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.
More at: www.businessinsider.com...
Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar asked Barr, "If you're confirmed, will the Justice Department jail reporters for doing their jobs?"
After a brief pause, Barr said he could "conceive of situations" where this might happen as a "last resort". Especially if a news organization has "run through a red flag."
originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: bobs_uruncle
Is there something in the U.S. Constitution that gives the media "special protection" status? Or, do they just see themselves as being more important than they really are? Especially in this day-and-age of instant, mass communications.
IMO, printing maliciousness against the U.S. President, like the two BuzzFeed Trump-haters did last week, should make journalists indictable.
originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: carewemust
Freedom of the press is not the freedom to lie, or the freedom to aid and abet terrorists or the freedom to fabricate stories of a political bias for vengeful, vindictive or malicious purposes. It's about bloody time reporters and their handlers were held accountable for the hate and lies they spread in the name of "tolerance" lol. Maybe this Barr will get the job done.
Cheers - Dave
originally posted by: Sabrechucker
Report reality or have yours taken away. False info is a serious threat. Herds of mindless,blind sheep should not lead the way.
originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: carewemust
IMO, printing maliciousness against the U.S. President, like the two BuzzFeed Trump-haters did last week, should make journalists indictable.
No.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
libel
1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue.
In Sullivan, the Supreme Court adopted the term "actual malice" and gave it constitutional significance.
The Court held that a public official suing for defamation must prove that the statement in question was made with actual malice. In his concurring opinion, Justice Black explained, "'Malice,' even as defined by the Court, is an elusive, abstract concept, hard to prove and hard to disprove. The requirement that malice be proved provides at best an evanescent protection for the right critically to discuss public affairs and certainly does not measure up to the sturdy safeguard embodied in the First Amendment."