Guilty Via Media: Is Media Liable For Kangaroo Justice?

[Silhouette]

Point is this doesn't have to be filed by the KY Rep. It could be filed by anyone tried in the media unfairly.

 

[Skylar]

Hey all legal actions start as someone's imagination

Fair enough.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

What needs to be done is a strengthening of the libel and slander laws with a large increase in penalties for those who fail to produce proof of their accusations. I would also ensure that the bar was low enough that the proof must be able to pass a smell test in our courts.

People who use slander, rumor, and innuendo as a weapon should be held liable, both civilly and criminally, for their actions.

 

[Silhouette]

Hey all legal actions start as someone's imagination

Fair enough.

& do all of new cases fail?

 

[Skylar]

Hey all legal actions start as someone's imagination

Fair enough.

& do all of new cases fail?

With no sound legal basis? Virtually all.

There is simply no precedent for defining accurate reporting as libel.

 

[Silhouette]

But how can broadcasting as-true an accusation be accurate before a trial on the facts?

 

[Skylar]

But how can broadcasting as-true an accusation be accurate before a trial on the facts?

They used the words “allegation” “accused” and “alleged”. Which isn’t “ broadcasting as true”. It’s accurately reporting the accusation.

 

[Silhouette]

If that is said as an allegation over & over & over while the accused protests get unequal air time or are presented in such a way that they're ridiculed then the net result is that the public perceives the allegations "as true" before the trial. From there, the real actual punishment of career, marriage & image ruination takes place.

So how is that not trial by media?

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Yet, they did not report it accurately. To have reported it accurately, they would have had to say that Roy Moore was being accused of molestation without hard evidence to back up the justification.

If you want accurate, be 100% accurate.

 

[Skylar]

If that is said as an allegation over & over & over while the accused protests get unequal air time or are presented in such a way that they're ridiculed then the net result is that the public perceives the allegations "as true" before the trial. From there, the real actual punishment of career, marriage & image ruination takes place.

So how is that not trial by media?

That's not a trial. That's the accurate reporting of actual events.

And that's not libel, defamation, slander or anything else you've cited.

 

[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.

Yet, they did not report it accurately. To have reported it accurately, they would have had to say that Roy Moore was being accused of molestation without hard evidence to back up the justification.

If you want accurate, be 100% accurate.

We're not talking about Roy Moore.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Yet, they did not report it accurately. To have reported it accurately, they would have had to say that Roy Moore was being accused of molestation without hard evidence to back up the justification.

If you want accurate, be 100% accurate.

We're not talking about Roy Moore.

That is the most egregious example of the current topic.

Any reporting on an accustion against someone should be fully, and 100% accurately. Not just the minimum to avoid a lawsuit.

It is why I favor strengthening libel and slander laws and putting real teeth into the required punishment.

If people face real consequences for falsely accusing someone of misdeeds, or accusing them without some standard of evidence as proof, then they will stop coming forward for the sake of politics.

 

[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.

Yet, they did not report it accurately. To have reported it accurately, they would have had to say that Roy Moore was being accused of molestation without hard evidence to back up the justification.

If you want accurate, be 100% accurate.

We're not talking about Roy Moore.

That is the most egregious example of the current topic.

Roy Moore refuses to be deposed on the topic. He's going to have a very hard time arguing defamation when he won't even deny the accusations under oath.

It is why I favor strengthening libel and slander laws and putting real teeth into the required punishment.

And by 'strengthening libel and slander laws', you mean redefining it. As accurate reporting wouldn't be enough. You'd hold them to a much more subjective standard of 'balanced' reporting. In which case, everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Fox News would be sued out of business within months.

 

[Silhouette]

If that is said as an allegation over & over & over while the accused protests get unequal air time or are presented in such a way that they're ridiculed then the net result is that the public perceives the allegations "as true" before the trial. From there, the real actual punishment of career, marriage & image ruination takes place.

