Guilty Via Media: Is Media Liable For Kangaroo Justice?

[Skylar]

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

When you've committed to ignoring the actual law and basing your perception of the entire legal system on your own imagination....

......why couldn't you? All you have to do is imagine harder.

Alas, our legal system is based in *actual* statutory and case law. Rendering the utility of imagination as law somewhat....suboptimal.

 

[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?

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'.

Well see that's the thing. Before Obergefell we had states ratifying marriage as they saw fit. Obergefell took that away from them when they inadvertently made all sex kinks legal to marry (yes, they did, see the 14th for details). Groundbreaking. Earth-shattering in fact considering the overall impact to society over time, and how we raise children up to mimic ourselves. All with just five pens overriding the 300 million's right to govern themselves.

In this example of the media, we have a Court that will for the first time ever be faced with making a distinction between the MSM-for-profit and just regular nonprofit discussions. If you use the federal airways to broadcast massive information in real-time alerts and so forth to the 300 million, if you're doing so to talk about an accused of a crime, you give that accused's presumed innocence equal air time. Groundbreaking? Yes. Overdue? Yes.

It's not curbing the press or cutting back on what they're allowed to say. It's making them SAY MORE that they don't want to say currently. Out of respect for the Constitutional protections of the accused.

 

[mdk]

We can totally whittle down freedom of the press b/c gay marriage.

 

[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'.

Well see that's the thing. Before Obergefell we had states ratifying marriage as they saw fit.

Within the confines of constitutional guarantees. You always omit that little bit. Alas, rulings from Loving to WIndsor demonstrate its a very important caveat. As does the Obergefell decision.

Remember, just because you ignore constitutional guarantees doesn't mean they vanish. No matter how hard you imagine.

Obergefell took that away from them when they inadvertently made all sex kinks legal to marry (yes, they did, see the 14th for details).

Obergefell never so much as mentions 'kinks'. Or uses 'kinks' as the basis of rights. You're again equating same sex couples with same sex intimacy. And then insisting that the Supreme Court is bound to your bizarro false equivalences.

Nope. They're not. Only you are. Again, Sil.....your imagination has no legal relevance.

In this example we have a Court that will for the first time ever be faced with making a distinction between the MSM-for-profit and just regular nonprofit discussions.

Defamation applies to all of free speech. If you start limiting your imaginary restrictions to specific groups and specific topics while allowing others to remain under the old rules......you run headlong into the equal protections clause of the 14th amendment. It would be struck down in minutes applying to everyone on all topics or no one on any topic.

And then you're holding the knife by the hand. As half of your every post would have to be dedicated to why you're wrong......and folks can still sue you for what you didn't say. And they thought you 'shoulda'.

No thank you. Your proposed changes are abysmal, devastate the free press and free speech. They're simply a terrible idea.

 

[Silhouette]

Defamation applies to all of free speech. If you start limiting your imaginary restrictions to specific groups and specific topics while allowing others to remain under the old rules......you run headlong into the equal protections clause of the 14th amendment.

Nope, because the context isn't equal, therefore the rules don't have to be either. In mainstream broadcast we have the heightened ability to hurt: made worse that it's done for profit. Real time alerts and the powerful use of wide-reaching broadcast makes the tort powerful and dangerous. Not so on the smaller private scale that doesn't involve alerts and streaming updates. It's the wildfire vs the campfire. There can be a distinction made.

Let the 14th be cited by the opposition. I guess if ass-jockeys can get coverage without that being specified, anything goes. Good luck!

 

[Skylar]

Defamation applies to all of free speech. If you start limiting your imaginary restrictions to specific groups and specific topics while allowing others to remain under the old rules......you run headlong into the equal protections clause of the 14th amendment.

Nope, because the context isn't equal, therefore the rules don't have to be either.

Again, the context of the free press is *free speech*. Which is equal. Everyone is held to the same rules, are allowed to discuss the same topics.

You're insisting that certain groups be subject to draconian regulation, be open to wild liability, and be restricted on the topics they're allowed to discuss and how.....while others are not. The 14th amendment won't allow that.

Either the restrictions you've imagined apply to everyone on all topics.....or no one on any.

Your proposal is simply an awful idea that would devastate the Free Press and essentially end Free Speech. As your imaginary basis is what was NOT said. And anyone's feelings on what was not said.

No thank you.

 

[Skylar]

It's not curbing the press or cutting back on what they're allowed to say. It's making them SAY MORE that they don't want to say currently. Out of respect for the Constitutional protections of the accused.

What constitutional protections of the accused are being violated by the free press reporting that the accusation exists?

