Jump to content

Fox News lies... courts say get over it.


Smart

Recommended Posts

I say get over it too, jeez, I just realized this article is 6 years old. Still interesting though.

 

Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.

By Mike Gaddy. Published Feb. 28, 2003

 

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

 

On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows.

 

The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers. Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news.

 

The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdock, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

 

In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation. Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.

 

 

 

So, when they broadcast falsehood it's OK because it's only against FCC 'policy'. Show 1 tit during a halftime show and it's million dollar fines and outrage because that's against FCC 'policy"... what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think it is interesting that the woman went with the Fifth as grounds for suit.

 

It makes a good argument. I think this would be an interesting one to take up the courts. I think it would start coming down to constraints on the first via what your responsibility is to your shareholders and stakeholders. Is it within the rights of the corp to "lie" and what is the intent of the lie? Artistic intent comes into question a lot when the First is brought up. Is it the intent of the person yelling fire to cause confusion and agitation among the people? If so, than it is criminal mischief. If not, then it is protected.

 

I think it's the same sort of question here. I am sure they could have argued intent better against fox. And if the previous rulings were any indication, they can probably do it again and get this turned back in the journo's favor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as the lie is not libelous against an individual, they can lie all they want. I am not super familiar with the libel laws, but perhaps the journalist would have a case if she could show that by disseminating the incorrect information, that she herself could be harmed. As long as the story was not considered to be satire, then she may have a case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Would I never punish speech under any circumstances? Only when this speech is a direct threat of criminal action. In short, if I walk over to someone menacingly and say that I will kill him unless he hands me his wallet, I am committing a direct threat of crime, and this is properly punishable by a jury. I believe that such actions have always been punished at law, without benefit of Smith Acts, or fancy "criteria."

 

I would like to take this opportunity, once and for all, to set the record straight on the famous old cliché: "after all, no man has a right falsely to shout fire in a crowded threatre." This formula of that old cynic, Justice Holmes, has been used time and again as an excuse for all manner of tyranny. Just exactly why does no man have this right? Is this really a case where libertarian principle must give way to a diluting "prudence"? There are two possibilities: either the shouter is the owner of the theatre or he is not. If he is the owner, then he is clearly violating the evident contract which he made with the patrons: to put on a play which the patrons can watch – a contract which they executed in cash. By disturbing this performance, he is violating the contract. If the shouter is not the owner, then he is clearly trespassing on the owner’s property. He was permitted on that property on the ground that he would peacefully watch the play, a contract which he is obviously violating. The false shouter of "fire," therefore, is punishable not because free speech should be restricted, but because he is violating the property right of others. And property right, in libertarian principle, is one of the basic natural rights of man.

 

Rights correctly discovered by reason, therefore, cannot conflict. Liberty for all can be thought through on the basis of rational principle. There is no need for the fatal weakening of principle with the base alloy of "prudential" heresy."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

yeah you say LOL but I heard recently (making up statistics now,,,) that out of 100 major newspapres there are only 8 owners. Now, I'm not living and dying by those numbers but it's something close, and Rupert Murdock pretty much owns the radio airwaves with ClearChannel...

 

No joke.

 

All of your media outlets are belong to US!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater? I'm pretty sure the expression predates the law but "Beware of frenchmen screaming fou."

 

The first amendment stops when physical well-being is infringed. That is the only place, it is and should ever be limited. For instance, if my shirt says kill skimos and I live in Alaska, there may be a credible threat. I think that is a bit farfetched. Cross-burnings on the other hand could potentially threaten physical well-being, in a dumbed down legal sense. The FCC, should be required to regulate something that people blindly follow, but that infringes on other freedoms. Limited government is best. unless its humanitarian.

 

Ahh enough rambling, I cannot fathom how these papers like the enquirer stay in business, do not get sued for Libel. I need to read up more on it.

 

Concerning first amendment rights, can anyone who is more knowledgeable(everyone), explain in detail how damage to property trumps our first amendment rights. I mean I understand fundamentally how the government explains it to us, but that seems to be crap. I've been looking at ways around it, but there are now cases involving side walk chalk. As explained to me by a lawyer, damage to real property occurs whenever property is altered in any way, which is up there with conspiracy in its generalness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

libel is nothing more than free speech. it is not physically harmful. a person does not 'own' their own reputation and a person does not 'own' what another person thinks of them.

