Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 48

Thread: A constitutional restriction on the press

  1. #11
    Powered by diesel
    EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Grapeview, Washington
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    8,920

    Re: A constitutional restriction on the press

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    Yeah, you're demanding fantasy perfection. The media is already a hundred times better than the government, who destroys people's lives every single day by the fistful. Wrongful imprisonment, imprisonment without trial, wars run by deception, on and on it goes. Yet you want to give them the power to destroy journalism, which is the only reason the government is even as good as it is: because the media is free to stay on its back. Including by using anonymous sources.

    The US media includes foreign affairs. In fact, that's an enormous part of our news media, given that we're kind of an empire. To shrug that off as some minor thing is ridiculous. Virtually everything in America has an international angle. Also, if you think the US government has never assassinated anyone, you're living on some other planet. The CIA keeps a list of them, dude. Come on. Your whereabouts being somewhere other than Earth is confirmed by you saying you've never seen a bold retraction. Nonsense.

    Yes, you do want central regulation. You want central regulation to keep sources' mouths shut by banning papers from using them anonymously, and you want central government to be allowed to bury them under frivolous lawsuits.

    There's already laws against false claiming of a crime. We don't need more.
    I don't think anyone considers civil courts to be centralized government. in fact no function of government is more decentralized then our civil court system. "frivolous lawsuit" is an argument you're using the evade the question. the vast majority of lawsuits filed are not frivolous, in fact you are apparently now demanding perfection of every government function while misrepresenting me of demanding media perfection, when in fact I stated not that the media must be perfect, but that they're financially accountable.


    and stop bringing foreign governments into this, we do not imprison people without trial in this society.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    No one cares about your stupid hippy logic
    "Be careful of averages, the average person has one breast and one testicle"
    -Dixy Lee Ray

  2. #12
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    07-14-18 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,282

    Re: A constitutional restriction on the press

    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    I don't think anyone considers civil courts to be centralized government. in fact no function of government is more decentralized then our civil court system. "frivolous lawsuit" is an argument you're using the evade the question. the vast majority of lawsuits filed are not frivolous, in fact you are apparently now demanding perfection of every government function while misrepresenting me of demanding media perfection, when in fact I stated not that the media must be perfect, but that they're financially accountable.


    and stop bringing foreign governments into this, we do not imprison people without trial in this society.
    *sigh* But who are you proposing will be the ones to ban journalism from using those sources? The federal government. It's central government control of journalism. Stop squirreling around this.

    Actually they are frivilous. Even most of the lawsuits against journalists right now either never get off the ground, or are decided for the defendant. Know why? Because American journalists are actually really good a their jobs. And that means people try to sue us a lot.

    We've all had people try to sue us, dude. A lot of the time it doesn't get further than the research stage because the first amendment protects us. But we've all had someone with a good lawyer tell us that they're sending them after us.

    I had a guy try to sue me even though I had the quote he was mad about on recording. Obviously it didn't go anywhere, but think about this for two seconds.

    The job of a journalist is to report stuff where there's usually someone who doesn't want it to be reported. There's a saying in the media: "if no one is mad at you, you're not doing your job."

    We have people pissed at us every single day. Hell, I stopped doing it a couple years ago and I'm pretty sure some of those people are still mad at me. And usually, they're bad people who've done something wrong. That's why they're upset about their actions being reported.

    So we have angry crazy people who are prone to impulsive actions on our ass at all times. And you seriously think frivolous lawsuits are rare?

    Not even close, Frivolous lawsuits are 99% of what journalists deal with. Threatening a lawsuit is the standard thing that every angry asshole says to us, every time someone finds out they're doing things they shouldn't be, and we report it.

    Threatening us with financial drain is how they try to destroy us. And the first amendment is what stops them from succeeding. You are proposing to destroy that, opening journalism up to endless court fees defending against flimsy cases, and to destroy journalism and accountability by proxy.

    And finally, I just want to ask you when the **** the people at Guantanamo are gonna get their trial. It's been 15 ****ing years for some of them. Don't even lie about that. It is disgraceful how long some of America's prisoners have gone without trial.
    Last edited by SmokeAndMirrors; 02-26-17 at 01:10 AM.

  3. #13
    Sage
    Crovax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    South Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    10,674

    Re: A constitutional restriction on the press

    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    One of my biggest complaints I have about the mass media is that they have a near unlimited ability to destroy people's lives by propogating a false story.

