• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Katie Couric being sued for anti gun hatchet job and bogus editing [W:150]

Absentglare said:
Slander is a false spoken statement. Was what she said about them false ?

No, no it wasn't.
Click to expand...

:roll: Multiple strawmen chasing goal post noted and discarded.
 
NonoBadDog said:
Don't know who Dr, Ken is and don't care. If it were me and she tried to damage my credentials by editing a video to create a false narrative I would do the same thing. They can't lose. She apologizes and retracts the statement or she gives them money. Win/win. Why would they not do this? Is the suit dishonest?
Click to expand...

It wasn't to damage their reputation. They have to prove that in court, and i don't see how a dramatic pause qualifies.

It sounds like petty, victim-whining to me. Why are they suing the network ? Oh right, because this is a petty money grab.

I hope they lose.
 
Absentglare said:
It wasn't to damage their reputation. They have to prove that in court, and i don't see how a dramatic pause qualifies.

It sounds like petty, victim-whining to me. Why are they suing the network ? Oh right, because this is a petty money grab.

I hope they lose.
Click to expand...

You say that "it wasn't to damage their reputation" but "[the gun club] have to prove that in court." I guess only your "court of opinion matters." :roll:
 
Absentglare said:
It wasn't to damage their reputation. They have to prove that in court, and i don't see how a dramatic pause qualifies.

It sounds like petty, victim-whining to me. Why are they suing the network ? Oh right, because this is a petty money grab.

I hope they lose.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what she intended to do. The damage just has to occur. "I didn't mean to kill those people when I torched their car. I just meant to torch the car."

As far as the amount, it doesn't matter. She was making a point dishonestly. She didn't care about what was honest. In the process she tried to make them look bad. Why should they care about being fair to Couric? I think the lesson here is that being dishonest is a bad thing.
 
Absentglare said:
What are you talking about ?

Dramatic pause is not a case for defamation.
Click to expand...

again, what has this to do with my original post? You thought you had a "gotcha" on TurttleDude but failed miserably and decided your recourse was to litter the place with straw.
 
Katie Couric being sued for anti gun hatchet job and bogus editing

NonoBadDog said:
It doesn't matter what she intended to do. The damage just has to occur. "I didn't mean to kill those people when I torched their car. I just meant to torch the car."

As far as the amount, it doesn't matter. She was making a point dishonestly. She didn't care about what was honest. In the process she tried to make them look bad. Why should they care about being fair to Couric? I think the lesson here is that being dishonest is a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Actually, Couric questioned the pause.

But you probably don't care about that, sue her even though it wasn't her decision ? Oh, and sue the network too, because they have deep pockets.

"The "actual malice" standard for defamation suits means that plaintiffs have to prove a publisher either knew the material was false or showed reckless disagreed for the truth."

Sorry, intent matters here.

Gun rights group suing Katie Couric, others involved with 'Under the Gun' documentary - Sep. 13, 2016
 
MACS-24 said:
again, what has this to do with my original post? You thought you had a "gotcha" on TurttleDude but failed miserably and decided your recourse was to litter the place with straw.
Click to expand...

Got it, you don't care about first amendment rights.
 
Absentglare said:
Got it, you don't care about first amendment rights.
Click to expand...
Trippling down? I'll follow this strawman. Explain to me how I do not care about first amendment rights.
 
MACS-24 said:
Trippling down? I'll follow this strawman. Explain to me how I do not care about first amendment rights.
Click to expand...

They are allowed freedom of speech by the first amendment. That protects things like a dramatic pause.

Do you understand what the first amendment says ? What do you need help with ?? You seem obsessed with straw but you won't address what i'm actually saying, it's ironic because you are using your whining as a form of strawman argument.
 
Absentglare said:
Actually, Couric questioned the pause.

But you probably don't care about that, sue her even though it wasn't her decision ? Oh, and sue the network too, because they have deep pockets.

"The "actual malice" standard for defamation suits means that plaintiffs have to prove a publisher either knew the material was false or showed reckless disagreed for the truth."

Sorry, intent matters here.

Gun rights group suing Katie Couric, others involved with 'Under the Gun' documentary - Sep. 13, 2016
Click to expand...

Those poor gun nut's want a payday for hurt feewings. AAAaaaww!
 
Absentglare said:
They are allowed freedom of speech by the first amendment. That protects things like a dramatic pause.

Do you understand what the first amendment says ? What do you need help with ?? You seem obsessed with straw but you won't address what i'm actually saying, it's ironic because you are using your whining as a form of strawman argument.
Click to expand...
Oh the irony. :lamo May be you should go back and re-read this whole thread from post #1

I also see you did not back up your accusation of #34.
 
Absentglare said:
Actually, Couric questioned the pause.

But you probably don't care about that, sue her even though it wasn't her decision ? Oh, and sue the network too, because they have deep pockets.

"The "actual malice" standard for defamation suits means that plaintiffs have to prove a publisher either knew the material was false or showed reckless disagreed for the truth."

Sorry, intent matters here.

Gun rights group suing Katie Couric, others involved with 'Under the Gun' documentary - Sep. 13, 2016
Click to expand...

I don't care that she allegedly questioned the pause. She is dishonest. I expect her to lie.

No intent needed for defamation.
Slander

The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of "slander" (harmful statement in a transient form, especially speech), each of which gives a common law right of action.

"Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication.[7] The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander.
Click to expand...
 
MACS-24 said:
Oh the irony. :lamo May be you should go back and re-read this whole thread from post #1

I also see you did not back up your accusation of #34.
Click to expand...

If all you have is your host of bizarre, unprovoked personal attacks, and you have nothing on topic to contribute, perhaps you should take your petty grudge elsewhere.
 
