Bye bye to media immunity

[CBL4]

Not quite. I'm saying that if a newspaper deliberately misreported (or selectively reported, or reported out-of-context, etc.) a public figure, then that should be actionable.

I agree with this and it is pretty much is what I meant to say. Perhaps I did not word things clearly.

In any case, I agree and thank you for the explanation.

CBL

 

[Art Vandelay]

'Immunity' is a specific legal construct, and press immunity does NOT appear anywhere in the US Constitution, nor is it is included under the language regarding 'Freedom of the press'.

It is obvious from the First Amendment that the press has certain freedom/safety/liberty/whatever-you-want-to-call-it-if-you-insist-on-not-calling-it-immunity. It is not an issue as to whether this exists, only whether an exemption can be made for certain circumstances.

There is a common sense component to the wording, and the same common sense that tells us that the press is neither free to cause, nor immune from consequences for, a wrongful death, would apply the same concept to committing (and now apparently repeating) libel.

The very fact that one must appeal to “common sense”, rather than merely pointing to the complete absence of anything in the Constitution that would imply the opposite, is my point: there is a presumption of freedom for the press. That presumption can be superceded by the compelling state interest of keeping citizens alive, but the point remains that the presumption is being superceded, not denied entirely.

In this context, 'freedom' is not infinite, nor absolute, neither does it confer automatic immunity in court.

But it does put the burden on the state to justify why the freedom does not apply.

Also notice that I was commenting on untrue statements, and yet Art opens up pretending that I was making claims about *true* statements repeated by the press.

You are twisting my words. I said “If repeating a true statement can create liability merely because of the presence of malice, then could Michael Moore sue people for criticizing his movies?” Notice the complete absence of anything in that question attributing a point of view to you. The implication of this ruling, as it has been explained in this thread, is that true statements can create liability. Ace_of_Sevens, Dermanus, new drkitten, and CBL4 got that; apparently you did not.

As always, Art doesn't know his butt from a hole in the ground on this issue, but based on past experience, he will certainly take some ignorant rumor or urban myth, and try to pass it off as 'The Law' while ignoring Supreme Court rulings and legal definitions amid a flurry of name calling and juvenile debate tactics.

Then, he will flip flop and claim that it was someone else who made the untenable claims, and attempt to fabricate quotes putting his drivel in someone else's mouth.

In another thread, you implied that in criminal proceedings, the defendant has the burden of proof, then proceeded to engage in a campaign of obfuscation, misrepresentation, and misdirection to distract from the absurdity of that. When you ran out of “points” to make, you then threw a temper tantrum, accusing me of all sorts of dishonest behavior, and supported none of those accusations. I see that now you are simply skipping the part where you pretend to debate, and going straight for the temper tantrum. And I guess the hypocrisy of accusing me of “name calling and juvenile debate tactics” amid this flurry of ad hominems does not bother you.

Show me one time in which I have “take[n] some ignorant rumor or urban myth, and [tried] to pass it off as ‘The Law’ ”. Or one time I have “attempted[ed] to fabricate quotes”. Considering the antipathy you shown in this thread to libel, surely you have some proof that you are not a liar?

 

[crimresearch]

No Art, in another thread, I provide factual evidence, while you continued your rant about merely claiming that 'someone else must have committed the crime' created a mandatory verdict of not guilty over which the judge had no control...
The tantrum, and name calling etc, are all on the record...and they are all yours, as are the BS assertions that you still can't back up.

And your posting record, which I have already put up as evidence, and which you continue to ignore, stands as plenty of evidence.

Consider your current lie above, that I claimed that a defendant has "*the* burden of proof" in criminal trials, when in fact what I claimed was that a defendant merely needed to support their wild assertions about UFOs actually committing the crime.

Or let's examine this gem of deceit and spin:

"freedom/safety/liberty/whatever-you-want-to-call-it-if-you-insist-on-not-calling-it-immunity"

Is that anything like 'The press doesn't have 'immunity', but Art is making up definitions as he goes along, and inserting them into legal discussions'?

Shall I go on?

 

[Art Vandelay]

No Art, in another thread, I provide factual evidence, while you continued your rant about merely claiming that 'someone else must have committed the crime' created a mandatory verdict of not guilty over which the judge had no control...

The lies just don't stop with you, do they? I said that if the prosecution does not meet their burden, then the jury must acquit, even if the defendent has no case beyond claiming that someone else did it. You kept twisting that into something that appeared to be false, just as you are doing now.

The tantrum, and name calling etc, are all on the record...and they are all yours, as are the BS assertions that you still can't back up.

Name one.

And your posting record, which I have already put up as evidence, and which you continue to ignore, stands as plenty of evidence.

So rather than backing up your assertions, you're just going to claim "the evidence exists" and consider your point proven?

Consider your current lie above, that I claimed that a defendant has "*the* burden of proof" in criminal trials, when in fact what I claimed was that a defendant merely needed to support their wild assertions about UFOs actually committing the crime.

Even more lies. I didn't say you claimed it, I said you implied it. Your incessant use of ambiguous phrasing and circumlocution, allowing you, as in this case, to weasel out your implied claims, is not something that you should be proud of. When you say that the defendent must support his assertions, you are implying that he has the burden of proof. If the prosecution has no case, then merely claiming that UFOs are guilty is sufficient. In fact, saying absolutely nothing would be sufficient.

Burden of Proof: In the law of evidence, the necessity or duty of affirmatively proving a fact or facts in dispute on an issue raised between the parties in a lawsuit. If whether UFOs are guilty is a fact in dispute, and the defendant has the duty of proving it, then he has the burden of proof.

Is that anything like 'The press doesn't have 'immunity', but Art is making up definitions as he goes along, and inserting them into legal discussions'?

Huh? Just what is your point? How is that "deceit and spin"?

Shall I go on?

Seeing as how you have yet to support either of those two accusations that I asked you to support, perhaps you should. Unless you plan on just posting even more lies, which seems like the most likely possibility.