Decyferon Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 Obviously I can only talk from the UK perspective on these matters, but if an employer decided to terminate an employment without valid reasons then they would be screwed, if an employer fired you because the press had reported your were gay then they would be in violation of so many laws they would be looking at making a huge payout to you through the courts. With the Marilyn Manson scenario, I think the law would look at it very differently if he was singing about killing say, me, and then fans of his killed me, he COULD then face charges of incitement or something along those lines, if he sings about killing in general then there would be no liability on his behalf because he is specifying the target of the attacks. It is why we have laws against incitement to racial hatred and things like that. Comedic roasts and critic reviews of books or films don't fall into the same category as a news media outlet publishing a story as fact. Reviews are just the opinion of the critic and they are not reported as the hard truth and fact. Whereas a news report saying you are a child molestor is claiming a fact that you are. People understand reviews are the opinion of the reviewer, a lot of people take news at face value and believe it to be fact (when the more intelligent people know this isn't the case). You have the right as an individual to say what you want about a person, because it is just your opionion and may or may not have any grounding in reality. A news source should (and obviously this isn't really the case because so much news is lies) have a responsibilty to report facts and not heresay. I'm all for free speech of an individual however I am not in agreement with news sources being able to make up stories and publish them as fact, it can and has ruined peoples lives when stories are falsely printed and people sue successfully so many newspapers for these allegations. This is why so many stories have the legally ambiguous wording such as allegedly and terms like that to cover them for their false stories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 decyferon, thanks for debating like a normal human being. i think you are placing to much of a difference between a news outlet and just someone saying something. the US and UK (to my knowledge Blair was right behind bush when he went into iraq)made up stories that iraq posed a threat to the US and had wmd's. the media lies all the time and says it is fact. just from simple bad reporting like screw ups about where is a person is from in a local story to saying iraq had wmd's. if we are prosecute this, there wouldnt be ANY media. considering there is no way to regulate what a free press prints other then having a government controlled press there is no real solution to the problem of a media outlet lying except through competition of media sources. i'd much rather have a press that lies or cheerleads the government lies than a state controlled or government regulated media that decides what is 'fact' and what isnt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 I agree with you there is no way to regulate what a free press reports. The people of Britain (and to some extent the media) completely tore apart Blair and the reasons for going to war in Iraq and eventually that led to him leaving as Prime Minister because there was no faith in him whatsoever. Obviously some of the press was going along with the Blair line but a lot of them were raising serious questions and I have never met a single person that believed the reasons for going to war in Iraq. It is a shame journalists are happy to make their profession look foolish by printing whatever stories they like to print, personally I think there should be some ethics involved but I think I am probably in the minority, especially considering the huge amounts of tabloid and sensationalist reporting we have in this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 im with you. there should be some ethics involved, however im not a fan of forcing them. i like to open doors for people and say 'sir' and 'ma'am' but i dont think these should be forced on the population. i have just about completely given up on major media sources as being reliable and truthful. but you are alluding to something that is important.... people like gossip. people like scandal. they love tabloids. if there is a demand there will be a supply Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 and while that is there we will have this lowest common denominator style reporting that we see everyday in the printed and visual media. I personally don't read newspapers and if I do see a story I like the look of, I will check the details in numerous news sources until I have a picture of the story and can make my mind up myself. It is just that we are probably in the minority of people that look into things a little further than just believeing what the TV tells us!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted October 18, 2009 Author Share Posted October 18, 2009 im with you. there should be some ethics involved, "should be"? I love it that you try to portray me as hysterical now that DAO is out of the picture. Nice try but still weak. WEAK! double gig. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted October 25, 2009 Author Share Posted October 25, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoonsOfSulkendastron Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 What the f is this ish about barack hussein obama waging war on fox news? he has limited their white house access, and is working on silencing them more? just because they expose his agenda/have a differant opinion? Funny, because now foxs ratings have gone up, producing the opposite effect he wanted, because people want to know what fox is saying that he doesnt want people listening to.. Hear about that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.