NonoBadDog said:
I don't care that she allegedly questioned the pause. She is dishonest. I expect her to lie.

No intent needed for defamation.
Click to expand...

You just quoted something saying that defamation requires intent. This is the burden of "actual malice" that the lawyer in the article i cited was discussing.

"Floyd Abrams, a legendary First Amendment lawyer, told CNNMoney that the gun rights group has a difficult case ahead of itself."

The "actual malice" burden requires either intent or reckless disregard for the truth.

https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-l...ournalists-legal-guide/defining-actual-malice

I don't think a dramatic pause qualifies as reckless disregard.
 
Absentglare said:
You just quoted something saying that defamation requires intent. This is the burden of "actual malice" that the lawyer in the article i cited was discussing.

"Floyd Abrams, a legendary First Amendment lawyer, told CNNMoney that the gun rights group has a difficult case ahead of itself."

The "actual malice" burden requires either intent or reckless disregard for the truth.

https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-l...ournalists-legal-guide/defining-actual-malice

I don't think a dramatic pause qualifies as reckless disregard.
Click to expand...

"Katie Couric has publicly admitted that the film, which was presented to VCDL as a 'documentary,' was misleading and misrepresented VCDL," Phillip Van Cleave, President of the VCDL, tod FOXNews.com. "However, Couric and the other filmmakers have refused to fix the film or to even stop promoting and distributing it. The only way to hold Couric accountable was to file a lawsuit."
Click to expand...
from Washington Times. Sounds like a sound civil case to me.

Edit to add a very important point. From same source
The VCDL suit claims Couric and Soechtig "knowingly and maliciously manufactured the fictional exchange by splicing in footage that the filmmakers took surreptitiously after telling the interviewees to be silent for ten seconds so that recording equipment could be calibrated."
Click to expand...
 
MACS-24 said:
from Washington Times. Sounds like a sound civil case to me.

Edit to add a very important point. From same source
Click to expand...

Adding a dramatic pause doesn't change their argument. They're allowed to adjust timing, lighting, etc the display of the material. Without selectively editing the response itself, i think their case lacks merit.

Further, i think it's ironic for die hard 2A supporters to attempt to infringe on someone else's 1A rights.
 
Absentglare said:
Adding a dramatic pause doesn't change their argument. They're allowed to adjust timing, lighting, etc the display of the material. Without selectively editing the response itself, i think their case lacks merit.

Further, i think it's ironic for die hard 2A supporters to attempt to infringe on someone else's 1A rights.
Click to expand...

Nobody is arguing against that However that is not what this film crew did.

Again, you are mis-using the First (Government infringement on speech) and mis-characterizing "die hard 2A supporters" as many of said group have stated repeatedly ones rights ends where they interfere/hinder anothers' rights. This civil lawsuit has nothing to do with governmental infringement of the 1st amendment.
 
MACS-24 said:
Nobody is arguing against that However that is not what this film crew did.

Again, you are mis-using the First (Government infringement on speech) and mis-characterizing "die hard 2A supporters" as many of said group have stated repeatedly ones rights ends where they interfere/hinder anothers' rights. This civil lawsuit has nothing to do with governmental infringement of the 1st amendment.
Click to expand...

If someone is sued for defamation, it is the governments court system where that case is settled. That's why it would be considered government action that penalizes speech in this case.

Even if they can prove ill will, unless they published knowingly false statements or had reckless disregard for the truth, it doesn't qualify.

They didn't issue a knowingly false statement. If the only editing was to add a dramatic pause, that does not materially change the content of the argument:

"In the leading case governing journalists' use of quotations, Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the issue under its “substantial truth” doctrine, which allows minor inaccuracies to be ignored so long as the gist of the statement remains true. Accordingly, the deliberate alteration of a quotation does not render the statement false unless the alteration “results in a material change in the statement’s meaning.”"

How important is it to get a quote exactly right? | Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
 
Absentglare said:
So you don't care about their rights to speech or property because of their position on guns ?
Click to expand...

that's really stupid. Free speech is involved if the government tries to punish you for what you say. If you defame someone and a private party SUES you, that is not a first amendment issue but one of TORT
 
Absentglare said:
You just quoted something saying that defamation requires intent. This is the burden of "actual malice" that the lawyer in the article i cited was discussing.

"Floyd Abrams, a legendary First Amendment lawyer, told CNNMoney that the gun rights group has a difficult case ahead of itself."

The "actual malice" burden requires either intent or reckless disregard for the truth.

https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-l...ournalists-legal-guide/defining-actual-malice

I don't think a dramatic pause qualifies as reckless disregard.
Click to expand...

Never mind. Repeatedly changing terminology to what you want to discuss isn't going to accomplish anything other than to verify your abhorrence of the truth when it doesn't suit you.
 
TurtleDude said:
that's really stupid. Free speech is involved if the government tries to punish you for what you say. If you defame someone and a private party SUES you, that is not a first amendment issue but one of TORT
Click to expand...

Your response is really stupid. The producers are exercising their first amendment rights. That's what these second amendment supporters are whining about, someone else exercising their rights. That's why it's hypocritical.
 
NonoBadDog said:
Never mind. Repeatedly changing terminology to what you want to discuss isn't going to accomplish anything other than to verify your abhorrence of the truth when it doesn't suit you.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about

Defamation requires "actual malice". "Actual malice" requires either intentionally false statements that defame someone or reckless disregard for the truth in statements that defame someone.

Did you not realize that it's not defamation if it's reasonably accurate ?
 
Absentglare said:
Your response is really stupid. The producers are exercising their first amendment rights. That's what these second amendment supporters are whining about, someone else exercising their rights. That's why it's hypocritical.
Click to expand...

your silly contrarian nonsense has no merit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom