Guilty Via Media: Is Media Liable For Kangaroo Justice?

[Silhouette]

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.

 

[Silhouette]

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. And even when the text stares him in the face, he'll have his buddy Syriusly the troll come spam the page back a few and then claim he never saw the quote I provided. Then it begins anew with him accusing that I don't provide proof, when I do. Meanwhile he never does.

It's coordinated for sure. That much is obvious. The LGBT cult crew that runs the dems, that also runs the media (GLAAD of Hollywood) pack up like this against anti gaystapo agenda opinion. It's like a form of the SS online. Complete with gaslighting.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Correll]

You're confusing criminal penalties with private consequence.

What's the difference when kangaroo media courts produce a de facto punishment before a trial? Especially when the result is suicide?

The 'media' doesn't decide the consequence. One's wife or husband does. Or one's employer. Or one's friends.

Again, you really can't tell the difference between a criminal penalty.....and someone getting fired or divorced?

If so, um....wow.

So, no responsibility for their utter recklessness and corruption?

 

[Silhouette]

So, no responsibility for their utter recklessness and corruption?

Skylar/gaystapo-left's answer would be "Incorrect", if it involves accusations against a democrat. and "Correct", if it involves accusations against conservatives. That's the privilege he claims when he knows the party he's stumping for has a monopoly on the media, and by extension, power itself over all aspects of governing-by-club.

You see, he doesn't want a cause of action for recklessness in reporting because right now it's sweet for them. Their unchecked power means they get to suppress anything against their team, while running roughshod over any wild claim against the opposing team, without having to check themselves. Despots don't like to check themselves very often. And pesky laws would interfere with that sublime existence.

 

[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.

You're still not thinking this through. First off, 'Fair coverage' is utterly subjective. 'Fair coverage' according to who? So far, you've offered us YOUR version of what fair coverage would be on a given topic. But your standard allows *anyone* to make up their own version of 'fair coverage'....and sue accordingly. As everyone would be equally authoritative if mere opinion is the basis of liability.

You've proposed a standard that is entirely based on feelings.

Second, defamation isn't limited to the media. Its a standard that applies to ALL free speech. So if you change defamation to require 'fair coverage' of an issue, you would be subject to that standard as well. This would apply to all speech. Including this board. No one would be able to advocate a specific point without being sued into oblivion by anyone who feels that their coverage of the issue wasn't 'fair'. You'd be on the street in months as you were sued for your positions on virtually any topic you discuss.

Third, your standard is based on what *wasn't* said. If a media outlet accurately reports on an accusation....but you feel that the media 'shoulda' said something else, they're liable for what they *didn't* say, if you feel they are. That's an absolutely absurd standard. As you'd punishing people for words they *never* uttered. That means any statement comes with infinite liability.

So journalists must function like a fair tribunal.

What is a 'fair tribunal' in this imaginary legal landscape? You keep sprinkling in these legalish terms like 'de facto' and 'presumption of innocence' that have nothing to do with the argument you're making. A news report is not a trial, tribunal or court proceeding.

Its a news report.

 

[Skylar]

You're confusing criminal penalties with private consequence.

What's the difference when kangaroo media courts produce a de facto punishment before a trial? Especially when the result is suicide?

The 'media' doesn't decide the consequence. One's wife or husband does. Or one's employer. Or one's friends.

Again, you really can't tell the difference between a criminal penalty.....and someone getting fired or divorced?

If so, um....wow.

So, no responsibility for their utter recklessness and corruption?

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.

 

[Correll]

You're confusing criminal penalties with private consequence.

What's the difference when kangaroo media courts produce a de facto punishment before a trial? Especially when the result is suicide?

The 'media' doesn't decide the consequence. One's wife or husband does. Or one's employer. Or one's friends.

Again, you really can't tell the difference between a criminal penalty.....and someone getting fired or divorced?

If so, um....wow.

So, no responsibility for their utter recklessness and corruption?

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.


Yeah, that does not work for me.


They have too much power and have proven to be utterly incompetent, unprofessional, and down right corrupt and harmful to the nation.

 

[Skylar]

So, no responsibility for their utter recklessness and corruption?

Skylar/gaystapo-left's answer would be "Incorrect", if it involves accusations against a democrat. and "Correct", if it involves accusations against conservatives. That's the privilege he claims when he knows the party he's stumping for has a monopoly on the media, and by extension, power itself over all aspects of governing-by-club.

Laughing.....oh, your standard would devastate Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Breitbart, Infowars and all the other right and alt-right media. As they too could be sued for what they *didn't* say, being held to the 'balanced' standard. As such a standard is utterly subjective, anyone who feels that any story they ran on any topic that isn't 'balanced', they're liable under defamation. They'd all be sued into silence.