Specifically. I've asked this question at least 3 times and you've never had an answer.

 

[Silhouette]

The Constitutional rights are the famous presumed innocence until found guilty. ie: right to a fair trial. And if nothing but the accusations are broadcast wide in real time for profits, then the media is participating in a de facto trial of the accused.

You're insisting that certain groups be subject to draconian regulation, be open to wild liability, and be restricted on the topics they're allowed to discuss and how.....while others are not. The 14th amendment won't allow that.

No dumbass. I'm not advocating restriction. The mass media can still broadcast accusations. It's just that in addition to that air time, they must broadcast equal air time for the accused's presumed innocence. Nobody is gagging the press in this proposal. They are in fact adding to their coverage of the story.

I know you get this but are pretending to scream foul to alarm and distract and hope the idea goes away 'because it will be scary!!' (translation, it will hurt the fascist components of the left to be able to carve seats into powerholds by forced-attrition of conservative targets)

 

[Skylar]

The Constitutional rights are the famous presumed innocence until found guilty. ie: right to a fair trial.

Reporting that charges have been levied against a person doesn't deny them the right to a free trial.

So I ask again, what constitutional rights are denied a person because an accusation against them is accurately reported in the media?

And if nothing but the accusations are broadcast wide in real time for profits, then the media is participating in a de facto trial of the accused.

False equivalency fallacy. An accurate news report isn't a trial.

So I ask again, what constitutional rights are denied a person because an accusation against them is accurately reported in the media?

No dumbass.

Why Sil.....such language! Weren't you just whining about 'ad hominem attacks' just yesterday?

If not for double standards, you'd have no standards at all it seems.

I'm not advocating restriction. The mass media can still broadcast accusations. It's just that in addition to that air time, they must broadcast equal air time for the accused's presumed innocence. Nobody is gagging the press in this proposal. They are in fact adding to their coverage of the story.

I know you get this but are pretending to scream foul to alarm and distract and hope the idea goes away 'because it will be scary!!'

You're advocating massive restrictions, mandating what they must report, how it is it be reported, all held to an imaginary standard of what you consider 'fair'. And then trying to apply these ridiculous restrictions only to certain groups of people and only on certain topics.

Nope. The 14th amendment's equal protection clause wouldn't allow it.

There's a reason why defamation applies to *every* topic. And every one. Not just the topics and groups you believe should be subject to infinite liability and be sued out of existence.

 

[Silhouette]

You're advocating for the "right" of one person of huge clout and exposure to hurt another person of little clout and no ability to broadcast in real time to massive audiences in an equally loud voice.

 

[Silhouette]

You're advocating massive restrictions, mandating what they must report, how it is it be reported, all held to an imaginary standard of what you consider 'fair'.

Not "restrictions", EXPANSION. They must give equal air time to the professed innocence of the accused, that's all. If you're saying they're like spoiled children and want to slather massive air time on allegations (which cumulatively appears to the public as a conviction of guilt), in preference to splitting that time up between equal weight of allegations vs denials, then I have no sympathy. Particularly when the results are puishment before trial. As in the case of the KY representative who killed himself rather than face what has become common knowledge: trial by MSM and conviction before an actual trial on the facts.

It would be new, innovative and EXPANSIVE on MSM, but long overdue. We need to protect the accused in our country, no?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

What is that even supposed to mean? If anyone- an individual or otherwise is 'defamed' they can sue the media or the individual.

Of course they need to show that they were defamed- which requires proving what was said was false.

 

[Syriusly]

You're advocating for the "right" of one person of huge clout and exposure to hurt another person of little clout and no ability to broadcast in real time to massive audiences in an equally loud voice.

That is what the First Amendment provides for.

Unless of course the press defames someone- and then they can be sued.

 

[Skylar]

You're advocating for the "right" of one person of huge clout and exposure to hurt another person of little clout and no ability to broadcast in real time to massive audiences in an equally loud voice.

I'm advocating the 'right' of a news agency to accurately report about charges and accusations that occur.

You're advocating that the media be liable for words they *never* uttered, but you feel they 'shoulda'. All while completely remaking defamation and then applying the imaginary new version only to the media and only on the topic of crimes.

A standard that would either fall to the 14th amendment's equal protection clause or destroy both the Free Press and Free Speech.

No thank you.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm advocating the 'right' of a news agency to accurately report about charges and accusations that occur.

You're advocating that the media be liable for words they *never* uttered, but you feel they 'shoulda'. All while completely remaking defamation and then applying the imaginary new version only to the media and only on the topic of crimes.