    Fake news is not just a political term, it's a very real crisis that is destroying lives. Darren Wilson had his life upended for doing nothing wrong, biased media coverage resulted in a Miami cop named Luis Alvarez facing a show trial in the 1980s. The infamous story of a gang rape that never happened at UVa, we see numerous cases of the press taking things out of context for ratings, so I have two ideas

    1) no more confidential sources, as Trump said at CPAC, it's very simple, if a media story defames your character you can sue the outlet, during the lawsuit there is a legal process called "discovery" where you can obtain information held by the defendant that is germane to your case, the identity of any "confidential sources" should be compelled by discovery during such suits. once compelled it becomes part of the court record of the suit.

    2) if a court rules against you in a libel claim, you as the news media outlet must publish a front page (or prime time) retraction. it will read "REGARDING OUR STORY ON <fill in title of article here> INFORMATION CONVEYED ABOUT <name of plaintiff> WAS DETERMINED BY <the court that found against the media outlet> TO BE LIBELOUS IN NATURE, PLEASE READ THE RETRACTIONS SECTION FOR MORE INFORMATION

    Neither of these restrict the content of stories, it simply provides victims of bad reporting tools to help clear their name. it also will provide incentives to verify stories and help publish more accurate news items, which will restore public faith in the press.
    Anonymous speech is an integral part of free speech and that includes anonymous sources.

    I do find it ironic that all the people railing against anonymous speech seem to do so behind anonymous user names.

  4. #14
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    73,006

    Re: A constitutional restriction on the press

    A rumor about him paying someone to pee and we get "no more anonymous sources". Absurd.

    Is he gonna sue Putin for the pee story?

  5. #15
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    06-04-18 @ 11:18 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,839

    Re: A constitutional restriction on the press

    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    That's not true at all. There are those who have leaked information in a public manner.

    It's not just government abuses either, we have false news stories based on confidential sources, like the Rolling Stone Article about UVa
    I don't think that we can force journalists to name sources, if we want anything even clise to a free press in any meaningful sense. All confidential communication would have to stop.

  6. #16
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    15,625

    Re: A constitutional restriction on the press

    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    One of my biggest complaints I have about the mass media is that they have a near unlimited ability to destroy people's lives by propogating a false story.

    Fake news is not just a political term, it's a very real crisis that is destroying lives. Darren Wilson had his life upended for doing nothing wrong, biased media coverage resulted in a Miami cop named Luis Alvarez facing a show trial in the 1980s. The infamous story of a gang rape that never happened at UVa, we see numerous cases of the press taking things out of context for ratings, so I have two ideas

    1) no more confidential sources, as Trump said at CPAC, it's very simple, if a media story defames your character you can sue the outlet, during the lawsuit there is a legal process called "discovery" where you can obtain information held by the defendant that is germane to your case, the identity of any "confidential sources" should be compelled by discovery during such suits. once compelled it becomes part of the court record of the suit.

    2) if a court rules against you in a libel claim, you as the news media outlet must publish a front page (or prime time) retraction. it will read "REGARDING OUR STORY ON <fill in title of article here> INFORMATION CONVEYED ABOUT <name of plaintiff> WAS DETERMINED BY <the court that found against the media outlet> TO BE LIBELOUS IN NATURE, PLEASE READ THE RETRACTIONS SECTION FOR MORE INFORMATION

    Neither of these restrict the content of stories, it simply provides victims of bad reporting tools to help clear their name. it also will provide incentives to verify stories and help publish more accurate news items, which will restore public faith in the press.
    Will this all also apply to Trump and his off-the-cuff lies?

  7. #17
    Sage
    holbritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    NY
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,357

    Re: A constitutional restriction on the press

    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    One of my biggest complaints I have about the mass media is that they have a near unlimited ability to destroy people's lives by propogating a false story.

    Fake news is not just a political term, it's a very real crisis that is destroying lives. Darren Wilson had his life upended for doing nothing wrong, biased media coverage resulted in a Miami cop named Luis Alvarez facing a show trial in the 1980s. The infamous story of a gang rape that never happened at UVa, we see numerous cases of the press taking things out of context for ratings, so I have two ideas

    1) no more confidential sources, as Trump said at CPAC, it's very simple, if a media story defames your character you can sue the outlet, during the lawsuit there is a legal process called "discovery" where you can obtain information held by the defendant that is germane to your case, the identity of any "confidential sources" should be compelled by discovery during such suits. once compelled it becomes part of the court record of the suit.

