Guilty Via Media: Is Media Liable For Kangaroo Justice?

[Silhouette]

Being messy & traditionally that way has built the perfect foundation for the type of tyranny that needs reformation. Hence this thread.

Spoiler alert, Skylar relies on ad hominem when he's nervous.

Reporting the news accurately isn't 'tyranny', a 'public trial', a 'tribunal' or any of the other pseudo-legal nonsense you've attributed to it.

Your proposal would devastate both the media and free speech. As it makes anyone infinitely liable for any statement they make....as your standard of evidence is subjective feeling about statements that were never made.

No thank you.

Well I contend that running 24/7 reels on accusations while nary a word or whisper is given the accused in even a thumbnail of that barrage, is not accurate reporting when weighed against the rights of the accused. It is inaccurate reporting because of its ability to condemn the accused in a real way before trial.

We are at loggerheads on this point, no? Perhaps a civil suit to the USSC to see which of us has the correct points? I'm game to see it; are you?

 

[Skylar]

Being messy & traditionally that way has built the perfect foundation for the type of tyranny that needs reformation. Hence this thread.

Spoiler alert, Skylar relies on ad hominem when he's nervous.

Reporting the news accurately isn't 'tyranny', a 'public trial', a 'tribunal' or any of the other pseudo-legal nonsense you've attributed to it.

Your proposal would devastate both the media and free speech. As it makes anyone infinitely liable for any statement they make....as your standard of evidence is subjective feeling about statements that were never made.

No thank you.

Well I contend that running 24/7 reels on accusations while nary a word or whisper is given the accused in even a thumbnail of that barrage, is not accurate reporting when weighed against the rights of the accused. It is inaccurate reporting because of its ability to condemn the accused in a real way before trial.

We are at loggerheads on this point, no?

Not particularly. As defamation doesn't describe anything you've offered. It only covers inaccurate statements. It doesn't cover the subjective concept of 'balance'. Nor statements that someone *didn't* make.

You're citing your imagination. I'm citing the law. There is no legal controversy....as your imagination isn't a legal argument.

Perhaps a civil suit to the USSC to see which of us has the correct points? I'm game to see it; are you?

As is always the case with your pseudo-legal rants, feel free to submit your suit to the USSC. Your record of predicting legal outcomes is one of perfect failure.

But this time it will be different?

 

[Skylar]

The question isn't about accuracy, it's about fairness in spread.

Defamation is about the accuracy of statements that were actually made. Your subjective version of 'fairness' is about your feelings on statements that were never made.

Its a horrid standard. As it opens anyone up to unlimited liability on any statement....as your 'evidence' of guilt are statements they've never made but you feel they 'shoulda'.

It would devastate the Free Press and Free Speech.

No thank you.

 

[Syriusly]

Regardless of who steps down we can predict that Trump will nominate some predictably Conservative judge.

That has nothing to do with your idiocy about the Infancy Doctrine.

Why would you conclude that? Conservatives believe in the Infancy Doctrine's principles of protecting children so? You may be wrong about that.

Why do you believe that Conservatives are as ignorant of the law as you are?

 

[Syriusly]

Being messy & traditionally that way has built the perfect foundation for the type of tyranny that needs reformation. Hence this thread.

Spoiler alert, Skylar relies on ad hominem when he's nervous.

Reporting the news accurately isn't 'tyranny', a 'public trial', a 'tribunal' or any of the other pseudo-legal nonsense you've attributed to it.

Your proposal would devastate both the media and free speech. As it makes anyone infinitely liable for any statement they make....as your standard of evidence is subjective feeling about statements that were never made.

No thank you.

Well I contend that running 24/7 reels on accusations while nary a word or whisper is given the accused in even a thumbnail of that barrage, is not accurate reporting when weighed against the rights of the accused.?

Well I contend that like virtually all of your posts- this is purely a creation of the voices in your head.

Real news media will run stories about accusations against people- criminal and otherwise- and virtually always ask the accused to respond. The accused normally don't.