A standard that would either fall to the 14th amendment's equal protection clause or destroy both the Free Press and Free Speech.

No thank you.

Well a lot of people object to the voodoo justice that happened in Obergefell from the disenfranchising of children's counsel representing their mother/father interest in the contract the Court said itself they were intrinsic to and a part of, to Ginsburg declaring publicly in the media how she would cast before the Hearing, to the judiciary branch inserting nonexistent language into the Constitution, from other sexual orientations still being banned from marriage (speaking of the 14th...)..and so on.

Yet that happened. So I feel confident a compromise between air time for the accusations vs the accused can be written into law by the judiciary too. Right?

 

[Syriusly]

I'm advocating the 'right' of a news agency to accurately report about charges and accusations that occur.

You're advocating that the media be liable for words they *never* uttered, but you feel they 'shoulda'. All while completely remaking defamation and then applying the imaginary new version only to the media and only on the topic of crimes.

A standard that would either fall to the 14th amendment's equal protection clause or destroy both the Free Press and Free Speech.

No thank you.

Well a lot of people object to the voodoo justice that happened in Obergefell

Anyone shocked that Silly went full Obergefell in this thread too?

I guess the voices in her head said "time to pivot to Silhouette's primary nutball obsession- advocating to harm homosexuals'!

 

[Silhouette]

Do you have a rebuttal to why it is legally feasible for the USSC to craft language to protect accused from media trials....or not?

 

[Skylar]

I'm advocating the 'right' of a news agency to accurately report about charges and accusations that occur.

You're advocating that the media be liable for words they *never* uttered, but you feel they 'shoulda'. All while completely remaking defamation and then applying the imaginary new version only to the media and only on the topic of crimes.

A standard that would either fall to the 14th amendment's equal protection clause or destroy both the Free Press and Free Speech.

No thank you.

Well a lot of people object to the voodoo justice that happened in Obergefell from the disenfranchising of children's counsel representing their mother/father interest in the contract the Court said itself they were intrinsic to and a part of, to Ginsburg declaring publicly in the media how she would cast before the Hearing, to the judiciary branch inserting nonexistent language into the Constitution, from other sexual orientations still being banned from marriage (speaking of the 14th...)..and so on.

Yet that happened. So I feel confident a compromise between air time for the accusations vs the accused can be written into law by the judiciary too. Right?

And by 'voodoo justice', you mean following the actual precedent rather than what you imagined?

Again, SIl.....the courts found that banning same sex marriage harms and humiliates children. Thus, by your standard they *must* rule to overturn such bans. You merely ignore any portion of the ruling you don't like....and then imagine that because you ignore the ruling, it doesn't apply.

Alas, that's not how reality or the law work.

 

[Skylar]

Do you have a rebuttal to why it is legally feasible for the USSC to craft language to protect accused from media trials....or not?

There are no 'media trials'. Thus, there's no 'media trials' for the USSC to protect the accused against.

Remember, the 'trial' gibberish is your imagination. It has no reflection in the actual law.

 

[Silhouette]

Do you have a rebuttal to why it is legally feasible for the USSC to craft language to protect accused from media trials....or not?

There are no 'media trials'. Thus, there's no 'media trials' for the USSC to protect the accused against.

Remember, the 'trial' gibberish is your imagination. It has no reflection in the actual law.

Well that's funny, because the people on the receiving end of the punishment for those "imaginary trials" sure feel like there's been a trial without fair representation. You work off paper minutia. I'm coming from an angle of real experienced consequences. We'll see which holds more weight in Court. Or are "how the plaintiff feels...etc etc...." only weighty considerations when it's Obergefell?

You see, I keep bringing up Obergefell here because it is the PERFECT example of what YOU are ARGUING AGAINST right now out of convenience. You're saying "we shouldn't bend solid laws and longstanding establishment of rights (you know, like states' rights to determine marriage parameters for the "best interest of children" [direct quote from Obergefell's third tier of rationale]). You're saying we shouldn't rely on the feelings of the experiencees from oppression; you know, like the entire rationale for Obergefell was about.

It's almost like in law, you want your cake and want to eat it too? Can't have it both ways Skylar. Know what I think would be fucking hilarious? If a case was decided in favor of the KY Reps widow, citing the points I've made herein and rebutting opposing arguments in one of their tiers of rationale by citing Obergefell's "people's hurt feelings justify brand new retooling of longstanding rights". (by the Judiciary, outside permission of the Legislature or any citation or inference from the US Constitution...)

How about it Skylar? Think we should use Obergefell's precedent of "hurt feelings override the US Constitution"? Or not?