Latimer

[skinsdad62]

The individuals wrote the article assuming he is guilty. There is nothing wrong with that. They have a belief and have no obligation to assume his innocence. They can’t lie in print because that would be defamation (smearing). If Reuben Foster had been smeared, I am sure his lawyer would have brought it to his attention by saying, “let’s sue.”

They have no right to smear him period and thats what they did. You can hair split till the cows come home

 

[skinsdad62]

Normalizing/accepting how things are done, "there is nothing wrong with that" says so much about the collective dysfunction in this nation. A presumption of innocence, in law, and therefore, in any prospective jury pool (the general public) has to be how we function normally, but of course it isn't. Ultimately, there's no will to ever consider a lawsuit because doing that lands you in the supreme court and Congress with questions about the extent in which the first amendment allows this sort of damaging reporting.

Did this ^^^^^^^^^^ cross the political line? If so, apologies, I made the attempt to talk around it, but if so, I won't do it this way again.

I will tell you if you cross the line , so far it’s ok

 

[Stymietee]

I will tell you if you cross the line , so far it’s ok

Thanks!

 

[gkekoa]

Normalizing/accepting how things are done, "there is nothing wrong with that" says so much about the collective dysfunction in this nation. A presumption of innocence, in law, and therefore, in any prospective jury pool (the general public) has to be how we function normally, but of course it isn't. Ultimately, there's no will to ever consider a lawsuit because doing that lands you in the supreme court and Congress with questions about the extent in which the first amendment allows this sort of damaging reporting.

Did this ^^^^^^^^^^ cross the political line? If so, apologies, I made the attempt to talk around it, but if so, I won't do it this way again.

So if there is visual evidence of a man killing another man in cold blood, we as individuals should wait to see what a court says? I am not saying that is the case with Foster.

If so, why then do we not wait to see what a court says with regard to police shootings, or the hillbilly that shot Arbery?

As for landing at the SCOTUS, Chaplinsky vs NH has shown there are limits on publications regarding “lewd and obscene, . . . profane, . . . libelous, and . . . insulting or ‘fighting’ words” cannot claim constitutional protection. Murphy argued that fighting words “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”

 

[gkekoa]

They have no right to smear him period and thats what they did. You can hair split till the cows come home

Again, I have shown you the definition of smear. I have explained how a rich man would easily win a court battle over libel (smear). All I can do is show you the way.

 

[skinsdad62]

Again, I have shown you the definition of smear. I have explained how a rich man would easily win a court battle over libel (smear). All I can do is show you the way.

time to move on

 

[Stymietee]

So if there is visual evidence of a man killing another man in cold blood, we as individuals should wait to see what a court says? I am not saying that is the case with Foster.

If so, why then do we not wait to see what a court says with regard to police shootings, or the hillbilly that shot Arbery?

As for landing at the SCOTUS, Chaplinsky vs NH has shown there are limits on publications regarding “lewd and obscene, . . . profane, . . . libelous, and . . . insulting or ‘fighting’ words” cannot claim constitutional protection. Murphy argued that fighting words “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”

So if there is visual evidence of a man killing another man in cold blood, we as individuals should wait to see what a court says? I am not saying that is the case with Foster.

Irrelevant

If so, why then do we not wait to see what a court says with regard to police shootings, or the hillbilly that shot Arbery?

Again irrelevant, in both cases we wait for trial if they are made against police and ARE awaiting trial in the Arbery case. (There won't be federal charges)

As for landing at the SCOTUS, Chaplinsky vs NH has shown there are limits on publications regarding “lewd and obscene, . . . profane, . . . libelous, and . . . insulting or ‘fighting’ words” cannot claim constitutional protection. Murphy argued that fighting words “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”

Once more not germane to the topic at hand. We're talking about real damages to the individual when publicly named (often with likeness) that's commonly accepted today as responsible news reporting, that turns out to be false. You've already admitted that these types of smear reports have caused irreparable damage by noting..."It should be...but of course it isn’t."

