Guilty Via Media: Is Media Liable For Kangaroo Justice?

[Syriusly]

Hold them accountable for defamation if they say something that isn't true. But accurately reporting on an accusation isn't tortable. As accuracy is an iron clad defense against defamation.

Got it.


They destroy a man's life by massively reporting an unproven, even unsupported accusation, and they get a pass.

They reported on the actual accusation. And they did so accurately. Under defamation law (encompassing both slander and libel), accuracy is their obligation. And it protects them (and you) from claims of defamation.

Remember, any change to defamation that you applied to the media would apply to ALL of free speech. And apply to you, too.

Yeah, that does not work for me.

What do you propose to remedy that? Remembering of course the law of unintended consequences. Sil's proposal would silence ALL media and shut down every conservative news source you've ever heard of. Along with essentially ending free speech.

That's a solid 'no thank you'.

I'm not sure what the remedy is, but we need one desperately.

When you come up with one, give us a holler. But redefining 'defamation' so that it shuts down ALL media and silences free speech is holding the knife by the blade.

Its poorly thought through and causes far more harm than it solves.

What are the requirements to have a broadcasting license?

ONe would think some professionalism and human decency would be expected.


I know that when I held a Professional License that bad morality was listed a reason to be revoked.

Well we used to have a commission that decided what broadcasters were 'moral' and which weren't.

No chance of that being abused at all......

 

[Skylar]

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.

He almost never cites or links anything he claims. I almost always do. .

Hells bells you provide links- and then lie about what the links actually say- over and over and over.

ref: the Infancy Doctrine.

Yeah, that one was hilarious. Sil posted a link to a document about the Infancy Doctrine. Then insisted it said that it children were 'implied beneficiaries' of marriage.

Um.....the document didn't even include the word 'implied' or 'beneficiaries'. She lied her ass off. And she does this constantly.

 

[Syriusly]

They also lies their assess off to try to save face / save their own reputations....
N]

Hmmm can't decide whether you are speaking of President Trump or your posts?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

He almost never cites or links anything he claims.

First off, you're projecting. You've imagined entire passages from Supreme Court rulings that simply don't exist. While I've quoted my source specifically and repeatedly. Dozens and dozens of times.

Second, we're discussing your *imaginary* changes to the law. What source would you like me to quote on your *imagination*. As defamation requires inaccuracies. And you have none.

Third, the 'what you didn't say' standard is infinite. As there is literally no limit to the words you *never* said. The combination of words and phrases that you never uttered is literally incalculable. And the absurd basis of 'what the media shoulda said' standard that you two have made up.

Actual defamation is based on what you did say or write. Which is finite. You have to have a specific example of an inaccuracy cited for a claim of defamation. And you can measure the accuracy of that statement much more objectively than you can the imaginary 'what the media shoulda said' standard. As that is entirely feeling based, and hopelessly subjective.

I almost always do.

Your sources almost never say what you do. Citing a source to back your claims only works if it backs your claims. And almost always, you cite a source......and it doesn't back what you say at all. Or shall we review your absurd claims regarding the 'Infancy Doctrine' and how children are married to their parents......claims you've never been able to back up.

And frankly she rarely actually posts a citation.

For every time she has quoted Romans 1- she has mis-stated what Romans 1 says 20 times.

 

[Syriusly]

That was Darkwind. But when pressed on what his standard *actually* was, DW insisted that the media should be held liable for what they *didn't* say about Moore. Not what they did.

It's about fair coverage. So journalists must function like a fair tribunal. I can see language written on the compromise that if a media outlet runs say eight paragraphs on accusations, they must do so completely unbiased. Then in the same article, instead of one or two sentences buried at the bottom, there must be equal weight & time given to the accused' profession of innocence. And not in a snide or dismissive tone. Eight paragraphs for eight paragraphs.