And of course, since you're holding the knife by the blade.......you forgot that defamation is a standard that applies to all of speech. So you'd be subject to the imaginary 'balance' standard. And any post you made on any topic would open you to infinite liability. As anyone can 'feel' that you 'shoulda' said something you didn't. And now you owe them money.

Your proposal would silence ALL media and essentially eliminate free speech.

No thank you.

 

[Skylar]

You're confusing criminal penalties with private consequence.

What's the difference when kangaroo media courts produce a de facto punishment before a trial? Especially when the result is suicide?

The 'media' doesn't decide the consequence. One's wife or husband does. Or one's employer. Or one's friends.

Again, you really can't tell the difference between a criminal penalty.....and someone getting fired or divorced?

If so, um....wow.

So, no responsibility for their utter recklessness and corruption?

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'.

 

[easyt65]

Guilty Via Media: Is Media Liable For Kangaroo Justice?

Agenda/Bias-Driven Partisan Media W/A Liberal Agenda = Fake News Designed to Manipulate / Fool Americans, to force false perceptions and conclusions resulting in support for their lies, liberal agenda, and ideology.

Liberal Media, especially CNN, have been proven to be the extremist Left Wing Propaganda-Pushing Arm of the DNC...

 

[Correll]

What's the difference when kangaroo media courts produce a de facto punishment before a trial? Especially when the result is suicide?

The 'media' doesn't decide the consequence. One's wife or husband does. Or one's employer. Or one's friends.

Again, you really can't tell the difference between a criminal penalty.....and someone getting fired or divorced?

If so, um....wow.

So, no responsibility for their utter recklessness and corruption?

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.

 

[easyt65]

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

Mika Brzezinski Went On TV And Straight Up Spit In America's Face Tuesday Morning [VIDEO]

 

[Skylar]

The 'media' doesn't decide the consequence. One's wife or husband does. Or one's employer. Or one's friends.

Again, you really can't tell the difference between a criminal penalty.....and someone getting fired or divorced?

If so, um....wow.

So, no responsibility for their utter recklessness and corruption?

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.

 

[Skylar]

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

Mika Brzezinski Went On TV And Straight Up Spit In America's Face Tuesday Morning [VIDEO]

Tell us again how the President won the popular vote?

 

[Skylar]

Guilty Via Media: Is Media Liable For Kangaroo Justice?

Agenda/Bias-Driven Partisan Media W/A Liberal Agenda = Fake News Designed to Manipulate / Fool Americans, to force false perceptions and conclusions resulting in support for their lies, liberal agenda, and ideology.

Liberal Media, especially CNN, have been proven to be the extremist Left Wing Propaganda-Pushing Arm of the DNC...

Laughing......dude, you're clearly not following the conversation. As the proposed changes to defamation would shut down FOX News, Breitbart, Hannity, Limbaugh, InfoWars, and virtually every conservative news source you've ever heard of.

It would also extend to *you* as defamation is a standard for all free speech. And you'd be opening yourself to *infinite* liability with every post.

 

[Correll]

So, no responsibility for their utter recklessness and corruption?

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.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Professionalism and human decency and 'bad morality'....according to who?

Again, any uselessly subjective standard you apply to the media would apply to ALL the media. And of course, you don't need a broadcast license to use the internet or publish a paper.

And any 'commission' you set up to enforce 'morality' would eventually have its members assigned under a democratic presidency as well. How would you feel about the say, Biden appointees judging the 'morality' 'human decency' and 'professionalism' of Fox News or Infowars?

Any standard you apply cuts *both ways*.

Any changes you made to defamation would apply to ALL of free speech. Including yours. These are not trivial side effects. But bone chilling implications to the free press and free speech.

 

[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.

This is the United States Silhouette is advocating for- a system which protects accused sexual molesters

Timely article- which is spot on

How Defamation Laws In Australia Could Stop An All-Out ‘Weinstein Moment’ | HuffPost

Legal experts say that Australia’s defamation laws, which are far stricter than those in the United States, and Australia’s lack of a constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech mean that a Weinstein-level moment of reckoning is less likely to occur.


Journalists in Australia are forced to be far more cautious to avoid being sued and may be reluctant to report similar stories in their own backyard, said professor David Rolph of the University of Sydney Law School.


“It is fairly notorious that defamation law in Australia has a chilling effect on investigative journalism and reporting more generally. It’s something that inhibits reporting,” he told HuffPost, adding, “The risks of defaming someone are higher.”


The U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment provides a level of protection for the media that Australians don’t have, Rolph said. In particular, he pointed to the “public figure” doctrine in the U.S., which requires plaintiffs who are prominent individuals to prove that a report was both false and published with “actual malice.” By contrast, he said, Australia’s system is “pro-plaintiff.”


“The U.S. has the defamation laws most protective of free speech in the common law world, which opens up the scope of reporting and journalism,” Rolph explained. “In Australia, the plaintiff doesn’t have to prove [the allegation] is false; the defendant has to prove it is true.”

 

[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. 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.