 

[Stymietee]

1. smear
   [smir]
   VERB
   1. coat or mark (something) messily or carelessly with a greasy or sticky substance.
      "his face was smeared with dirt"
      synonyms:
      streak · smudge · stain · mark · soil · dirty · blur · splotch · splodge · besmirch
   2. damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander.
      "someone was trying to smear her by faking letters"
      synonyms:
      sully · tarnish · besmirch · blacken · drag through the mud/mire · stain · taint ·
      streak · smudge · daub · dab · spot · patch · blotch · blob · stain · mark · splotch · splodge
   3. a sample of material spread thinly on a microscope slide for examination, typically for medical diagnosis.
      "the smears were stained for cryptosporidium"
   4. a false accusation intended to damage someone's reputation.
      "the media were indulging in unwarranted smears"
      synonyms:
      false accusation · false report · false imputation · slander · libel · lie · untruth · slur · defamation · calumny · vilification · stain · taint
   5. climbing
      an insecure foothold.
      "soon you're eyeballing the top, just one smear away"
   6. 
      
   7. #4 is applicable to the way "news" is commonly accepted and done in the U.S. This is wrong in that there's no way to make the falsely reported individual whole as a result of it. Intended or not the damage is real. There are no legal repercussions because you can't prove this sort of damage was intended, given the world that we live in.

 

[gkekoa]

1. smear
   [smir]
   VERB
   1. coat or mark (something) messily or carelessly with a greasy or sticky substance.
      "his face was smeared with dirt"
      synonyms:
      streak · smudge · stain · mark · soil · dirty · blur · splotch · splodge · besmirch
   2. damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander.
      "someone was trying to smear her by faking letters"
      synonyms:
      sully · tarnish · besmirch · blacken · drag through the mud/mire · stain · taint ·
      streak · smudge · daub · dab · spot · patch · blotch · blob · stain · mark · splotch · splodge
   3. a sample of material spread thinly on a microscope slide for examination, typically for medical diagnosis.
      "the smears were stained for cryptosporidium"
   4. a false accusation intended to damage someone's reputation.
      "the media were indulging in unwarranted smears"
      synonyms:
      false accusation · false report · false imputation · slander · libel · lie · untruth · slur · defamation · calumny · vilification · stain · taint
   5. climbing
      an insecure foothold.
      "soon you're eyeballing the top, just one smear away"
   6. 
      
   7. #4 is applicable to the way "news" is commonly accepted and done in the U.S. This is wrong in that there's no way to make the falsely reported individual whole as a result of it. Intended or not the damage is real. There are no legal repercussions because you can't prove this sort of damage was intended, given the world that we live in.

Were they? The smear came from the girlfriend who made the accusation. I didn’t see a single person in the media actually state he committed domestic violence. They insinuated they believed the accusation.

BTW...I was behind Foster the whole time, I think.

 

[skinsdad62]

Were they? The smear came from the girlfriend who made the accusation. I didn’t see a single person in the media actually state he committed domestic violence. They insinuated they believed the accusation.

BTW...I was behind Foster the whole time, I think.

When you say he is a repeat offender ,when in fact he wasn’t , it means you are saying he is guilty the alleged first time

now if you can’t tell that those stories were written from the POV he was guilty I don’t know what to say

and if call someone a repeat offender when in fact he wasn’t , I don’t know how that isn’t a smear

 

[gkekoa]

When you say he is a repeat offender ,when in fact he wasn’t , it means you are saying he is guilty the alleged first time

now if you can’t tell that those stories were written from the POV he was guilty I don’t know what to say

and if call someone a repeat offender when in fact he wasn’t , I don’t know how that isn’t a smear

It likely means you are mistaken.

I never said they weren’t written from the POV that he was guilty. They never said it.

Repeat offender definitely pushed it and went over in my opinion, but that is the only one you posted. So it wasn’t the entire media. It was actually one instance.

 

[Stymietee]

Were they? The smear came from the girlfriend who made the accusation. I didn’t see a single person in the media actually state he committed domestic violence. They insinuated they believed the accusation.

BTW...I was behind Foster the whole time, I think.

Yes they are, but let's play it tour way. The girlfriend has no publicly available bullhorn that reaches anything close to the number of people organized media is able to do. Even if she went to the various media outlets, they have a duty to weigh their profit margins against protecting the anonymity of someone who's merely accused/ arrested. In modern U.S.A. that is no contest, they chose the sensational, because they have no fear of having to pay restitution for damaging the subject in their reports. Admit it man, there a major parts of the U.S. system that are broken.

 

[skinsdad62]

It likely means you are mistaken.

I never said they weren’t written from the POV that he was guilty. They never said it.

Repeat offender definitely pushed it and went over in my opinion, but that is the only one you posted. So it wasn’t the entire media. It was actually one instance.

As I mentioned before and gave names they did on Twitter point blank