    2) if a court rules against you in a libel claim, you as the news media outlet must publish a front page (or prime time) retraction. it will read "REGARDING OUR STORY ON <fill in title of article here> INFORMATION CONVEYED ABOUT <name of plaintiff> WAS DETERMINED BY <the court that found against the media outlet> TO BE LIBELOUS IN NATURE, PLEASE READ THE RETRACTIONS SECTION FOR MORE INFORMATION

    Neither of these restrict the content of stories, it simply provides victims of bad reporting tools to help clear their name. it also will provide incentives to verify stories and help publish more accurate news items, which will restore public faith in the press.
    I get what you are saying. As a matter of fact you didn't even mention the government in your OP

    It has become a race for "Who's first" instead of who's accurate. All for ratings. I agree they should be held accountable. They print or report a story that is false and it damages someones life, they there should be recourse.
    If someone is saying that they can't take the time to verify facts before reporting them, then they are agreeing it's ok to report lies. It's ok to ruin someone's life.

    We had our local paper report a fire that killed a couple of people including my friends father. Only it wasn't true. Reading that I was thinking OMG so and so died and immediately went to my friends house. Of course everything was ok, so no big deal right? But the cards and flowers kept coming to her house for weeks afterwards. The paper did print a retraction, but it was buried so deep no one saw it.

    I know in the scheme of things, this is minor. At least it didn't ruin someone's life, where they are looked at like a criminal every where they go, just because the journalist couldn't take the time to verify facts.

  8. #18
    Sage
    KevinKohler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    CT
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,590
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: A constitutional restriction on the press

    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    One of my biggest complaints I have about the mass media is that they have a near unlimited ability to destroy people's lives by propogating a false story.

    Fake news is not just a political term, it's a very real crisis that is destroying lives. Darren Wilson had his life upended for doing nothing wrong, biased media coverage resulted in a Miami cop named Luis Alvarez facing a show trial in the 1980s. The infamous story of a gang rape that never happened at UVa, we see numerous cases of the press taking things out of context for ratings, so I have two ideas

    1) no more confidential sources, as Trump said at CPAC, it's very simple, if a media story defames your character you can sue the outlet, during the lawsuit there is a legal process called "discovery" where you can obtain information held by the defendant that is germane to your case, the identity of any "confidential sources" should be compelled by discovery during such suits. once compelled it becomes part of the court record of the suit.

    2) if a court rules against you in a libel claim, you as the news media outlet must publish a front page (or prime time) retraction. it will read "REGARDING OUR STORY ON <fill in title of article here> INFORMATION CONVEYED ABOUT <name of plaintiff> WAS DETERMINED BY <the court that found against the media outlet> TO BE LIBELOUS IN NATURE, PLEASE READ THE RETRACTIONS SECTION FOR MORE INFORMATION

    Neither of these restrict the content of stories, it simply provides victims of bad reporting tools to help clear their name. it also will provide incentives to verify stories and help publish more accurate news items, which will restore public faith in the press.
    You are making the same argument gun control advocates make.
    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    Reports indicate that everyone knew he was hauling a bunch of guns up there. But, since you brought it up, there's something which should be illegal: guns that breakdown.

  9. #19
    Powered by diesel
    EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Grapeview, Washington
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    8,920

    Re: A constitutional restriction on the press

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    Will this all also apply to Trump and his off-the-cuff lies?

    Sure, if you can prove direct financial and reputation damage
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    No one cares about your stupid hippy logic
    "Be careful of averages, the average person has one breast and one testicle"
    -Dixy Lee Ray

  10. #20
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-15-18 @ 03:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,185

    Re: A constitutional restriction on the press

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    So you name three cases over the course of decades, in an industry that creates literally thousands of stories every single day, and that means we should basically destroy the press? That's ****ing insane. Absolutely not.

    1. Without confidential sources, there is no accountability for governments. We never would have uncovered Watergate without confidential sources. It's not unreasonable for sources to not want to come forward if it means they're going to be locked away by a corrupt institution, or assassinated, which some of them would be. Allowing confidential sources is part of how protect them from that, and protect democracy by extension. Banning confidential sources is one of the way you wind up with an autocracy. And the American public, as a rule, has been fairly good about deciding what organizations have a good enough reputation to be taken seriously with anonymous sources, and which ones don't.

    2. Do you read the news, dude? They already do that even when they don't get sued. One part of being a credible news organization is putting out retractions when need be.
    Both the kind of sanctions in the post to which you respond and your response are a little extreme.

    Perhaps a review by an unbiased court of some kind of appeals that reviews the source's credibility immediately and confidentially...

    In light of revelations on the neutrality of courts, though, finding an unbiased court might be challenging.

    The victims of poor reporting and poorly founded political witch hunts are entitled to ask the same question: "Who do I see to get my reputation back?"

    People like Al Sharpton are only too willing to destroy anyone to find a little camera time. Facts, truth and honesty have no connection to what these shisters will do to get their face(s) on the tube.
    Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, ...every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right. -George Orwell

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •