Skip to main content

View Diary: Media ignore threat to hold Fox News reporter in contempt for protecting source in Aurora shooting (131 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If you read her "work" you'll see she's (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bush Bites, chesterdog

    not much for employing journalistic standards, something that might protect her. Instead she employes her employer's tactics of innuendo, false equivalencies and other nonsense. In my opinion you have to be a journalist to invoke journalistic shield. Defending her implies she's a journalist, something so far from the truth it's painful.

    •  well... there is that (shrug) (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CharlesInCharge, MJB

      ...but I'm one who tends to think in this case the underlying principle is far more important than the individual person who may or may not be the best exemplar of the profession.  


      Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

      by a gilas girl on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 06:31:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Famous 1st amendment case protected Larry Flynt (0+ / 0-)

        There was a famous SCOTUS case many years ago in which the court found in favor of Larry Flynt and Hustler magazine in a lawsuit brought against Flynt by Jerry Falwell.

        If the law protects Larry Flynt and Hustler, it might as well protect Hustler's moral equivalent, Fox News.

        Hustler Magazine v. Falwell

        A lead story in the November 1983 issue of Hustler Magazine featured a "parody" of an advertisement, modeled after an actual ad campaign, claiming that Falwell, a Fundamentalist minister and political leader, had a drunken incestuous relationship with his mother in an outhouse. Falwell sued to recover damages for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Falwell won a jury verdict on the emotional distress claim and was awarded a total of $150,000 in damages. Hustler Magazine appealed.

        . . .

        In a unanimous opinion the Court held that public figures, such as Jerry Falwell, may not recover for the intentional infliction of emotional distress without showing that the offending publication contained a false statement of fact which was made with "actual malice." The Court added that the interest of protecting free speech, under the First Amendment, surpassed the state's interest in protecting public figures from patently offensive speech, so long as such speech could not reasonably be construed to state actual facts about its subject.

        Please help to fight hunger with a donation to Feeding America.

        by MJB on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 11:14:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site