Ideally it could be a ruling on press decorum with strict requirements tha curb a de facto appearance of trial by media. If the coverage is unfair as to the accused' presumed innocence then the plaintiffs receive quick and seamless recovery. Say like half or more of the money the outlet made from advertising while airing the story. An amount that catches their attention in other words.

And of course anyone- such as Roy Moore- feels that they have been slandered by the news- they can absolutely sue the news organization for slander.

But of course you want to go beyond that- you want people to be able to sue just for what they perceive as unfair coverage of accusations against them- even if they are guilty.

Great Britain and Australia have the kinds of rules that you want. What is preventing such rules in the United States?

The U.S. Constitution.

 

[Skylar]

That was Darkwind. But when pressed on what his standard *actually* was, DW insisted that the media should be held liable for what they *didn't* say about Moore. Not what they did.

It's about fair coverage. So journalists must function like a fair tribunal. I can see language written on the compromise that if a media outlet runs say eight paragraphs on accusations, they must do so completely unbiased. Then in the same article, instead of one or two sentences buried at the bottom, there must be equal weight & time given to the accused' profession of innocence. And not in a snide or dismissive tone. Eight paragraphs for eight paragraphs.

Ideally it could be a ruling on press decorum with strict requirements tha curb a de facto appearance of trial by media. If the coverage is unfair as to the accused' presumed innocence then the plaintiffs receive quick and seamless recovery. Say like half or more of the money the outlet made from advertising while airing the story. An amount that catches their attention in other words.

And of course anyone- such as Roy Moore- feels that they have been slandered by the news- they can absolutely sue the news organization for slander.

But of course you want to go beyond that- you want people to be able to sue just for what they perceive as unfair coverage of accusations against them- even if they are guilty.

Great Britain and Australia have the kinds of rules that you want. What is preventing such rules in the United States?

The U.S. Constitution.

Nah, for either Moore or Trump to sue for slander, they'd have to testify in a deposition. Lying to the public isn't a crime. Lying under oath is. And they won't say under oath what they'll say to the public.

Which is why both have run from slander suits like they were on fire.

 

[Syriusly]

That was Darkwind. But when pressed on what his standard *actually* was, DW insisted that the media should be held liable for what they *didn't* say about Moore. Not what they did.

It's about fair coverage. So journalists must function like a fair tribunal. I can see language written on the compromise that if a media outlet runs say eight paragraphs on accusations, they must do so completely unbiased. Then in the same article, instead of one or two sentences buried at the bottom, there must be equal weight & time given to the accused' profession of innocence. And not in a snide or dismissive tone. Eight paragraphs for eight paragraphs.

Ideally it could be a ruling on press decorum with strict requirements tha curb a de facto appearance of trial by media. If the coverage is unfair as to the accused' presumed innocence then the plaintiffs receive quick and seamless recovery. Say like half or more of the money the outlet made from advertising while airing the story. An amount that catches their attention in other words.

And of course anyone- such as Roy Moore- feels that they have been slandered by the news- they can absolutely sue the news organization for slander.

But of course you want to go beyond that- you want people to be able to sue just for what they perceive as unfair coverage of accusations against them- even if they are guilty.

Great Britain and Australia have the kinds of rules that you want. What is preventing such rules in the United States?

The U.S. Constitution.

Nah, for either Moore or Trump to sue for slander, they'd have to testify in a deposition. Lying to the public isn't a crime. Lying under oath is. And they won't say under oath what they'll say to the public.

Which is why both have run from slander suits like they were on fire.

Trump is trying very hard to avoid his slander trial.

Moore talked a big game about suing his accusers- and my bet he won't.

Contards like to talk about how 'accusers disappear' after elections. What they love to forget is how the accused attacks the accusers- and then after the election does nothing about them.

