Trump ran on “tightening up libel laws” so they would be more like....wait for it....ENGLAND.
Just saying....
Pennsylvania 18th Congressional District
- Thread starter osu_orangestreak
- Start date
Trump ran on “tightening up libel laws” so they would be more like....wait for it....ENGLAND.
Just saying....
What happens when the monopolies control the information? Does that not have free speech implications? It's an interesting debate to be had for sure. For another thread maybe.
Nope...no First Amendment implications.
Unless the government attempts to regulate or abridge the information they monopolize. Then the First Amendment v public utility discussion gets interesting.
I'm not a one issue voter and have always said I'll criticize Trump when needed. I even said given he is the antithesis of Obama, he might in fact destroy his own party like Obama did. I'm not sold on the blue wave but we'll see. He ran on a lot of issues (as all politicians do) that will never be pushed through congress. I don't remember tightening up libel laws being a big campaign issue and am not educated enough in the history of libel laws from their inception to present to present a compelling case either way. To be sure, if that would make us more like England, no thank you.
Well, I could pull up any number of quotes from Trump during the election saying exactly that.
You suggested Dems are THE anti-free speech party. I was just pointing out that Rs and Trump have significant issues with free speech as well.
It’s all good.
No, but it's an eerily on point psychological deconstruction of certain people on the board, though.
Sports Illustrated did a hatchet job on OSU football. Three days in a row they released their Dirty Games series on their website. A nice slow drip of lies.
I remember traveling when the hard copy came out on newsstands and it was front and center by the entry on a little floor stand at airport newsstands and people picking it up and reading it and buying it. Guy down the aisle from me on the airplane reading it.
I know the lady that was head of the women’s group that showed recruits around at OSU and how her words were totally twisted and what was printed was nothing close to what she said.
That story was complete lies sold as the truth, it cost OSU millions in investigative and legal expense and who knows what else in reputation.
Something is wrong in this country when you can knowingly print lies for a profit and cause your victim financial hardship and loss of reputation.
I am not certain what the answer is, but journalists should not be able to hide behind our laws and extend their agenda and intentionally cause harm. At a minimum, SI should have been forced to reimburse OSU for its legal expenses, the accumulated hourly cost for the time it took from everyone at OSU to work with legal and any time spent trying to repair its reputation, as well as a massive apology from SI with a full retraction. Punitive damages would have been nice.
Media has gotten too big for its britches, they know they can say or do anything pretty much without any consequences. Media gets to shoot all the bullets it wants at people and laugh about it.
Surely we could find away to protect freedom of speech but hold people like SI accountable for complete lies. OSU could have put a bunch of people on a witness stand to testify what they told SI writers was not what was printed. The NCAA and our own investigators agreed. If it was not totally intentional, at best grossly negligent.
Force writers to keep everything recorded and to tell people they are on record when doing an interview. Allow people that are being quoted to review copy before it is sent to press for accuracy, that would happen if more journalists could be held accountable. Writers might decide to disclose how credible they feel statements are to inform or warn a reader, that might help them mitigate legal exposure.
Some simple things journalists could do before running with a story. If people do not want themselves recorded or to submit in writing your answer to an interview question perhaps that should tell a writer that a potential anonymous source or any source is not trustworthy. I am not saying writers could not use an anonymous source, but it needs to be verbatim and documented.
If an anonymous source says XYZ is happening and will not go on record, force journalists to do some true investigative work and document the facts before going public and prove the assertions of the source. No one in the media does investigative work today.
I am still pissed at what SI did to OSU, everywhere else you cause harm to someone there is consequences. Some feel the power of the pen might be more powerful then the gun. If you shoot someone with a gun you get the electric chair or jail time, possibly shot back. Shoot someone journalistically and you sit back and laugh.
Big difference between offering your opinion and destroying people with lies.
Courts probably want nothing to do with it because it will swamp the courts at first nd that just speaks to how bad it is, but eventually people will change.
You want to call Trump a Nazi I do not care if that is your opinion. You knowingly write an article citing sources and documents that are false claiming someone is a Nazi and ruin them? You should have recourse, it feels like in this country the bar is set far too high and you have to get the writer to admit they knowingly wrote a hatchet piece or prove their intent (what they were thinking basically and motivation, good luck with that unless you are Vulcan). OSU can easily prove that SI story was all lies, at best negligent.
Solution may not exist, but the media is phucked up and causing serious problems in this country. We all want better education for this state, but yet we are all OK with MSM intentionally feeding us lies and dumbing people down.
