|
zoux posted:I don't find law equals morality to be a compelling argument, and again, there are plenty of famous stories that were only broken by bending or outright disobeying the law. And selective editing may be scummy, but writers, editors and publications all have biases and angles, and consciously or subconsciously withhold or exaggerate or misrepresent facts all the time. The problem is that some people want courts to weigh in on what should be a question of industry ethics. If you can prove that it reaches the standard of libel or slander that's one thing, but I don't think that's what the suit is about. But they're not part of the industry. It's not a paper or other publication. To be honest, it probably is libel to edit things the way they did. Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Remember that everything you outlaw will be used as a weapon against your side too. Always. And I'm in full agreement here, I don't think the message itself is actionable in a legal sense, other than it being libelous.
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:43 |
|
|
stinkles1112 posted:But deception isn't and shouldn't be illegal, right? Not all deception is actionable, much of it is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:But they're not part of the industry. It's not a paper or other publication. This is actually even a stickier issue due to the proliferation of blogs and alternative media. You can't say "so-and-so is not a journalist" without opening a whole can of worms.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
zoux posted:This is actually even a stickier issue due to the proliferation of blogs and alternative media. You can't say "so-and-so is not a journalist" without opening a whole can of worms. True. Probably a discussion for another thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Ballz posted:US Supreme Court to hear ex-Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's appeal on a bribery conviction. Because John Roberts believes that anything other than explicit quid pro quo is not corruption. That scumbag deserves his jailtime, but I can't help but think McDonnell's going to win. Ugh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Mr Jaunts posted:Because John Roberts believes that anything other than explicit quid pro quo is not corruption. This is why Hillary or Bernie must win. If not we're going back to the Lochner era for at least a generation, maybe two.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
I neglected to provide a convenient NOT ALL out for pro-life group X. So yea, pro-life groups mostly just waste everyone's time and money to inflict their personal beliefs on other people. The people shooting up abortion clinics are not representative of the population as a whole but there aren't very many reasons to shoot an abortion doctor for being an abortion doctor outside of extremist pro-life rhetoric. Rhetoric I have zero respect for outside of common courtesy which I will admit was absent from my posting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:I'm no lawyer but I tend to think giving a false name/purpose shouldn't be illegal. Editing video to commit willful defamation should be illegal. Good luck proving the willful part. That's intent. Got any taped confessions?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:43
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
You can't accidentally edit a video. If someone puts up a 'no irish need apply' sign, we don't need to peer into their mind to ascertain their goals. edit: I'm pretty sure we don't need to pretend it's mystically impossible to define 'Journalist', courts have and use various definitions for the term. TheDeadlyShoe fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Jan 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
lol at "liberals" arguing editing videos in ways they don't like should be a crime. Remember kids if you don't have the backing of a large company, you're not a real journalist!
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:"liberals" don't like kids!
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I killed kids guess we better SWAT your house, because thanks to this editing you're admitting to the commission of a crime!
