Guilty Via Media: Is Media Liable For Kangaroo Justice?

[Darkwind]

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.

If you cannot prove the cited material, then you should not be citing it.

 

[Silhouette]

It would not be chilling to the first.

It would be absolutely devastating for the press.

Yes, indeed it would....in its current free-for-all, lopsided, biased and monopolized democrat-weapon form....

However, enough is enough. And so, we will return to protecting the rights of the accused to not be effectively punished before a trial on the facts.

A civil suit would draw interest & teeth of its own. If found on behalf of this widow at the USSC level, would force the press to keep itself rigidly in check as to the facts and to be more sensitive to people accused of crimes before they are tried in an ACTUAL court. This is why I believe it should not be illegal for media to kangaroo-court someone, but instead be a civil tort. That is less chilling for sure. If they want to throw their head up & gallop away with a story, it's like putting on a running martingale to keep that head arched, down and responsive to the bit & reins. Not to completely hobble the horse or shut it away in a stall. This ain't Russia fer crissakes.

Oh...the horror!....fact checking....cordial restraint....rights of the accused respected...EGADS!..

 

[Skylar]

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.

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.

If you cannot prove the cited material, then you should not be citing it.

Again, vetting accuracy is something that media sources already do. You're insisting they should be held to the 'balance' standard....and imprisoned for what they *didn't* say.

But you felt they should have.

That's a knife without a handle. And it will cut you just as quickly. As you've empowered *anyone* to strip of you of your freedom and your livelihood.....for something you didn't say. But they merely feel you should have. You've literally created a standard where their *feelings* are evidence of your guilt.

That's an awful idea.

 

[Skylar]

It would not be chilling to the first.

It would be absolutely devastating for the press.

Yes, indeed it would....in its current free-for-all, lopsided, biased and monopolized democrat-weapon form....

However, enough is enough. And so, we will return to protecting the rights of the accused to not be effectively punished before a trial on the facts.

The press, you, anyone using free speech. As you've held them to a subjective standard of guilt for what they *didn't* say. Not the accuracy of what they did say.

Worse, you've expanded it to jail time. So anyone could have you imprisoned for anything you say.....because of what you *didn't* say. And they feel you should have.

You'd be imprisoned along side Hannity in a few months under such a standard. So would I. So would anyone that makes any comment on any issue of controversy.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

If you cannot prove the cited material, then you should not be citing it.

Again, vetting accuracy is something that media sources already do. You're insisting they should be held to the 'balance' standard....and imprisoned for what they *didn't* say.

But you felt they should have.

That's a knife without a handle. And it will cut you just as quickly. As you've empowered *anyone* to strip of you of your freedom and your livelihood.....for something you didn't say. But they merely feel you should have. You've literally created a standard where their *feelings* are evidence of your guilt.

That's an awful idea.

No I am not. I don't even know where you get that from.

I am demanding they be held to a standard of truth. Truth that is determined by hard evidence and concrete proof.

That is the standard.

 

[Skylar]

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.

If you cannot prove the cited material, then you should not be citing it.

Again, vetting accuracy is something that media sources already do. You're insisting they should be held to the 'balance' standard....and imprisoned for what they *didn't* say.

But you felt they should have.

That's a knife without a handle. And it will cut you just as quickly. As you've empowered *anyone* to strip of you of your freedom and your livelihood.....for something you didn't say. But they merely feel you should have. You've literally created a standard where their *feelings* are evidence of your guilt.

That's an awful idea.

No I am not. I don't even know where you get that from.

You insisted that they say that Roy Moore was accused.....but that there was 'no hard evidence of his guilt'. And since they *didn't* say that second part, they should be punished.

And I quote:

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.

Your 'balanced' standard is subjective and based in what a person didn't say. And your balance standard would have you in jail within a few months. As anyone could have you imprisoned for what you didn't say....but they felt you should have.

No thank you. That's an awful idea. And would land you in jail.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

If you cannot prove the cited material, then you should not be citing it.

