Guilty Via Media: Is Media Liable For Kangaroo Justice?

[Silhouette]

Again, all lawsuits start first as someone's imagination. Then the test comes in discovery and briefs and finally the Hearing.

..The litigation you're referring to is imaginary. Your changes to the law, imaginary. The PTSD's that you insist that the KY Rep had....you made up based on nothing...

All litigation is imaginary until it isn't. Then comes discovery, briefs and the Hearing.

 

[Skylar]

Again, all lawsuits start first as someone's imagination. Then the test comes in discovery and briefs and finally the Hearing.

..The litigation you're referring to is imaginary. Your changes to the law, imaginary. The PTSD's that you insist that the KY Rep had....you made up based on nothing...

All litigation is imaginary until it isn't. Then comes discovery, briefs and the Hearing.

*Your* litigation is imaginary. Your 'evidence' is imaginary. Your claims of PTSDs is imaginary. Your 'changes' are imaginary. Your definition of 'defamation' is imaginary. And your absolute horseshit narrative about how a 17 year old girl 'forced herself' on a grown man is imaginary.

Your imagination isn't a legal standard, Sil. Which is why your legal predictions and demands always result in the exact same way:

Nothing.

 

[hoosier88]

Again, all lawsuits start first as someone's imagination. Then the test comes in discovery and briefs and finally the Hearing.

Nah, the basis of a suit is behavior. Someone witnesses or experiences specific behavior, which leads him or her to think that he or she has been wronged. If there is a competent court & specific law can be invoked as controlling the behavior, the victim can bring suit, & call the witness to testify. You need actual behavior - in this case, libel - before you can bring suit. (That's part of the DA's job - to assess whether a crime may have been committed, & whether the odds of winning in court are reasonable.)

If the published account is accurate, then you don't have libel. If the DA concludes that the basis for the allegation is too flimsy, or he or she has a better chance of winning some other case (a prioritization of resources decision) - then the more winnable case will probably get resources, & not the questionable case. The DA could also decide that no crime was committed - or @ least, that no chargeable crime was committed, & therefore filing the charges would be a waste of time & effort.

 

[Syriusly]

No, I'm proposing the widow of the KY Rep file suit and change the law based on the facts. But nice ad hominem spin though.

More accurately, you're imagining that the KY Rep had PTSD's....a claim pulled sideways out of your ass. And then insisting that the media should assume that all 'accused' have PTSDs....because you imagined it.

All of that would come out in discovery.

You claimed that he had PTSD- now you claim that would come out of 'discovery'- based upon what?

LOL

 

[Syriusly]

Again, all lawsuits start first as someone's imagination. Then the test comes in discovery and briefs and finally the Hearing.

..The litigation you're referring to is imaginary. Your changes to the law, imaginary. The PTSD's that you insist that the KY Rep had....you made up based on nothing...

All litigation is imaginary until it isn't. Then comes discovery, briefs and the Hearing.

Nope- there is no discovery until you can establish that you have a case. If you have no evidence when you file your law suit- your law suit will get dismissed long before there is any discovery.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

Let's say Moore filed a lawsuit against the media for defamation.

The media lawyers could then file for dismissal showing their due diligence in reporting (a) the claims of the accusers, and (b) their diligence in investigating and corroborating the claims. Likely the case would be dismissed as frivolous at that point.

In this case of he said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said.

However it would be a hoot if it wasn't the the case was allowed to proceed to "discovery". During discovery Moore's lawyers would be able to depose the 9 different accusers, and the people they told of the incident 30-40 years ago. They could even have to Christmas Card and Yearbook examined by independent court supervised experts.

The other side of the coin media laws would be able to depose Moore under oath with no 5th Amendment protections to refuse to answer question. The 5th Amendment applies to criminal proceedings, not civil. You can take the 5th, but only to protect your rights against criminal charges. Since their statute of limitations has already expired, there is no possibility of criminal charges to the 5th can't be invoked.