I want a piece of SI’s @zz, sorry for the length.
Last edited:
Talley sued SI and got nowhere, OSU did not sue because they knew it would go nowhere. That suit will go nowhere.
I mean we’ll see...John Talley didn’t face this afterwards:
“Gilmore suffered personally after the theories began spreading, the suit says. Not only was he attacked and doxxed online, but InfoWars fans soon found Gilmore in real life and accosted him on the street. He also says he received a powdery substance in the mail along with a note telling him to “burn in hell.” Gilmore is seeking $75,000 in damages.”
Been from me there is no spinning can bet your tail feathers. I loath both parties virtually equally......I’ll continue to wait and see what happens.
I have a question for my good friend @CowboyJD regarding tightening up Libel laws. I am not a legal scholar, but I do believe we are living in interesting times from a media perspective. So here is the question (albeit a compound one).
If Fox (on the Right) or MSNBC (on the left) choose to be totally one-sided in their broadcasts with a Board of Director level edict to lambast the other side.....isn't that, by definition, "with malice"?
I hate it that Fox (on the right) and CNN/MSNBC (on the left)... and now social media gorillas....all openly ADMIT that they are shaping public policy on a biased basis.....yet a falsehood published under that mantra isn't malice?
I'd like to see Fox prosecuted for some of the stuff they have leveled against some Democrats (who are otherwise worthy)
I'd like to see CNN/MSNBC prosecuted for some of the stuff they have leveled against Republicans (who are otherwise worthy)
The real question: Has the definition of Malice changed when the Board of Directors and Editorial Board are driving the ship to do this?
Gotta admit. Jumped from page one to my post now. Here is where I am as a 39 year old middle class dude, married, no kids. I own guns. Fix my roads. Not gay, but let people get married if they want. However, stay out of my bedroom. Never been in the situation, but abortion has been around before I was born. It has, and always will be. The previous two are between people and their God. Let Him judge. Fix my pot holes, pick up my trash, low gas prices, not being nuked, and maybe one day be able to retire with a healthy 401k? Let me know who is in favor of this. They will have my vote. I believe the worst of both of the parties is that they have left people like myself in purgatory. I would ask the rest of you, how would you define me given only either an (R) or (D) for an option
Pretty much agree with everything, and consider myself to be a Dem. Liberal, but not a raging lib.
I guess I am just like I was in college...GDI.
Nope. “Actual malice” is a term of legal art defined in NYT v Sullivan and that standard doesn’t change when it’s the Board of Director’s and Editorial Board. Not going to go into huge detail re: definition of “actual malice”. Suffice to say it is a very high bar and IMO should be.
Let me welcome you to the big tent, my friend. You may safely identify as a southern democrat. Pro choice, pro-let gays marry, pro- (responsible?) gun ownership, (Favor personal liberty nearly across the board it looks like), capitalist, want opportunity to work and make and keep $, and want responsive, competent government. You also aren't seething with anger, and don't want to impose your values on anybody else.
Which part of the Democratic platform wants citizens to work and make and keep their $$$? I must have mis-heard that every Democrat in congress voted against a bill that provided me $150 per paycheck in additional crumbs.
Are you feigning ignorance or do you really not even know the Dems argument against the tax cut as passed?
I know the Dems argument. I also know they had the presidency for 8 years prior including a couple of years with control of both houses and nary a tax reduction, spending decrease, or any other action of letting me (a working taxpayer) keep more of my own hard earned money.
Edit: I'd also note that even if the tax cuts gave more back to business than to me, it was still an improvement over the previous tax law which is what the choice was. And EVERY SINGLE DEM chose the existing tax rates and laws over the new rules.
Which part of the Republican platform says we should all have free shit now and make our kids pay for it later?
In theory the part that says we shouldn't be spending and giving all the free shit in the first place. However, we both know, most of that faction of the Republican platform is pretty much dead too. But it is there. That's that fiscal conservative piece that's largely gone ignored ever since Bush and Obama (and probably many before them) proved that giving people free shit and never taking away the wasteful shit given previously is the easiest way to ensure staying in power.
Lets make a bet... from here forward I am willing to take Mueller with more indictments than Horowitz. You in for a bottle of local distilled booze or wine (winners choice)?
How about we adjust to who gets indicted by Mueller. Trump or a bunch of people tied to Obama and Clinton.
Full disclosure, Gates, Manafort, and Papadopolous indictments tie back to when they were tied to the Podesta group and it’s involvement with Ukraine and Uranium one (pre-Trump).
So I’m starting this with a 3-1 lead.