 

as for free speech and property, you'll have to get more specific.

free speech means nothing really unless its defined with some sort of property rights outlined.

for instance you dont have a right to run in my house and scream whatever you want. you have a right to say whatever you want on your own property, property you have permission to do so on, in print, and for the most part you have the right to say what you want on public property. property owners are in control of the property and can set whatever guidelines they want. the debate over what is allowed on public property will always be around since the 'taxpayers' own it and want to be able to do on it what they want, but the government usually thinks otherwise.

 

as for the sidewalk chaulk... if you write on someones house or property, this is not free speech.

cross burnings... you can burn whatever crosses you want on your own property, but hopefully someone will pull a 12 gauge on you if you try to burn a cross on someone else's property. i think most things can be solved with property rights. flag burning amendment? solved. you cant burn a flag, UNLESS YOU OWN IT. if you own, its yours to do what you want. fly it, fly it upside down, burn it, etc.

problem solved.

 

but for a while now, i've thought about free speech like this...

free speech is a natural right, but must not really 'matter' because the government for the most part still allows it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and for the most part you have the right to say what you want on public property

 

I was referring to some artists who take old things they find on the streets, like trash, take it, repaint it, and put it back in the street. There are apparently a few things you could face legally with this, also sidewalk chalk in the public domain. This may still be confusing, I will have a better response tonight or tomorrow, when I get back.

 

 

 

you own, its yours to do what you want. fly it, fly it upside down, burn it, etc.

 

I seem to remember a case (Wisconsin) of the city seizing a flag being flown upside down. Obviously that case went to court, and I do not know the outcome, headed to class right now, but I'll get back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Concerning first amendment rights, can anyone who is more knowledgeable(everyone), explain in detail how damage to property trumps our first amendment rights. I mean I understand fundamentally how the government explains it to us, but that seems to be crap. I've been looking at ways around it, but there are now cases involving side walk chalk. As explained to me by a lawyer, damage to real property occurs whenever property is altered in any way, which is up there with conspiracy in its generalness.

 

monetary losses on the part of the store owner/rails/city etc.you have the right to express yourself but not everyone is going to be too happy with you writing on their shit.and so when they have to clean over your stuff it costs them money,therefore your way of expressing yourself is causing damages(monetary not really anything physical.) and infringing or said businesses right to keep their shit clean and graffiti free.so that trumps your right to free expression.think of feminists bra burning.its all well and good if they destroy their bras but if their sneaking into peoples houses at night to burn someone elses undergarments then its a problem.probably not the best analogy but you get the idea.this is just my opinion tho...and i havent ever heard of anyone getting in trouble for chalk tho.i mean its not really damage to property.you can clean it off with water and i have a hard time seeing a jury convict a person for it let alone a prosecutor going forth with a trial in the first place but idk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guys name is Ellis Gallagher.

 

Brief wiki description...

 

The work functions as critique of State's opposition to graffiti, through the law, the courts and the police. Police claim the drawing is graffiti, but while New York City's administrative code says defacing streets is illegal, the status of sidewalk drawing is unclear. More importantly, in New York graffiti is defined as "etching, painting, covering, drawing upon or otherwise placing of a mark upon public or private property with intent to damage such property." Writing in chalk is erasable and disappears after a rain, leaving it highly questionable whether this can be called damage, and hence graffiti. Gallagher was once arrested for drawing and signing his name in chalk. Charges were dropped, but he spent 17 hours in jail for which he is suing the city, claiming false arrest and unlawful imprisonment. Paul Hale, Gallagher's lawyer, claims using chalk on the sidewalk is perfectly legal.

Despite the legal ambiguities, his work is perceived solidly in the genre of modern graffiti, or "Street Art." Ellis Gallagher’s use of chalk is reminiscent of Keith Harring's initial use of white chalk on the black paper of unused subway advertising spots, or the current anonymous street-artist drawing green chalk cacti in protest against climate change. However the temporary nature and questioning the definition of graffiti recall the British “reverse graffiti” artist Moose, who works by cleaning dirt through a stencil from sidewalks and tunnels.

 

And a linkie to the arrest.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/brooklyn/2007/10/19/2007-10-19_artist_vows_to_keep_chalking_even_after_.html

Not sure on an update.

 

Hopeless that makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...