Guilty Via Media: Is Media Liable For Kangaroo Justice?

[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.

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.

Correct. He was not tried in fact. He was tried de facto. So for all intents and purposes, including punishment, his "jury" was being exposed to argument without referee; and very biased argument at that. Only the DA must presume an accuser is telling the truth. The public media must assume that the accuser is probably lying, but give her the benefit of the doubt with minimal attention to her allegations until the facts are tried. Otherwise a real, actual, painful punishment is administered to the accused for an allegation; and done so outside the normal course of justice. It is a very pernicious form of libel of which I know you know applies here.

 

[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?l.

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

And his right to a fair trial with representation and the assumption of his innocence until proven guilty? If his (real, actual, painful, experiential) punishment is delivered via your cult's media before the trial even begins, how has justice been served re his rights?

 

[Silhouette]

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 yet. Not formally. But the media running amok effectively charged him with molestation or sexual imposition on a woman, "tried the facts" without a court referee, nor his word being given equal weight to his accuser, and then delivered a punishment of promised social/career/marriage ruination ongoing until the real anxiety and fear of such a well worn treatment courtesy of the media took its toll and resulted in suicide.

 

[hoosier88]

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"

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.

So, no, the media doesn't try anybody, & there is no public court. If Johnson's behavior shocked the public & scared the horses - that's not the fault of the media, that's on Johnson.

 

[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.

So, no, the media doesn't try anybody, & there is no public court. If Johnson's behavior shocked the public & scared the horses - that's not the fault of the media, that's on Johnson.

Your statement "So, no, the media doesn't try anybody..." is the statement that would be debated thoroughly in any suit for tort filed on behalf of the widow. That's exactly the point of contention between your position and mine.

 

[hoosier88]

...

...

Correct. He was not tried in fact. He was tried de facto. So for all intents and purposes, including punishment, his "jury" was being exposed to argument without referee; and very biased argument at that. Only the DA must presume an accuser is telling the truth. The public media must assume that the accuser is probably lying, but give her the benefit of the doubt with minimal attention to her allegations until the facts are tried. Otherwise a real, actual, painful punishment is administered to the accused for an allegation; and done so outside the normal course of justice. It is a very pernicious form of libel of which I know you know applies here.

Nah, he wasn't tried @ all. Nor was he punished - he suicided. The DA only looks to see if a crime has possibly been committed, & if the chances of successful prosecution are good. If there's lots of staff & resources available, he or she might pursue marginal cases. But typically, they're overworked & have to pick cases that are winnable. Media can't knowingly report lies - that's what libel & slander laws are for, but those laws have specific components that are lacking in this case - TMK. Which means there's no case to pursue.

punishment was not administered to the accused - No punishment was administered - there was no competent legal entity to bring charges, nor a court, nor any other of the trappings of justice. If Johnson was convinced of his innocence, he had to prevail in court on the allegations of sexual behavior, & then he could bring libel charges against specific media. He chose not to do that.

 

[Silhouette]

Nah, he wasn't tried @ all. Nor was he punished - he suicided. The DA only looks to see if a crime has possibly been committed, & if the chances of successful prosecution are good.

You will recall this is about a claim for civil tort. Not criminal. Libel/defamation is a cause of action for a civil lawsuit.

 

[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.

And his right to a fair trial with representation and the assumption of his innocence until proven guilty? ?

We all have right to fair trail- from the government. We don't have the right to squelch reporting of a possible crime.

 

[DJT for Life]

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.

I'm on your side in this matter but for an entirely different reason.

In the past the media would "pick and choose" who they wanted to
destroy.

But now, because their top dogs and big money makers have had to
be let go because of their fooling around. The media will go after anybody
and promote any woman with a halfway argument.

They are simply deflecting the news away from themselves and what they
have allowed to flourish, decade after decade.

They've managed to remove the target from themselves and place it on
others.

 

[Timmy]

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?

Jail. Jail is the difference.

 

[Syriusly]

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 yet. Not formally. But the media running amok effectively charged him with molestation or sexual imposition on a woman,.

How is reporting a woman's accusation that he molested her 'running amok'?

 

[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.

I'm on your side in this matter but for an entirely different reason. In the past the media would "pick and choose" who they wanted to destroy. But now, because their top dogs and big money makers have had to be let go because of their fooling around. The media will go after anybody and promote any woman with a halfway argument. They are simply deflecting the news away from themselves and what they have allowed to flourish, decade after decade. They've managed to remove the target from themselves and place it on others.

Bingo

 

[Skylar]

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"

There’s no such thing as a public court. You have no basis for a civil suit without maliciously inaccurate reporting. And you have no such inaccuracies.

 

[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.

