- Jun 18, 2009
- 34,353
- 18,646
- 1,915
If you cannot prove the cited material, then you should not be citing it.It would not be chilling to the first.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.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.
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 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.