Again, vetting accuracy is something that media sources already do. You're insisting they should be held to the 'balance' standard....and imprisoned for what they *didn't* say.

But you felt they should have.

That's a knife without a handle. And it will cut you just as quickly. As you've empowered *anyone* to strip of you of your freedom and your livelihood.....for something you didn't say. But they merely feel you should have. You've literally created a standard where their *feelings* are evidence of your guilt.

That's an awful idea.

No I am not. I don't even know where you get that from.

You insisted that they say that Roy Moore was accused.....but that there was 'no hard evidence of his guilt'. And since they *didn't* say that second part, they should be punished.

And I quote:

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.

Your 'balanced' standard is subjective and based in what a person didn't say. And your balance standard would have you in jail within a few months. As anyone could have you imprisoned for what you didn't say....but they felt you should have.

No thank you. That's an awful idea. And would land you in jail.

It is NOT subjective.

We allegedly enforce the journalistic standard of saying "alleged" to avoid lawsuits and have for decades. But alleged does not alway cover the truth. When reporting an allegation, the media can cover themselves by stating that there is no concrete evidence to support that accusation but that some have come forward with allegations of.....

You see how that works? Then, if the allegations are proven, they can change to something like....evidence suggest that the allegations against Mr. X hold some merit and investigtors are working on uncovering more information. Meanwhile, county officals are looking into what can be done.....

This provides people the opportunity to make their own choices without the politcal sway.

As it was, on MSNBC, CNN, CNBC, ABC, CBS...people were talking about sexual allegations and made no mention of any proof and often did not even use the word alleged. They just started talking about these people as if they were already convicted of the crime.

If you don't think that affects how the casual watcher/listener view the issue, or if you think that it is not done deliberately to sway opinion, then you and I have nothing more to talk about.

Or do you think it is perfectly okay to have someone accuse someone of rape, discover that later it turned out to be a lie, and just run a retraction and nothing is done about the false accuser and the person accused of rape now has no life at all? Or do you think the accuser should face serious jail time/

 

[Skylar]

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.

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.

If you cannot prove the cited material, then you should not be citing it.

Again, vetting accuracy is something that media sources already do. You're insisting they should be held to the 'balance' standard....and imprisoned for what they *didn't* say.

But you felt they should have.

That's a knife without a handle. And it will cut you just as quickly. As you've empowered *anyone* to strip of you of your freedom and your livelihood.....for something you didn't say. But they merely feel you should have. You've literally created a standard where their *feelings* are evidence of your guilt.

That's an awful idea.

No I am not. I don't even know where you get that from.

You insisted that they say that Roy Moore was accused.....but that there was 'no hard evidence of his guilt'. And since they *didn't* say that second part, they should be punished.

And I quote:

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.

Your 'balanced' standard is subjective and based in what a person didn't say. And your balance standard would have you in jail within a few months. As anyone could have you imprisoned for what you didn't say....but they felt you should have.

No thank you. That's an awful idea. And would land you in jail.

It is NOT subjective.

It is absolutely subjective. As you're holding them to the standard of what they *didn't* say. But you *feel* they should have. That's a knife you'll be holding by the blade, as it will cut you just as surely as it does the 'media'.

If someone can have you punished and imprisoned because of something you *didn't* say, you're their bitch. Anyone at all can strip you of your freedom.

We allegedly enforce the journalistic standard of saying "alleged" to avoid lawsuits and have for decades. But alleged does not alway cover the truth.

Calling a crime 'alleged' is factually accurate. You're insisting that journalists (and presumably anyone else, as defamation encompasses ALL free speech) be held to the standard of 'balance' instead. Where apparently YOU get to decide what 'should' have been reported but they didn't say.

That's utterly subjective. And it can and will be used against you too. Worse, you've upgraded a civil offense to a *criminal penalty* with jail time.....all based on *feelings* and things that a person never said.