Correct. He was not tried in fact. He was tried de facto. So for all intents and purposes, including punishment, his "jury" was being exposed to argument without referee; and very biased argument at that. Only the DA must presume an accuser is telling the truth. The public media must assume that the accuser is probably lying, but give her the benefit of the doubt with minimal attention to her allegations until the facts are tried. Otherwise a real, actual, painful punishment is administered to the accused for an allegation; and done so outside the normal course of justice. It is a very pernicious form of libel of which I know you know applies here.

No, he wasn’t tried “de facto”. And no, the media has no mandate to assume the accuser is “probably lying”.

And no, accurately reporting on accusations is not any form of “libel”. Accuracy is an iron clad defense against libel.

You simply have no idea what you’re talking about.

 

[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 yet. Not formally. But the media running amok effectively charged him with molestation or sexual imposition on a woman, "tried the facts" without a court referee, nor his word being given equal weight to his accuser, and then delivered a punishment of promised social/career/marriage ruination ongoing until the real anxiety and fear of such a well worn treatment courtesy of the media took its toll and resulted in suicide.

Nope. He wasn't charged with molestation. He was accused of it by a woman. The media reported accurately reported on the accusation. There is no basis for a civil penalty against the media for accurate reporting.

You insist that constitutional protections were violated....but can't name a single one.

You've got no constitutional protection violation, no defendant, no inaccuracy, no case. There's a reason why no case as you describe exists. Its not the entire legal system that's confused on how the law works.

Its just you.

 

[Silhouette]

There’s no such thing as a public court. You have no basis for a civil suit without maliciously inaccurate reporting. And you have no such inaccuracies.

1. Yes there is such a thing as a de facto public court. Otherwise the tort of libel would be meaningless without the "defamation" part.

2. Any report for public consumption which evidently trumps up an accusation as "presumed guilt" against an un-tried defendant, especially if his claims to innocence are portrayed as absurd or belittled, is a media kangaroo court.

3. The punishment dispensed by such a court consists of the ruination of a person's reputation, marriage, career etc. before he has been tried in an unbiased tribunal.

 

[Skylar]

1. Yes there is such a thing as a de facto public court. Otherwise the tort of libel would be meaningless without the "defamation" part.

Nope, there isn't. Its more made up pseudo-legal gibberish. There's no mention of any 'defacto public court' in any defamation law. You imagined it.

2. Any report for public consumption which evidently trumps up an accusation as "presumed guilt" against an un-tried defendant, especially if his claims to innocence are portrayed as absurd or belittled, is a media kangaroo court.

Nope. "Media kangaroo court' is more made up nonsense that has nothing to do with the law. Actual defamation requires malicious inaccuracies.

You have none.

3. The punishment dispensed by such a court consists of the ruination of a person's reputation, marriage, career etc. before he has been tried in an unbiased tribunal.

Your 'court' doesn't exist. You imagined it. And your imagination has no relevance to the law.

Is this it? Just your standard 'make my imagination the law' shtick?

If so, that was easy.

 

[hoosier88]

...

You will recall this is about a claim for civil tort. Not criminal. Libel/defamation is a cause of action for a civil lawsuit.

Ah, in #17 above, you kept referring to a criminal defendant (Mr. Johnson, I presume). You even underlined it. & I questioned that, the allegation of sexual misconduct isn't typically a criminal matter, unless there's assault or some other force applied. & no, I don't think there are grounds for a civil tort claim either. I think the widow's best bet is not to file @ all - for her to have any chance @ all to prevail, she'd have to testify to a lot of ugly history. & then explain why she left her husband (I assume they were still married). & so on - I hope she has competent counsel - who can explain all this to her. It's her choice, of course. But the odds look to be staggeringly against her in court.

 

[Skylar]

...

You will recall this is about a claim for civil tort. Not criminal. Libel/defamation is a cause of action for a civil lawsuit.

Ah, in #17 above, you kept referring to a criminal defendant (Mr. Johnson, I presume). You even underlined it. & I questioned that, the allegation of sexual misconduct isn't typically a criminal matter, unless there's assault or some other force applied. & no, I don't think there are grounds for a civil tort claim either. I think the widow's best bet is not to file @ all - for her to have any chance @ all to prevail, she'd have to testify to a lot of ugly history. & then explain why she left her husband (I assume they were still married). & so on - I hope she has competent counsel - who can explain all this to her. It's her choice, of course. But the odds look to be staggeringly against her in court.

Especially if she's holding the media responsible for her husband's death. As they accurately reported the accusations.

And there's zero indication that she is. This entire 'legal' scenario, from beginning to end, is the product of Sil's imagination.

 

[Silhouette]

Hey all legal actions start as someone's imagination