will defend their fellow sleazebags. This guy was known to be a pathological liar!

.

That's not the point here. The point is, "can the media try anyone in the public court in such a way that the coverage shows bias one way or the other"

The media has been biased from the beginning of media in the United States.

But that bias is irrelevant here- because there is not indication that the media coverage was 'biased'.

And even if the 'media' was biased- unless they knew that the accusations were false- or had a reasonable suspicion that the accusations were false- then the media has the right- under Freedom of the Press to print the news.

Why don't you want the Press to be able to report possible sexual abuse of a man to a teenage girl?

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Spam sandwich anyone? Yes, I'll have a spam sandwich with a side of troll sauce..