 

[evenflow1969]

Being messy & traditionally that way has built the perfect foundation for the type of tyranny that needs reformation. Hence this thread.

Spoiler alert, Skylar relies on ad hominem when he's nervous.

All people are doing on this thread is blaming the other side for it. You have my attention! I would love to discuss how to fix it! I hope you have some ideas because I do not. Free press seems to be the best of all the flawed systems to deal with it. WHat is the alternative governmentaly controled perspective? Thought police? I am not trying to be inflamatory here. What is the alternative?

 

[Silhouette]

The press is still free but specifically in cases where a crime is alleged, they are required to give equal coverage to the accused's professed innocence. Failure to do so is a civil tort.

I've said this before but with all the spamming from trolls it's hard to blame anyone for inability to keep up. Which is the trolls' goal. I've spoken with staff here at usmb about it but the offenders don't seem to have ebbed at all.

 

[Syriusly]

The press is still free but specifically in cases where a crime is alleged, they are required to give equal coverage to the accused's professed innocence. Failure to do so is a civil tort..

According to who- exactly Silhouette?

Anyone can file a civil suit against anyone- so certainly someone like Roy Moore could sue any and or all of dozens of newspapers that reported the accusations against him.

Of course that would mean that for each and everyone of those suits, Moore could be deposed and required to answer questions on the stand.

I think the media would love that.

 

[Skylar]

The press is still free but specifically in cases where a crime is alleged, they are required to give equal coverage to the accused's professed innocence. Failure to do so is a civil tort.

Defamation that *only* applies to discussion of crimes?

You realize that there is no such limitation to defamation, yes? That's not how defamation works. Worse, any change you made to defamation would apply to all of speech. So you'd be held responsible for words you *never said* if you didn't dedicate half of every post to why you're wrong.

I've said this before but with all the spamming from trolls it's hard to blame anyone for inability to keep up. Which is the trolls' goal. I've spoken with staff here at usmb about it but the offenders don't seem to have ebbed at all.

'Spamming trolls'? Why Sil....weren't you the one that just this morning was complaining about 'ad hominem' attacks? And now you're name calling?

If even you ignore you, why would we bother to listen?

 

[Silhouette]

Defamation by mass media, not individuals of other individuals. The ability to spread widely the hurt of the accused is magnified in the MSM. Making money off of defamation no less.

 

[Skylar]

Defamation by mass media, not individuals of other individuals. The ability to spread widely the hurt of the accused is magnified in the MSM. Making money off of defamation no less.

There is simply 'defamation'. There's no categorization by source or topic. It applies to all of free speech.

 

[Silhouette]

Defamation by mass media, not individuals of other individuals. The ability to spread widely the hurt of the accused is magnified in the MSM. Making money off of defamation no less.

There is simply 'defamation'. There's no categorization by source or topic. It applies to all of free speech.

No categorization....yet. Hence the point of this thread.

 

[Skylar]

Defamation by mass media, not individuals of other individuals. The ability to spread widely the hurt of the accused is magnified in the MSM. Making money off of defamation no less.

There is simply 'defamation'. There's no categorization by source or topic. It applies to all of free speech.

No categorization....yet. Hence the point of this thread.

There's no precedent for the kind of changes you're imagining. Applying these new definitions selectively would be a clear 14th amendment equal protection violation. It would have to apply to everyone and on all topics. You're categorization wouldn't. It would be topic specific and group specific. Falling almost instantly under the 14th amendment.

And then applying defamation to what *wasn't* said? And basing guilt on somebody's feelings about what 'shoulda' been said?

No. Its an awful idea, has no basis in our system of law, and would have a devastating effect on the press and free speech.

 

[Silhouette]

Not having precedent for enshrining motherless or fatherless marriages as federal "law" didn't stop them with Obergefell. I feel hopeful. If that can happen without the permission of the governed, anything can.

 

[Silhouette]

If something wild & insane like Obergefell can be ratified into law without the permission of the governed...why is it such a stretch to imagine requiring the mass media for profit to respect the rights of the accused by mandatory equal coverage to his presumed innocence?