 

[Silhouette]

As to post #142...
...Infancy Doctrine discussion, page 53 of actual text here: Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf

****
Determining what is a necessity for a minor is a fact-intensive inquiry, although also a matter of law, and it is useful to look at what has been upheld and rejected as a necessity in the past. Food, clothing, shelter, and medical expenses are in the traditional category of necessities. Education also generally falls in this list. Interestingly enough, "retaining counsel in criminal proceedings" has also been upheld as a necessity and "under extraordinary circumstances," counsel in civil suit can be as well.

*******
Obergefell made it's third area of emphasis about children and their part in the whole of the marriage discussion. Children as in children in general, the collective.

Where was their unique representation at Obergefell? The five Justices who unilaterally and without citation deemed that their historical benefit of mother or father in the marriage contract are no longer necessary to them?

 

[g5000]

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.

Yes, we've NEVER seen a right wing hack propaganda outlet smear people without evidence.

 

[Skylar]

Infancy Doctrine discussion, page 53 of actual text here: Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf

****
Determining what is a necessity for a minor is a fact-intensive inquiry, although also a matter of law, and it is useful to look at what has been upheld and rejected as a necessity in the past. Food, clothing, shelter, and medical expenses are in the traditional category of necessities. Education also generally falls in this list. Interestingly enough, "retaining counsel in criminal proceedings" has also been upheld as a necessity and "under extraordinary circumstances," counsel in civil suit can be as well.

*******
Obergefell made it's third area of emphasis about children and their part in the whole of the marriage discussion. Children as in children in general, the collective.

And found that same sex marriage bans *harm* and humiliate children.

The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

Obergefell v. Hodges

Thus, by your own standards, the supreme court was obligated to overturn such bans and recognize the marriages of same sex couples. Worse, you've cited this same document as backing the claim that children are parties to the marriage of their parents (it never say this), that children are implied beneficiaries of marriage (it never says this nor uses the term 'implied' nor 'beneficiary') or that all marriages are conditioned on procreation (the Supreme Court says that NO marriage is conditioned on procreation).

Your sources simply don't say what you do. You're citing your imagination.

Just like you're citing your imagination about 'defamation' law.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Yes, we've NEVER seen a right wing hack propaganda outlet smear people without evidence.

Oh, Sil's imaginary standard of defamation would shut down virtually every conservative website imaginable in mere months. They'd all go the way of the Gawker.

And would have just as chilling an effect on Free Speech

 

[Syriusly]

As to post #142...
...Infancy Doctrine discussion, page 53 of actual text here: Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf

****
Determining what is a necessity for a minor is a fact-intensive inquiry, although also a matter of law, and it is useful to look at what has been upheld and rejected as a necessity in the past. Food, clothing, shelter, and medical expenses are in the traditional category of necessities. Education also generally falls in this list. Interestingly enough, "retaining counsel in criminal proceedings" has also been upheld as a necessity and "under extraordinary circumstances," counsel in civil suit can be as well.

Ah Silhouette with her 'selective' dishonest quotes.

What is considered a 'necessity' under the Infancy Doctrine?

If a real child- not an imaginary child- is made part of a contract by his or her real parents- not imaginary parents- that child can- under the Infancy Doctrine- essentially get out of the contract.

BUT- if the child incurred any 'necessities' while in the contract- the child is obligated to pay for them- i.e. liable

What is even more telling about this is that it makes it clear that the "Necessaries" clause applies to contracts with people other than the child's parents.

How do we know this?

Note how parents are distinguished from both the child- and from the contracted parties.

My next post I will post from Silhouette's own citation and show how what she keeps claiming the Infancy Doctrine says, is complete bullshit.

 

[Syriusly]

As to post #142...
...Infancy Doctrine discussion, page 53 of actual text here: Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf

****
Determining what is a necessity for a minor is a fact-intensive inquiry, although also a matter of law, and it is useful to look at what has been upheld and rejected as a necessity in the past. Food, clothing, shelter, and medical expenses are in the traditional category of necessities. Education also generally falls in this list. Interestingly enough, "retaining counsel in criminal proceedings" has also been upheld as a necessity and "under extraordinary circumstances," counsel in civil suit can be as well.