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:lol at "liberals" arguing editing videos in ways they don't like should be a crime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
whitey delenda est posted:guess we better SWAT your house, because thanks to this editing you're admitting to the commission of a crime! thanks for proving my point  I don't think you should go to jail for that
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
This discussion is stupid and doesn't belong in the thread
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:thanks for proving my point Libel is a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
If you can't even keep the terms defamation and libel straight, maybe you don't know what you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
The new Netflix series Making a Murderer could probably be reasonably called willful defamation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
blue squares posted:This discussion is stupid and doesn't belong in the thread Yeah what does journalism have to do with US politics?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:If you can't even keep the terms defamation and libel straight, maybe you don't know what you're talking about. quote:li·bel Are you confused or something? Libel is defamation. computer parts posted:The new Netflix series Making a Murderer could probably be reasonably called willful defamation. If it's actionable enough, the victim should sue the absolute gently caress out of the creator.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:
The victim in this case is members of the local police department.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The victim in this case is members of the local police department. If they've been subject to something libelous, they should sue. (I don't know the context, I've not watched the show.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
blue squares posted:This discussion is stupid and doesn't belong in the thread You know what does? Chili
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Good luck proving the willful part. That's intent. Got any taped confessions? Well, it's not a specific confession, but one of them wrote a book talking about doing it. Also, it's a lot easier to show that someone knew something was false when they just spent an enormous amount of time and effort investigating the subject.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Realtalk though, the slapfight over PP suing kind of misses the forest for the trees. Sure, it's free speech, but the right to free speech does not mean freedom from consequences, just protection from government punishment thereof. If they have them on record as using illegal tactics to create their media, welp, that's a crime. Sorry. Otherwise the government has no jurisdiction charging them. Civil suit? Every man for himself. Prove damages and you're good to go. Chokes McGee fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Jan 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
[quote="gawkerpost="455025976""] http://gawker.com/i-watched-michael-bays-benghazi-movie-at-cowboys-stadiu-1753238965 Even the slain ambassador, Chris Stevens, is given pretty short shrift. He comes to Benghazi with a pretty face and high ideals—a “true believer.” He gives the annex a corny pep talk about bringing Democratic values to Libya, while a warrior nods off in the background. He’s a victim and we mourn his passing, sure, but he just doesn’t get it. As proof of his vanity, his consular residence contains a framed picture of himself being interviewed on TV. We see it shortly before he is killed. There’s a lot that’s bizarre about the framing of the main events in 13 Hours, but the portrayal of Stevens is possibly the strangest part. The ambassador is, in conservative Benghazi narratives, the foremost martyr, a man to be honored and remembered, betrayed by the administration. If what is honorable about the contractors is their willingness to lay down life for country, you might think Stevens deserves similar recognition: not so, in Bay’s estimation. [/quote] Niiiceeeeee
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Nothing is True and Everyone is in Court
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Nothing is True and Everyone is in Court This but unironically, sophism best phism
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Ballz posted:US Supreme Court to hear ex-Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's appeal on a bribery conviction. Because money is speech and he should be free to listen to it at his discretion. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Can anyone think of a good reason why the Sanders campaign sent a DMCA takedown notice to Wikipedia demanding the removal of their logos?quote:A lawyer representing Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has demanded that several of the campaign's logos be removed from Wikipedia, saying that reproducing the logos violates copyright law. The Wikimedia Foundation has complied with the DMCA takedown notice and removed the notices.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Can anyone think of a good reason why the Sanders campaign sent a DMCA takedown notice to Wikipedia demanding the removal of their logos? False flag operation by DWS?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Can anyone think of a good reason why the Sanders campaign sent a DMCA takedown notice to Wikipedia demanding the removal of their logos? old man shouts at cloud
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Can anyone think of a good reason why the Sanders campaign sent a DMCA takedown notice to Wikipedia demanding the removal of their logos? The lawyer is dumb?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Can anyone think of a good reason why the Sanders campaign sent a DMCA takedown notice to Wikipedia demanding the removal of their logos? Probably the same reason why parts of his campaign thinks it's completely legitimate and a good idea to take advantage of security holes. I suspect a lot of true believers with little sense. Probably the same lawyer who kept their lawsuit against the DNC going even after it had been essentially dealt with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Can anyone think of a good reason why the Sanders campaign sent a DMCA takedown notice to Wikipedia demanding the removal of their logos? His campaign staff is literally insane?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Can anyone think of a good reason why the Sanders campaign sent a DMCA takedown notice to Wikipedia demanding the removal of their logos? The same reason they think suing the DNC for allowing them to willingly steal someone else's data without the DNC knowing is a grand idea
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
Sword of Chomsky posted:The lawyer is dumb? Stultus Maximus posted:False flag operation by DWS? That would make sense but: quote:the Sanders campaign didn't back down or blame an overzealous volunteer attorney—the campaign confirmed it wants Wikipedia to comply with the notice and not publish its logos  (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/bernie-sanders-campaign-sends-dmca-notice-to-wikipedia-over-logos/)
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:That would make sense but: I was joking because that was the response of a number of Bernouts after the data theft.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
Trust the GOP to heap their glasses full of wine like savages.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:43 |
|
|
Obviously, Bernie Sanders is a big supporter of private ownership of property.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:10
|
|