That's a terrible idea. Actual defamation is finite, limited to what a person actually said. And far more objective, as we can measure the accuracy of one's statements against the facts. Your idea is infinite, applying to anything a person *didn't* say. And based on nothing more than your feeling that they 'shoulda'.

No thank you.

 

[Darkwind]

If you cannot prove the cited material, then you should not be citing it.

Again, vetting accuracy is something that media sources already do. You're insisting they should be held to the 'balance' standard....and imprisoned for what they *didn't* say.

But you felt they should have.

That's a knife without a handle. And it will cut you just as quickly. As you've empowered *anyone* to strip of you of your freedom and your livelihood.....for something you didn't say. But they merely feel you should have. You've literally created a standard where their *feelings* are evidence of your guilt.

That's an awful idea.

No I am not. I don't even know where you get that from.

You insisted that they say that Roy Moore was accused.....but that there was 'no hard evidence of his guilt'. And since they *didn't* say that second part, they should be punished.

And I quote:

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.

Your 'balanced' standard is subjective and based in what a person didn't say. And your balance standard would have you in jail within a few months. As anyone could have you imprisoned for what you didn't say....but they felt you should have.

No thank you. That's an awful idea. And would land you in jail.

It is NOT subjective.

It is absolutely subjective. As you're holding them to the standard of what they *didn't* say. But you *feel* they should have. That's a knife you'll be holding by the blade, as it will cut you just as surely as it does the 'media'.

If someone can have you punished and imprisoned because of something you *didn't* say, you're their bitch. Anyone at all can strip you of your freedom.

We allegedly enforce the journalistic standard of saying "alleged" to avoid lawsuits and have for decades. But alleged does not alway cover the truth.

Calling a crime 'alleged' is factually accurate. You're insisting that journalists (and presumably anyone else, as defamation encompasses ALL free speech) be held to the standard of 'balance' instead. Where apparently YOU get to decide what 'should' have been reported but they didn't say.

That's utterly subjective. And it can and will be used against you too. Worse, you've upgraded a civil offense to a *criminal penalty* with jail time.....all based on *feelings* and things that a person never said.

That's a terrible idea. Actual defamation is finite, limited to what a person actually said. And far more objective, as we can measure the accuracy of one's statements against the facts. Your idea is infinite, applying to anything a person *didn't* say. And based on nothing more than your feeling that they 'shoulda'.

No thank you.

I am holding them to the same standard as is required in a court of law.

No one is punished for what they did not say on the stand unless it is proven that they intentionally lied.

No matter, this is what I think should be done for slander and libel laws. You are free to disagree, but so far you have failed to give Me any reason to change My mind on this.

 

[Skylar]

Again, vetting accuracy is something that media sources already do. You're insisting they should be held to the 'balance' standard....and imprisoned for what they *didn't* say.

But you felt they should have.

That's a knife without a handle. And it will cut you just as quickly. As you've empowered *anyone* to strip of you of your freedom and your livelihood.....for something you didn't say. But they merely feel you should have. You've literally created a standard where their *feelings* are evidence of your guilt.

That's an awful idea.

No I am not. I don't even know where you get that from.

You insisted that they say that Roy Moore was accused.....but that there was 'no hard evidence of his guilt'. And since they *didn't* say that second part, they should be punished.

And I quote:

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.

Your 'balanced' standard is subjective and based in what a person didn't say. And your balance standard would have you in jail within a few months. As anyone could have you imprisoned for what you didn't say....but they felt you should have.

No thank you. That's an awful idea. And would land you in jail.

It is NOT subjective.

It is absolutely subjective. As you're holding them to the standard of what they *didn't* say. But you *feel* they should have. That's a knife you'll be holding by the blade, as it will cut you just as surely as it does the 'media'.

If someone can have you punished and imprisoned because of something you *didn't* say, you're their bitch. Anyone at all can strip you of your freedom.