*********************************

You won't see Moore file such a lawsuit because he doesn't want to get anywhere near a courtroom or deposition under oath.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

The question of law wouldn't be the merits of accusations in this hypothetical case. It would be if the media spammed the accusations in a manner that looked like a trial without the accused having equal weight or representation.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The question of law wouldn't be the merits of accusations in this hypothetical case. It would be if the media spammed the accusations in a manner that looked like a trial without the accused having equal weight or representation.

There is no "question of law" about how much news is reported on a public figure especially one running for national political office.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

The question of law wouldn't be the merits of accusations in this hypothetical case. It would be if the media spammed the accusations in a manner that looked like a trial without the accused having equal weight or representation.

There is no "question of law" about how much news is reported on a public figure especially one running for national political office.



>>>>

No, in this case there is a question of law as to fair trial. The accusations were of a criminal nature: sex with a minor. As a potential defendant (which the media itself could not disagree), the KY Rep's presumption of innocence kicks in. If the media goes hog wild smearing the allegations repetitively, without giving equal time, consideration and respect to his refuting the allegations, the media is engaging in a trial with the accused not having representation while having his voice gagged by the sheer weight of the MSM and its ability to drown out other voices.

I stand by what I said on the merits. Once criminal allegations are leveled, it no longer is about a public figure, it's about an American defendant with Constitutional protections.

 

[Skylar]

The question of law wouldn't be the merits of accusations in this hypothetical case. It would be if the media spammed the accusations in a manner that looked like a trial without the accused having equal weight or representation.

Nonsense. The first question is one of law. Your imaginary definition of 'defamation' has nothing to do with the actual definition. Thus, it immediately fails.

You're literally arguing that the law should ignore the law in any court case.

Laughing.....um, no.

 

[Skylar]

The question of law wouldn't be the merits of accusations in this hypothetical case. It would be if the media spammed the accusations in a manner that looked like a trial without the accused having equal weight or representation.

There is no "question of law" about how much news is reported on a public figure especially one running for national political office.



>>>>

No, in this case there is a question of law as to fair trial.

No, there isn't. As a media report isn't a trial.

Remember, your claim that a media report is a 'trial' is imaginary nonsense. And the law isn't bound to your imagination.

You're a one trick pony, SIl. Your argument is the same regardless of topic: ignore the actual law and replace it with your imagination.

Um, no. What else have you got?

 

[Silhouette]

The question of law wouldn't be the merits of accusations in this hypothetical case. It would be if the media spammed the accusations in a manner that looked like a trial without the accused having equal weight or representation.

There is no "question of law" about how much news is reported on a public figure especially one running for national political office.



>>>>

No, in this case there is a question of law as to fair trial.

No, there isn't. As a media report isn't a trial.

First of all, your retorts and rebuttals are aggressive in style. This suggests a defensive posture as a foil for weaknesses in your argument. Duly noted.

Secondly, the entire question is if a media report can be seen as a kangaroo trial. That's like you saying "there is no merit to your case because I said so". Thanks, but I'm advocating running it by a tribunal to see if there are merits. Not some dick on the internet.

 

[Skylar]

The question of law wouldn't be the merits of accusations in this hypothetical case. It would be if the media spammed the accusations in a manner that looked like a trial without the accused having equal weight or representation.

There is no "question of law" about how much news is reported on a public figure especially one running for national political office.



>>>>

No, in this case there is a question of law as to fair trial.

No, there isn't. As a media report isn't a trial.

First of all, your retorts and rebuttals are aggressive in style. This suggests a defensive posture as a foil for weaknesses in your argument. Duly noted.

Secondly, the entire question is if a media report can be seen as a kangaroo trial.

No, its not. A trial and a news report are not the same thing. You can't tell the difference, imagining them to be the same thing. The law does distinguish between them.

Again, your imagination is not the law. You reimagining 'defamation' and 'trial' doesn't create any legal controversy. As your imagination isn't a legal standard.