*******
Obergefell made it's third area of emphasis about children and their part in the whole of the marriage discussion. Children as in children in general, the collective.

Where was their unique representation at Obergefell? The five Justices who unilaterally and without citation deemed that their historical benefit of mother or father in the marriage contract are no longer necessary to them?

The Infancy Doctrine doesn't prevent any contract from being signed- it allows a real child to escape a contract his parents committed him to as a minor.

There is absolutely NOTHING about the Infancy Doctrine which prevents ANY contract from being signed.

Silhouette lies.
Not only does she lie- she is the queen of dishonest citations- where she claims a citation says one thing- and it actually says the opposite.

 

[Silhouette]

As to post #142...
...Infancy Doctrine discussion, page 53 of actual text here: Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf

****
Determining what is a necessity for a minor is a fact-intensive inquiry, although also a matter of law, and it is useful to look at what has been upheld and rejected as a necessity in the past. Food, clothing, shelter, and medical expenses are in the traditional category of necessities. Education also generally falls in this list. Interestingly enough, "retaining counsel in criminal proceedings" has also been upheld as a necessity and "under extraordinary circumstances," counsel in civil suit can be as well.

*******
Obergefell made it's third area of emphasis about children and their part in the whole of the marriage discussion. Children as in children in general, the collective.

Where was their unique representation at Obergefell? The five Justices who unilaterally and without citation deemed that their historical benefit of mother or father in the marriage contract are no longer necessary to them?

The Infancy Doctrine doesn't prevent any contract from being signed- it allows a real child to escape a contract his parents committed him to as a minor.

There is absolutely NOTHING about the Infancy Doctrine which prevents ANY contract from being signed.

That comment was not in response to what I wrote. I was writing how Obergefell was an illegal hearing because it did not have the required unique representation for children collectively that it said were intrinsic to the marriage contract in its third tier of rationale in the Obergefell Opinion.

They just decided mothers or fathers are no longer relevant in marriage where children are concerned, citing no study to back up that extraordinary and outrageous assertion.

 

[Syriusly]

As to post #142...
...Infancy Doctrine discussion, page 53 of actual text here: Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf

****
Determining what is a necessity for a minor is a fact-intensive inquiry, although also a matter of law, and it is useful to look at what has been upheld and rejected as a necessity in the past. Food, clothing, shelter, and medical expenses are in the traditional category of necessities. Education also generally falls in this list. Interestingly enough, "retaining counsel in criminal proceedings" has also been upheld as a necessity and "under extraordinary circumstances," counsel in civil suit can be as well..

So tell us more about how imaginary kids can charge their parents for their necessaries.

Oh right they can't charge their parents- because their parents are specifically not part of the contract.

 

[Skylar]

As to post #142...
...Infancy Doctrine discussion, page 53 of actual text here: Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf

****
Determining what is a necessity for a minor is a fact-intensive inquiry, although also a matter of law, and it is useful to look at what has been upheld and rejected as a necessity in the past. Food, clothing, shelter, and medical expenses are in the traditional category of necessities. Education also generally falls in this list. Interestingly enough, "retaining counsel in criminal proceedings" has also been upheld as a necessity and "under extraordinary circumstances," counsel in civil suit can be as well.

*******
Obergefell made it's third area of emphasis about children and their part in the whole of the marriage discussion. Children as in children in general, the collective.

And found that same sex marriage bans *harm* and humiliate children.

The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

Obergefell v. Hodges

Thus, by your own standards, the supreme court was obligated to overturn such bans and recognize the marriages of same sex couples. Worse, you've cited this same document as backing the claim that children are parties to the marriage of their parents (it never say this), that children are implied beneficiaries of marriage (it never says this nor uses the term 'implied' nor 'beneficiary') or that all marriages are conditioned on procreation (the Supreme Court says that NO marriage is conditioned on procreation).