We allegedly enforce the journalistic standard of saying "alleged" to avoid lawsuits and have for decades. But alleged does not alway cover the truth.

Calling a crime 'alleged' is factually accurate. You're insisting that journalists (and presumably anyone else, as defamation encompasses ALL free speech) be held to the standard of 'balance' instead. Where apparently YOU get to decide what 'should' have been reported but they didn't say.

That's utterly subjective. And it can and will be used against you too. Worse, you've upgraded a civil offense to a *criminal penalty* with jail time.....all based on *feelings* and things that a person never said.

That's a terrible idea. Actual defamation is finite, limited to what a person actually said. And far more objective, as we can measure the accuracy of one's statements against the facts. Your idea is infinite, applying to anything a person *didn't* say. And based on nothing more than your feeling that they 'shoulda'.

No thank you.

I am holding them to the same standard as is required in a court of law.

There's no 'what you didn't say' standard in a court of law. There's no uselessly subjective 'balanced' standard in a court of law. Nor is any judge penalized because of the cases he *didn't* cite in a ruling.

Your subjective 'balanced' standard doesn't exist in law. And certainly not defamation law.

Nor should it be.

No one is punished for what they did not say on the stand unless it is proven that they intentionally lied.

You're insisting that you get to decide what the language they 'shoulda' used is. Or that anyone else can. And if the media uses anything other than the language than what has been 'approved' they *they are imprisoned*.

Do you have any idea how draconian and authoritatiran that is? How quickly it would be turned on you to strip YOU of your rights and freedoms?

Its an awful, awful idea. And rejected by our law for a reason. As it would imprison private citizens like yourself in addition to the 'media' on a uselessly subjective standard.

No matter, this is what I think should be done for slander and libel laws. You are free to

disagree, but so far you have failed to give Me any reason to change My mind on this.

You're arguing for your own imprisonment. As the standard of evidence you've set is feeling. With you being held responsible for anything you didn't say.....but someone else felt you should have.

I'm protecting you and all the rest of us by rejecting this ridiculous standard.

 

[Silhouette]

We allegedly enforce the journalistic standard of saying "alleged" to avoid lawsuits and have for decades. But alleged does not always cover the truth. When reporting an allegation, the media can cover themselves by stating that there is no concrete evidence to support that accusation but that some have come forward with allegations of.....You see how that works? Then, if the allegations are proven, they can change to something like....evidence suggest that the allegations against Mr. X hold some merit and investigtors are working on uncovering more information. Meanwhile, county officals are looking into what can be done.......This provides people the opportunity to make their own choices without the political sway......As it was, on MSNBC, CNN, CNBC, ABC, CBS...people were talking about sexual allegations and made no mention of any proof and often did not even use the word alleged. They just started talking about these people as if they were already convicted of the crime......If you don't think that affects how the casual watcher/listener view the issue, or if you think that it is not done deliberately to sway opinion, then you and I have nothing more to talk about......Or do you think it is perfectly okay to have someone accuse someone of rape, discover that later it turned out to be a lie, and just run a retraction and nothing is done about the false accuser and the person accused of rape now has no life at all? Or do you think the accuser should face serious jail time/

Thank you.

However, Skylar is right, imprisonment is not acceptable because of the balance between free press and rights of the accused. I'll repeat this analogy again to illustrate:

....enough is enough. And so, we will return to protecting the rights of the accused to not be effectively punished before a trial on the facts.

A civil suit would draw interest & teeth of its own. If found on behalf of this widow at the USSC level, would force the press to keep itself rigidly in check as to the facts and to be more sensitive to people accused of crimes before they are tried in an ACTUAL court. This is why I believe it should not be illegal for media to kangaroo-court someone, but instead be a civil tort. That is less chilling for sure. If they want to throw their head up & gallop away with a story, it's like putting on a running martingale to keep that head arched, down and responsive to the bit & reins. Not to completely hobble the horse or shut it away in a stall. This ain't Russia fer crissakes.

