Resistance to the Media 5th Column

[Farmer77]

5 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Are you and Helen of Annoy perchance married?

No more than you and Ellapenalla are ......wait........youre not right?

[+DieChecker]

20 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Yeah this is insane and honestly is the only reason I really care about the story.  The recent opposition to a free press is terrifying and it was pretty easy to see the vultures would line up on this case to try and pick the last remains of our national carcass clean.

I'd not call the Sandmann case to be about "free" press, but about "reckless" press. When a media source reports something it should take responsibility for what it published. This is why Alex Jones is now banned widely.

Say, didn't you say the guy at Berkeley, who got punched, brought it on himself by having an offensive sign? Do we get free speech, or not?

13 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Theyre not allowed to make up any story they want now. 

Right. Because they will be sued. Like they are right now.

[Farmer77]

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I'd not call the Sandmann case to be about "free" press, but about "reckless" press. When a media source reports something it should take responsibility for what it published. This is why Alex Jones is now banned widely.

I would agree on the surface but the whole slippery slope argument really seems to apply here when the people pushing the lawsuit are the same people who support a POTUS who calls the press "the enemy of the people" . In fact if you read the lawsuits they read like a Trump campaign rally. Which BTW in an amazing piece of irony im pretty sure the lawyers defamed Washpo in their lawsuit with their pro Trump rant. 

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Say, didn't you say the guy at Berkeley, who got punched, brought it on himself by having an offensive sign? Do we get free speech, or not?

We absolutely do. One conservative value I still hold onto though, even though no one else seems to, is personal responsibility. One can be legally right and morally wrong at the same time.

[+DieChecker]

1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

I would agree on the surface but the whole slippery slope argument really seems to apply here when the people pushing the lawsuit are the same people who support a POTUS who calls the press "the enemy of the people" . In fact if you read the lawsuits they read like a Trump campaign rally. Which BTW in an amazing piece of irony im pretty sure the lawyers defamed Washpo in their lawsuit with their pro Trump rant. 

But it is a logical fallacy to say the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I do agree it seems pro Trump people are often anti Media, but if you have two sides one side is always going to be opposed to the territory the other side has staked out. I miss when bipartisan agreements were more common.

Quote

We absolutely do. One conservative value I still hold onto though, even though no one else seems to, is personal responsibility. One can be legally right and morally wrong at the same time.

Agree. A law can be legal and yet immoral, and something can be moral but illegal.

Edited March 21, 2019 by DieChecker

[Farmer77]

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I miss when bipartisan agreements were more common.

Me too. I wish like hell we could go back to debating budget deficits and geopolitical priorities.

 

[Farmer77]

Covington student's defamation case against Washington Post is dismissed

Quote

Judge William O. Bertelsman dismissed the suit, stating that the Post's coverage was protected as free speech and rejecting Covington Catholic High School student Nicholas Sandmann's argument that the newspaper implied inaccurately that Sandmann had behaved in a menacing or violent way. The Post had quoted the activist, a veteran named Nathan Phillips, who said Sandmann stood in his way to get to the Lincoln Memorial in the Jan 19 incident.

Bertelsman wrote that though Phillips' claim may have been inaccurate, the Post had a right to publish it. The Post couldn't be sued for defamation simply if some of its reporting was inaccurate, he wrote, rather it had to both false and defamatory.

Bertelsman added that the Post did not report factually that Sandmann was acting in a criminally violent manner. He added that many of the statements that Sandmann alleged were defamatory were not actually about him but about the students as a whole.

 

[acidhead]