So how is that not trial by media?

That's not a trial. That's the accurate reporting of actual events.

And that's not libel, defamation, slander or anything else you've cited.

But you're neglecting on purpose to see that the repetition and the way coverage is lopsided against the accused (unless they're a democrat, the media's favorite) is DE FACTO an assertion of truth before the facts are tried. Not an assertion of an allegation. An assertion of truth. See the difference? I know you do.

You understand that "de facto" means "for all intents and purposes the same as fact", right? Your gig is to always parse things out of context so you can argue the myopic minutia to distract from the holistic view of a thing. When someone is de facto punished by this pernicious form of powerful libel, the end result is the same: punishment for an allegation before the trial on the facts.

This suit would be different. It would encompass the cumulative effect of what the left-media does to people in its targets for elimination from power. They do this so they can sway the public against conservativism in general by these random whippings and "asserting as fact" mere allegations. And all with the ultimate goal of seizing full control of power, and through that the agenda of training up new generations with new policy they make and so forth so that conservative values become extinct.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Yet, they did not report it accurately. To have reported it accurately, they would have had to say that Roy Moore was being accused of molestation without hard evidence to back up the justification.

If you want accurate, be 100% accurate.

We're not talking about Roy Moore.

That is the most egregious example of the current topic.

Roy Moore refuses to be deposed on the topic. He's going to have a very hard time arguing defamation when he won't even deny the accusations under oath.

Any reporting on an accustion against someone should be fully, and 100% accurately. Not just the minimum to avoid a lawsuit.

It is why I favor strengthening libel and slander laws and putting real teeth into the required punishment.

And by 'strengthening libel and slander laws', you mean redefining it. As accurate reporting wouldn't be enough. You'd hold them to a much more subjective standard of 'balanced' reporting. In which case, everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Fox News would be sued out of business within months.

Why would I care about Rush Limbaugh or Fox News? If they slander, they should be subject to the law, just like the New York Times, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, and every single newspaper in the country.

If you [sic] are running stories without proof for political manipulation, then you should be subject to heavy fines and jail.

 

[Skylar]

If that is said as an allegation over & over & over while the accused protests get unequal air time or are presented in such a way that they're ridiculed then the net result is that the public perceives the allegations "as true" before the trial. From there, the real actual punishment of career, marriage & image ruination takes place.

So how is that not trial by media?

That's not a trial. That's the accurate reporting of actual events.

And that's not libel, defamation, slander or anything else you've cited.

But you're neglecting on purpose to see that the repetition and the way coverage is lopsided against the accused (unless they're a democrat, the media's favorite) is DE FACTO an assertion of truth before the facts are tried. Not an assertion of an allegation. An assertion of truth. See the difference? I know you do.

Again, defamation requires *inaccuracies*. You're insisting that this central tenet of defamation be abandoned. And instead be replaced by the utterly subjective 'balance' standard. In which they must report in a way to make the audience think in a certain way.

That's an almost impossible standard to follow as its based wholly in the perception of any given audience member. If anyone disagrees, feels a certain way about report -even if its accurate- then you're liable. And of course, someone will disagree.

It would also put Fox News and Sean Hannity out of business within months.

You understand that "de facto" means "for all intents and purposes the same as fact", right? Your gig is to always parse things out of context so you can argue the myopic minutia to distract from the holistic view of a thing. When someone is de facto punished by this pernicious form of powerful libel, the end result is the same: punishment for an allegation before the trial on the facts.

My 'gig' is to use the standards of the law. That you put the words 'de facto' in front of your made up pseudo-legal terms doesn't magically make them legally binding. Your premise that simply reporting that accusations exist is a trial is nonsense. That you run with this premise and start talking about violations of 'constitutional protections' even more so.