That's like you saying "there is no merit to your case because I said so". Thanks, but I'm advocating running it by a tribunal to see if there are merits. Not some dick on the internet.

Show me any law dictionary or court case that recognizes a news report as a trial.

You can't. You've made it up. Your imagination has no legal relevance. You're advocating replacing the actual law with your imagination.

No.

 

[Syriusly]

>

Let's say Moore filed a lawsuit against the media for defamation.

The media lawyers could then file for dismissal showing their due diligence in reporting (a) the claims of the accusers, and (b) their diligence in investigating and corroborating the claims. Likely the case would be dismissed as frivolous at that point.

In this case of he said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said.

However it would be a hoot if it wasn't the the case was allowed to proceed to "discovery". During discovery Moore's lawyers would be able to depose the 9 different accusers, and the people they told of the incident 30-40 years ago. They could even have to Christmas Card and Yearbook examined by independent court supervised experts.

The other side of the coin media laws would be able to depose Moore under oath with no 5th Amendment protections to refuse to answer question. The 5th Amendment applies to criminal proceedings, not civil. You can take the 5th, but only to protect your rights against criminal charges. Since their statute of limitations has already expired, there is no possibility of criminal charges to the 5th can't be invoked.

*********************************

You won't see Moore file such a lawsuit because he doesn't want to get anywhere near a courtroom or deposition under oath.



>>>>

Yes- despite the efforts of the 'slut-shamers' to attack Moore's accusers now by asking 'where are they now'- the real question should be- 'where is Moore's threatened lawsuit'?

Remember Moore said he was going to sue. Since he lost the election he actually can demonstrate a 'harm' from the accusations- why isn't he filing that lawsuit?

Because he doesn't want to go anywhere near where he is forced to confront his accusers with the threat of perjury.

 

[Syriusly]

The question of law wouldn't be the merits of accusations in this hypothetical case. It would be if the media spammed the accusations in a manner that looked like a trial without the accused having equal weight or representation.

There is no "question of law" about how much news is reported on a public figure especially one running for national political office.



>>>>

No, in this case there is a question of law as to fair trial.

No, there isn't. As a media report isn't a trial.

Secondly, the entire question is if a media report can be seen as a kangaroo trial. .

Certainly no one can prevent you from seeing anything you want to see in a media report. You make crap up all the time.

But what the voices in your head are telling you- are simply lies.

 

[Silhouette]

Show me any law dictionary or court case that recognizes a news report as a trial.

Show me any precedent for gay marriage prior to 2000? Just because a new situation hasn't been tried, doesn't mean it can't be tried. Times they are a changin' friend. And not always in the liberal/media/LGBT favor. Change can be painful.

 

[Skylar]

Show me any law dictionary or court case that recognizes a news report as a trial.

Show me any precedent for gay marriage prior to 2000? Just because a new situation hasn't been tried, doesn't mean it can't be tried. Times they are a changin' friend. And not always in the liberal/media/LGBT favor. Change can be painful.

So you admit that there isn't a single example of your imaginary definitions of defamation, nor the slightest legal recognition that a news report is a trial.

In both insistences, you're insisting we use your imagination as the law and legal definitions.

No.

What else do you have?

 

[Silhouette]

And there's no precedent set for forcing Christian adoption agencies to adopt vulnerable children to gay pride parade enthusiasts yet. So by your rationale, there never will be.

 

[Skylar]

And there's no precedent set for forcing Christian adoption agencies to adopt vulnerable children to gay pride parade enthusiasts yet. So by your rationale, there never will be.

There is thorough precedent for forcing Christians to follow the law even if they have religious objections.

Sorry, Sil....but your imagination isn't law. Nor does your imagination create a legal controversy. And both your made up definitions of 'trial' and 'defamation' are wholly imaginary.

No thank you.

 

[mdk]

Clearly the media reporting accusations is a trial b/c...gay marriage.