By the way, have you seen the poll? To quote Ginsburg in her press interview just before Obergefell was heard "I think America is ready" for this brand new idea.

 

[Skylar]

Not having precedent for enshrining motherless or fatherless marriages as federal "law" didn't stop them with Obergefell. I feel hopeful. If that can happen without the permission of the governed, anything can.

The courts found that banning same sex marriage harmed and humiliated children. By your own standards, the courts had no choice but to overturn same sex marriage bans.

You merely ignore the explicit findings of the Supreme Court. And then pretend that because you ignore them, they don't exist.

Alas, that's not how reality works......

 

[Silhouette]

Not having precedent for enshrining motherless or fatherless marriages as federal "law" didn't stop them with Obergefell. I feel hopeful. If that can happen without the permission of the governed, anything can...

...
If something wild & insane like Obergefell can be ratified into law without the permission of the governed...why is it such a stretch to imagine requiring the mass media for profit to respect the rights of the accused by mandatory equal coverage to his presumed innocence?

By the way, have you seen the poll? To quote Ginsburg in her press interview just before Obergefell was heard "I think America is ready" for this brand new idea.

The courts found that banning same sex marriage harmed and humiliated children. By your own standards, the courts had no choice but to overturn same sex marriage bans.

You merely ignore the explicit findings of the Supreme Court. And then pretend that because you ignore them, they don't exist.

Alas, that's not how reality works......

Banishing children from either a father or mother for life using a contract humiliates them more. It both humiliates them with their peers, and also harms them psychologically. It puts them in a statistical demographic with predictably woeful prognosis. So, there you go.

But back to the topic. The coverage between the accuser and the accused must at least be equal by the MSM for profit, otherwise it looks like kangaroo court for profit. A most pernicious form of libel.

 

[Skylar]

If something wild & insane like Obergefell can be ratified into law without the permission of the governed...why is it such a stretch to imagine requiring the mass media for profit to respect the rights of the accused by mandatory equal coverage to his presumed innocence?

There's nothing wild nor insane about ending the harm and humiliation caused to children of same sex parents by same sex marriage bans. And of course, the right to marry cannot be conditioned on procreation.

Your arguments are based, as always, with you ignoring the explicit findings of the Supreme Court and replacing them with your imagination.

By the way, have you seen the poll? To quote Ginsburg in her press interview just before Obergefell was heard "I think America is ready" for this brand new idea.

Laughing......yeah, didn't you do a similar poll before the Obergefell decision? As you demonstrated for us then, neither your 'polls' nor your pseudo-legal ramblings have any relevance to the outcome of actual cases.

 

[Skylar]

Not having precedent for enshrining motherless or fatherless marriages as federal "law" didn't stop them with Obergefell. I feel hopeful. If that can happen without the permission of the governed, anything can...

...
If something wild & insane like Obergefell can be ratified into law without the permission of the governed...why is it such a stretch to imagine requiring the mass media for profit to respect the rights of the accused by mandatory equal coverage to his presumed innocence?

Because your standard would devastate the media and free speech and change defamation from inaccuracies in actual statements to imagined 'unfairness' in what was never said. Defamation applies to all of free speech....not merely the 'press'. You'd be holding the blade by the hand, as you too would be infinitely liable for what you 'didn't say', but someone else thought you 'shoulda'.

Your imagined standard is simply a terribly idea. Nor is there the slightest indication from anyone in the Supreme Court or our precedent for such a horrid change to be made to our legal system.

Banishing children from either a father or mother for life using a contract humiliates them more.

Says your imagination. The court has never found this to be true. The Supreme Court have, however, found that same sex marriage bans harm and humiliate children. And that the right to marry *cannot* be conditioned on procreation.

Again, you ignore these explicit findings of the Supreme Court.....and replace them with your imagination. And your imagination is legally meaningless.

You're stuck.

 

[mdk]

Sil can turn any thread into a whine about homos getting hitched. Any thread.