Oh...the horror!....fact checking....cordial restraint....rights of the accused respected...EGADS!..

 

[Skylar]

We allegedly enforce the journalistic standard of saying "alleged" to avoid lawsuits and have for decades. But alleged does not always cover the truth. When reporting an allegation, the media can cover themselves by stating that there is no concrete evidence to support that accusation but that some have come forward with allegations of.....You see how that works? Then, if the allegations are proven, they can change to something like....evidence suggest that the allegations against Mr. X hold some merit and investigtors are working on uncovering more information. Meanwhile, county officals are looking into what can be done.......This provides people the opportunity to make their own choices without the political sway......As it was, on MSNBC, CNN, CNBC, ABC, CBS...people were talking about sexual allegations and made no mention of any proof and often did not even use the word alleged. They just started talking about these people as if they were already convicted of the crime......If you don't think that affects how the casual watcher/listener view the issue, or if you think that it is not done deliberately to sway opinion, then you and I have nothing more to talk about......Or do you think it is perfectly okay to have someone accuse someone of rape, discover that later it turned out to be a lie, and just run a retraction and nothing is done about the false accuser and the person accused of rape now has no life at all? Or do you think the accuser should face serious jail time/

Thank you.

Sil....such a standard would have you in jail in weeks. As it would imprison you for what you *didn't* say.....but someone, anyone, feels you should have.

You, like Darkwind, are arguing for your own incarceration.

Rejecting your imaginary standards is protecting you both.

 

[Silhouette]

Not if the USSC wrote the opinion to firmly forbid incarceration for violating the rights of the accused. Once again your subversive stance of no faith in our legal system to check itself against the Constitution is alarming.

Civil court is the solution & you know it...which is why of course you are employing hyperbole to preserve the status quo.

 

[Skylar]

We allegedly enforce the journalistic standard of saying "alleged" to avoid lawsuits and have for decades. But alleged does not always cover the truth. When reporting an allegation, the media can cover themselves by stating that there is no concrete evidence to support that accusation but that some have come forward with allegations of.....You see how that works? Then, if the allegations are proven, they can change to something like....evidence suggest that the allegations against Mr. X hold some merit and investigtors are working on uncovering more information. Meanwhile, county officals are looking into what can be done.......This provides people the opportunity to make their own choices without the political sway......As it was, on MSNBC, CNN, CNBC, ABC, CBS...people were talking about sexual allegations and made no mention of any proof and often did not even use the word alleged. They just started talking about these people as if they were already convicted of the crime......If you don't think that affects how the casual watcher/listener view the issue, or if you think that it is not done deliberately to sway opinion, then you and I have nothing more to talk about......Or do you think it is perfectly okay to have someone accuse someone of rape, discover that later it turned out to be a lie, and just run a retraction and nothing is done about the false accuser and the person accused of rape now has no life at all? Or do you think the accuser should face serious jail time/

Thank you.

However, Skylar is right, imprisonment is not acceptable because of the balance between free press and rights of the accused. I'll repeat this analogy again to illustrate.

....enough is enough. And so, we will return to protecting the rights of the accused to not be effectively punished before a trial on the facts.

A civil suit would draw interest & teeth of its own. If found on behalf of this widow at the USSC level, would force the press to keep itself rigidly in check as to the facts and to be more sensitive to people accused of crimes before they are tried in an ACTUAL court. This is why I believe it should not be illegal for media to kangaroo-court someone, but instead be a civil tort. That is less chilling for sure. If they want to throw their head up & gallop away with a story, it's like putting on a running martingale to keep that head arched, down and responsive to the bit & reins. Not to completely hobble the horse or shut it away in a stall. This ain't Russia fer crissakes.

Oh...the horror!....fact checking....cordial restraint....rights of the accused respected...EGADS!..

A civil suit on the 'balance' standard would strip you of your ranch in California under the weight of lawsuits.....as you'd be liable for anything anyone thought you *should* have said on any issue you discuss. Remember, the 'what you didn't say' standard is infinite.