This suit would be different. It would encompass the cumulative effect of what the left-media does to people in its targets for elimination from power. They do this so they can sway the public against conservativism in general by these random whippings and "asserting as fact" mere allegations. And all with the ultimate goal of seizing full control of power, and through that the agenda of training up new generations with new policy they make and so forth so that conservative values become extinct.

And by 'different', you mean not using any current precedent or legal definitions....but instead the one's you imagine.

That's not how the law works, Sil. That's how your 'legal' arguments work. Where you insist we replace the *actual* law with your imagination. And we never do.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Yet, they did not report it accurately. To have reported it accurately, they would have had to say that Roy Moore was being accused of molestation without hard evidence to back up the justification.

If you want accurate, be 100% accurate.

We're not talking about Roy Moore.

That is the most egregious example of the current topic.

Roy Moore refuses to be deposed on the topic. He's going to have a very hard time arguing defamation when he won't even deny the accusations under oath.

Any reporting on an accustion against someone should be fully, and 100% accurately. Not just the minimum to avoid a lawsuit.

It is why I favor strengthening libel and slander laws and putting real teeth into the required punishment.

And by 'strengthening libel and slander laws', you mean redefining it. As accurate reporting wouldn't be enough. You'd hold them to a much more subjective standard of 'balanced' reporting. In which case, everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Fox News would be sued out of business within months.

Why would I care about Rush Limbaugh or Fox News? If they slander, they should be subject to the law, just like the New York Times, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, and every single newspaper in the country.

Because of the chilling effect it would have on free speech and a free press. The 'balanced' standard would be hugely subjective as it would be based on the infinite 'what isn't being said' standard rather than the finite 'what has been said' standard

And the 'evidence' that someone has violated it is that another person merely feels they have. As they need only cite anything they 'think' you should have included....and you're liable.

Thus, applying your standard, if you feel that reporting on an event is unfounded, it was. There's no objective standards like 'accuracy'. There would also be virtually no protections for free speech....as any speech would have to follow the same standards. Even your personal expressions of opinion would be subject to anyone's feelings on them. With you being open to civil penalty if anyone feels you should. Or jail time.

As your standard is no longer the accuracy of what is being reported. But on what *isn't* reported, and anyone 'feels' should be.

Breitbart, Fox News, Infowars, Hannity, Limbaugh......would all collapse under the weight of suits and jail time under your new 'balance' standard.

 

[Silhouette]

Why would I care about Rush Limbaugh or Fox News? If they slander, they should be subject to the law, just like the New York Times, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, and every single newspaper in the country.

Because of the chilling effect it would have on free speech and a free press. The 'balanced' standard would be hugely subjective. And the 'evidence' that someone has violated it is that another person merely feels they have.
.

What about the chilling effect the media had on the life of the KY Rep who took his own life from the stress of the media circus? The suit would truly be a "free speech of the press" Constitutional case vs "rights of the accused" Constitutional case. I envision it going up to the USSC fer schizzle.

"The 'balanced' standard would be hugely subjective" Really? You have that little faith in juries and due process as able to parse out whether or not a tort is present? Shame on you. Now you are chilling the core of our justice system and rights to civil process. Skylar, you really do come across as a subversive asshole sometimes you know. Very unpatriotic of you.

Taking this further, I'd see a form of anti-slapp being used by the media's lawyers. Then they'd have to prove up that their actions in print served the greater public good. But how is condemning a man and punishing him before a trial "serving the public good"?

Answer me that Grasshopper...

 

[Darkwind]

Yet, they did not report it accurately. To have reported it accurately, they would have had to say that Roy Moore was being accused of molestation without hard evidence to back up the justification.

If you want accurate, be 100% accurate.

We're not talking about Roy Moore.

That is the most egregious example of the current topic.

Roy Moore refuses to be deposed on the topic. He's going to have a very hard time arguing defamation when he won't even deny the accusations under oath.

Any reporting on an accustion against someone should be fully, and 100% accurately. Not just the minimum to avoid a lawsuit.

