It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: windword
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: windword
The first story was not a falsehood; Hogan really did have sex with his friend's wife. It was invasion of privacy, not libel.
Still, "The Press" is not immune from prosecution and allowed to exist with impunity. "The Press" can be and is held accountable.
An appeal was filed, and a ruling in February 2003 came down in favor of WTVT, who successfully argued that the FCC policy against falsification was not a "law, rule, or regulation", and so the whistle-blower law did not qualify as the required "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes.[5] ... Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes,[5] Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute."[3] The appeal did not address any falsification claims, noting that "as a threshold matter ... Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute," but noted that the lower court ruled against all of Wilson's charges and all of Akre's claims with the exception of the whistleblower claim that was overturned.[3]
Jane Akre
The FCC receives a wide variety of comments and complaints from consumers about whether networks, stations, news reporters or commentators give inaccurate or one-sided news presentations, fail to cover certain events or cover them adequately, overemphasize or dramatize certain aspects of news events. Other complaints are received regarding the conduct of journalists in the gathering and reporting of news. The FCC's authority to respond to these complaints is narrow in scope and the Commission is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press.
Complaints About Broadcast Journalism
originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: windword
I didn't claim that, anywhere. I'm stating the press as it was coined is not the same press that operates today.
originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: windword
I didn't claim that, anywhere. I'm stating the press as it was coined is not the same press that operates today.
originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: windword
I didn't claim that, anywhere. I'm stating the press as it was coined is not the same press that operates today.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Vector99
Protect the first by infringing on the first? Now I've read everything.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
The government has no place availing itself of matters of the press beyond what would be criminal and unprotected or anti-trust (hint/hint)
That is our job, as The People. You know, caveat emptor? One of our founding principles (that has been wholly forgotten in the search for a nanny state)?
Sensationalism is what protest is all about.
Ask a protester. This thread isn't about listing Donald Trump's campaign promises, past words or behavior. It'a about the 1st Amendment, Freedom of Speech and "Freedom of the Press".
ME: Sensationalism is what protest is all about.
YOU: Really? Did you really just say that? No, protest is SUPPOSED to be something done to accentuate a grievance or injustice.
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: onthedownlow
There should be a discussion about dangerous speech,
It'a already illegal to incite, or yell "FIRE" in a theater.
and libel laws should challenge the press' attempt to pass off opinion as news.
Slippery slope. How can "The Press" be a watch dog and alert the public to questionable activities without having an opinion, I.E. thinking something will have adverse consequences if continued?
What's wrong with our Libel/Slander/Defamation Laws that you would challenge or change, "innocent until proven guilty"? Do you think a person or media outlet should be sued for sharing their opinions?