Current defamation law protections you from such draconian nonsense. As it is limited to what you *actually* said. And then to the accuracy of such statements.

In the case being discussed here, the reporting has been accurate. Yes, a woman did accuse that politician of sexual misconduct.

You have no inaccuracies. You'd literally have to reimagine defamation.....and open yourself and everyone else up to a uselessly subjective, utterly infinite standard of anyone's 'feelings' on what you *didn't* say.

No thank you. I'll protect you and the rest of us by rejecting such a poorly thought through standard.

 

[Silhouette]

You really must be rattled to employ internet stalking in reply. We've been discussing the media's EXCESSIVE use of allegations/suppressing the accused's protests as de facto trial in the court of public opinion as a triable civil tort, remember? Do stay focused.

If current suits are available to remedy this problem, then why would you say long ago here in this thread that such a suit with respect to this widow would be "ridiculous" and "fabricated as viable from my imagination only" (paraphrased)? Would that be because you actively seek in your blogging career to suppress people's knowledge of what is truth with respect to various causes you are championing? Your "truth" clearly depends on which way the wind blows. I know what you're up to.

vv Clearly you did not read this post before you posted below. Slow down and take a deep breath. Then respond.

 

[Skylar]

Not if the USSC wrote the opinion to firmly forbid incarceration for violating the rights of the accused.

What 'rights' are being violated specifically by factually reporting the existence of accusations?

Also, you're basing your entire legal argument on a Supreme Court ruling......that you've imagined. Just to be clear.

Once again your subversive stance of no faith in our legal system to check itself against the Constitution is alarming.

Laughing.....there are already checks in place, Sil. You're demanding that those checks be removed and that people be held liable for what the *didn't* say, based on anyone's feelings that the should have.

That would have you buried under the weight of defamation lawsuits within months. The checks that prevent this already exist.

You're welcome.

Civil court is the solution & you know it...which is why of course you are employing hyperbole to preserve the status quo.

Civil court already exist. You're demanding we abandon defamation and replace it with your imagination. That's not a 'solution'. That's a horrible idea....as it would make people liable for things that they *didn't* say. With anyone's 'feelings' on the matter being evidence of their liability.

No thank you.

 

[Skylar]

You really must be rattled to employ internet stalking in reply We've been discussing the media's EXCESSIVE use of allegations/suppressing the accused's protests as de facto trial in the court of public opinion as a triable civil tort, remember? Do stay focused.

Laughing....you must be out of pseudo-legal gibberish if your argument has degenerated into how I 'feel'.

Sorry, Sil. But you're proposal is poorly thought through and would have a devastating effect on free speech.

No thank you.

 

[Silhouette]

So reining themselves in from a de facto public kangaroo court resulting in this suicide is "devastating effect on free speech"? Well I guess the gloves are off and the challenge is on. Are you afraid of the USSC reviewing our disagreement and coming up with a compromise verdict that protects both freedom of the press and the accused?

 

[mdk]

Don't be shocked when none of the retarded suggestions made in the OP come to pass.

 

[Skylar]

So reining themselves in from a de facto public kangaroo court resulting in this suicide is "devastating effect on free speech"? Well I guess the gloves are off and the challenge is on. Are you afraid of the USSC reviewing our disagreement and coming up with a compromise verdict that protects both freedom of the press and the accused?

There is no 'de facto kangaroo court'. You've imagined it.

Your proposal would hold people liable for defamation for what they *didn't* say. Not the accuracy of what they did. That's a horrid standard, as its uselessly subjective as its based solely on what any other person 'feels' they 'shoulda' said.

It would have people like you buried under tort suits in months. As remember.....any changes you make to defamation would apply to ALL free speech. Not merely the speech of the 'media'.

No, Sil. We're going to keep our checks in place and hold people responsible for the accuracy of the statements they actually make. And not your 'feelings' about things they didn't say.