Your sources simply don't say what you do. You're citing your imagination.

Just like you're citing your imagination about 'defamation' law

That comment was not in response to what I wrote. I was writing how Obergefell was an illegal hearing because it did not have the required unique representation for children collectively that it said were intrinsic to the marriage contract in its third tier of rationale in the Obergefell Opinion.

There's no requirement that 'children collectively' have any representation at any court hearing. You imagined it. Making your claim of an 'illegal hearing' just more meaningless pseudo-legal nonsense.

 

[Syriusly]

As to post #142...
...Infancy Doctrine discussion, page 53 of actual text here: Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf

****
Determining what is a necessity for a minor is a fact-intensive inquiry, although also a matter of law, and it is useful to look at what has been upheld and rejected as a necessity in the past. Food, clothing, shelter, and medical expenses are in the traditional category of necessities. Education also generally falls in this list. Interestingly enough, "retaining counsel in criminal proceedings" has also been upheld as a necessity and "under extraordinary circumstances," counsel in civil suit can be as well.

*******
Obergefell made it's third area of emphasis about children and their part in the whole of the marriage discussion. Children as in children in general, the collective.

Where was their unique representation at Obergefell? The five Justices who unilaterally and without citation deemed that their historical benefit of mother or father in the marriage contract are no longer necessary to them?

The Infancy Doctrine doesn't prevent any contract from being signed- it allows a real child to escape a contract his parents committed him to as a minor.

There is absolutely NOTHING about the Infancy Doctrine which prevents ANY contract from being signed.

That comment was not in response to what I wrote. I was writing how Obergefell was an illegal hearing because it did not have the required unique representation for children collectively that it said were intrinsic to the marriage contract in its third tier of rationale in the Obergefell Opinion..

There is no required unique representation- you are just making this crap up.

IF a real child(not an imaginary child) is- as a minor- part of a contract- then if such a child has 'necessaries- i.e. expenses that are needed for the contract- the child has to pay those expenses. In some cases that can include paying for a legal counsel.

 

[Silhouette]

There's no requirement that 'children collectively' have any representation at any court hearing. You imagined it. Making your claim of an 'illegal hearing' just more meaningless pseudo-legal nonsense.

I have a feeling that the adoption lawsuits and a revisitation to Obergefell via a new SCOTUS soon will include examination of whether or not children collectively (third tier of rationale used in Obergefell) should have had unique representation or at the rock bare minimum, scientific citations justifying the radical revision of their contract share in mother/father marriage. From that ancient enjoyment to "banishment from either a father or mother for life via contract" was decreed without a single peep about how gay marriage strips them of their old enjoyment.

The Infancy Doctrine is the law, whether you like it or not.

 

[Skylar]

There's no requirement that 'children collectively' have any representation at any court hearing. You imagined it. Making your claim of an 'illegal hearing' just more meaningless pseudo-legal nonsense.

I have a feeling that the adoption lawsuits and a revisitation to Obergefell via a new SCOTUS soon will include examination of whether or not children collectively (third tier of rationale used in Obergefell) should have had unique representation or at the rock bare minimum, scientific citations justifying the radical revision of their contract share in mother/father marriage. From that ancient enjoyment to "banishment from either a father or mother for life via contract".

Your 'feelings' are irrelevant. And can I take it from your complete abandonment of your nonsense demands about defamation and your rout to the 'Infancy Doctrine', that you've conceded that argument?

The Infancy Doctrine is the law, whether you like it or not.

The *actual* Infancy Doctrine? Yup. Its employment contract law that lets minors dissolve contracts they've entered that are disadvantagerous to them.

Your made up, imaginary version of the Infancy Doctrine in which children are married to their parents and the Supreme Court is required to have representatives for 'collective children'?

Laughing....that's not the law, SIl. That's your imagination.

 

[Silhouette]

We'll see... Who do you think Trump will nominate to replace Ginsburg or Kennedy when they step down soon?