It is why I favor strengthening libel and slander laws and putting real teeth into the required punishment.

And by 'strengthening libel and slander laws', you mean redefining it. As accurate reporting wouldn't be enough. You'd hold them to a much more subjective standard of 'balanced' reporting. In which case, everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Fox News would be sued out of business within months.

Why would I care about Rush Limbaugh or Fox News? If they slander, they should be subject to the law, just like the New York Times, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, and every single newspaper in the country.

Because of the chilling effect it would have on free speech and a free press. The 'balanced' standard would be hugely subjective. And the 'evidence' that someone has violated it is that another person merely feels they have.

Thus, applying your standard, if you feel that reporting on an event is unfounded, it was. There's no objective standards like 'accuracy'. There would also be virtually no protections for free speech....as any speech would have to follow the same standards. Even your personal expressions of opinion would be subject to anyone's feelings on them. With you being open to civil penalty if anyone feels you should. Or jail time.

As your standard is no longer the accuracy of what is being reported. But on what *isn't* reported, and anyone 'feels' should be.

Breitbart, Fox News, Infowars, Hannity, Limbaugh......would all collapse under the weight of suits and jail time under your new 'balance' standard.

It would not be chilling to the first. As it stands now, the media allegedly have in place means of vetting information. I guess your stating that if they are required to provide the documents and proof of their vetting process, they won't be able to report the news.

A silly argument.

Get back to Me when you have an actual argument to make regarding why it is wrong to hold people to a standard of truth.

 

[Skylar]

We're not talking about Roy Moore.

That is the most egregious example of the current topic.

Roy Moore refuses to be deposed on the topic. He's going to have a very hard time arguing defamation when he won't even deny the accusations under oath.

Any reporting on an accustion against someone should be fully, and 100% accurately. Not just the minimum to avoid a lawsuit.

It is why I favor strengthening libel and slander laws and putting real teeth into the required punishment.

And by 'strengthening libel and slander laws', you mean redefining it. As accurate reporting wouldn't be enough. You'd hold them to a much more subjective standard of 'balanced' reporting. In which case, everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Fox News would be sued out of business within months.

Why would I care about Rush Limbaugh or Fox News? If they slander, they should be subject to the law, just like the New York Times, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, and every single newspaper in the country.

Because of the chilling effect it would have on free speech and a free press. The 'balanced' standard would be hugely subjective. And the 'evidence' that someone has violated it is that another person merely feels they have.

Thus, applying your standard, if you feel that reporting on an event is unfounded, it was. There's no objective standards like 'accuracy'. There would also be virtually no protections for free speech....as any speech would have to follow the same standards. Even your personal expressions of opinion would be subject to anyone's feelings on them. With you being open to civil penalty if anyone feels you should. Or jail time.

As your standard is no longer the accuracy of what is being reported. But on what *isn't* reported, and anyone 'feels' should be.

Breitbart, Fox News, Infowars, Hannity, Limbaugh......would all collapse under the weight of suits and jail time under your new 'balance' standard.

It would not be chilling to the first.

It would be absolutely devastating for the press. As you're holding them accountable for anything they *didn't* say. But you merely 'feel' they should have. And any such standard would apply to anyone.

Including you. You'd be subject to jail time if anyone felt your posts weren't balanced. All they'd have to do to strip of you your freedom and your livelihood.....is cite *anything* that you didn't mention. But they felt you should have. As their feelings on the matter become their evidence of your guilt.

As it stands now, the media allegedly have in place means of vetting information.

You've abandoned the accuracy standard, which is where vetting comes in. And embraced the 'balance' standard, where a media outlet would be held responsible for what they *didn't* say.

And go to jail if they didn't say what you think they should have. That's a draconian standard. As it empowers *anyone* to strip anyone else of their freedom....for something they never said.

No thank you. That's an awful idea. Its subjective and infinite. Where as the current defamation standard is much more objective and finite.