What would you say about the media...

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Charles

And Hannity admitted on air to his mistake.

While using a file video clip is disingenuous, it's not quite the same as manufacturing a fake document.

Chas

Not at all.

Like with any laws we can take into account circumstance, intent and responsibility.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by noonereal

I have spoken to this and insisting on truth has nothing to do with giving the government any power over it. That's silly.
Are you advocating repealing the perjury charges if you lie under oath?
same thing.
This argument holds no water.

The analogy does not fit. I have explained this before. Prosecution for perjury has a limited application to statements made under oath. Most situations when people are placed under oath there is a ceremonial solemnity to the occasion. Courtrooms are often impressive august rooms that emphasize the importance of the events occurring within. In almost all trials someone is determined to be right and others determined to be wrong. That means the jury has rejected some things that were stated under oath. Nevertheless perjury is rarely charged. The nuances of intent, perception, and perspective make proof of intent difficult.

News reporting is done quickly, without the opportunity to research and examine everything that occurs before a trial. Reporting is not given under oath. Moreover, the testimony given in a courtroom will generally involve a specific set of circumstances that relate to a personal or business dispute. News reporting, however, involves identifying matters of interest to the public, controversial matters about which there is a great deal of dispute. The determination about which news to devote airtime to is a judgment call. News reporting can also involve revealing facts about public officials or power brokers that are not favorable to their positions. Such people would have the incentive, the influence and the access to information to take action against one who has reported on a controversial issue. That power would have a chilling effect on the dissemination of information about critical matters of public concern.

There is no parallel between the use of perjury to prosecute lies intentionally told while under oath, under solemn circumstances, with prosecution of individuals who are trying to report information about matters of public concern. The legislation you advocate is not only bad public policy, it would cause the chilling effect on free speech that violates the First Amendment.

Regards,

D-Ray

[noonereal]

With all respect D-Ray, this is America. If we want to do something we can do it. To say that there is no way to get truth in news is to say I have no desire to have truth in news. You have every right to feel this way but I choose not to. I prefer my fellow Americans and I base our decisions on facts and not blatant biased lies.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by noonereal

With all respect D-Ray, this is America. If we want to do something we can do it. To say that there is no way to get truth in news is to say I have no desire to have truth in news. You have every right to feel this way but I choose not to. I prefer my fellow Americans and I base our decisions on facts and not blatant biased lies.

This is the United States, and the supreme law of the land is the Constitution of the United States of America. The First Amendment to that Constitution guarantees free speech. Any law that tried to provide punishment for the content of news programming would not pass constitutional muster. If it did, it would be an invitation to tyrrany.

Just ask yourself what would happen if Dick Cheney had the opportunity to use that law. Don't you think he would have one of the politically beholden US Attorneys to find a way to prosecute some of those unpatriotic treasonous reporters who reported information damaging to the war effort. Because of the cost of defense, even being charged with an infraction is punishment in itself.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by Charles

And Hannity admitted on air to his mistake.

While using a file video clip is disingenuous, it's not quite the same as manufacturing a fake document.

Chas

lol, OH! That changes eveything!

Man, if the "left wing media" made a slip like that the Teabaggers would decend on them like a swarm of locust. Imagine if while covering the teabagging convention NBC 'accidently' used file video (why would you use file video for a current story in the first place?) of a much smaller gathering. How much outrage would we hear from the right? They would demand people be fired! Boycot the network sponsors! But with Fox, oh, they admitted the mistake! Eveything is okay now.

What's amazing is that people can hold such an obvious double standard but not be aware of it. Astonishing really.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

This is the United States, and the supreme law of the land is the Constitution of the United States of America. The First Amendment to that Constitution guarantees free speech. Any law that tried to provide punishment for the content of news programming would not pass constitutional muster. If it did, it would be an invitation to tyrrany.

Sorry, can't see any correlation.

The way you explain it, it should be impossible to prosecute someone for yelling fire in a theater.

[BlueStreak]

OMG!!!!!!

Are you suggesting Sean Hannity is capable of misleading people????
(Insert patriotic backround music here. And roll the rotating images of the flag, Iwo Jima statue, and crucifixion here.)
That's not possible, why he is a Christian and a GREAT AMERICAN,
therefore totally incapable of pulling something like this!!!!! Why would this uber-patriotic, Yankee Doodle Dandy need to do such a thing when he is clearly angelic, God-like and pristine in every way? Why, I've heard, that when he farts it sounds like a Souza Band and smells of Lilacs!!!!

Shame! Shame on you Eddie for casting aspersions upon the GREATEST AMERICAN to have ever lived! Shame on you, you Jesus hating, Stalinist, Neo-Nazi, anti-Christ, monster-in-the-closet, tax and spend Boogeyman!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where's my sign? The one with ObamaHitler on it! I'm hittin' the streets!!

Geez.

Dave

[Fast_Eddie]

Woah, Dave. Gettin' pretty personal! lol

I've been called worse. I wouldn't have cast those aspersions if I had known he said "sorry" later.

Take care,

Ed

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by noonereal

Sorry, can't see any correlation.

The way you explain it, it should be impossible to prosecute someone for yelling fire in a theater.

The words are not punished in that example, it is the action of placing others in a clear and present danger from a stampede. Time and manner restrictions on speech are permissible, not content related restrictions. You are proposing punishment based on the content of the speech, and that is a tool that could easily be abused. News reporting is not subject to black and white analysis. Making the distinction between news reporting and opinion reporting, as you have previously suggested, is a much blurrier line.

"A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." 9 Writings of James Madison 103 (G. Hunt ed. 1910).

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

lol, OH! That changes eveything!

Man, if the "left wing media" made a slip like that the Teabaggers would decend on them like a swarm of locust. Imagine if while covering the teabagging convention NBC 'accidently' used file video (why would you use file video for a current story in the first place?) of a much smaller gathering. How much outrage would we hear from the right? They would demand people be fired! Boycot the network sponsors! But with Fox, oh, they admitted the mistake! Eveything is okay now.

What's amazing is that people can hold such an obvious double standard but not be aware of it. Astonishing really.

I agree with your final sentence. And it cuts both ways.

But I'm not exactly astonished. People have mistaken sarcastic and inflammatory rhetoric for an argument every since the start of time.

My initial statement was that Hannity corrected himself. Let's just forget about my statement that an out of context video clip shown in the background of a story is not the same as a manufactured document that WAS the story. I realize that this is a mighty fine hair to split...so I'll let it go.

And your response starts out with the term "teabaggers", which, in case you don't realize it, is a personal insult. To some people.

You have a knack for getting along with people.

And as far as imagining how the right would respond if the left were to pull the same stunt...well, they have. And I've seen the call for boycotts also coming from the left.

I'll wrap this up, I actually have better things to do tonite. A narrow minded asshole is a narrow minded asshole, whatever side of the fence he's on.

BTW Noon, I concur with D-Ray's line of reasoning. His arguments are valid.

Adios schmucks...I'm off to Beer Camp. I'm the chef tonite.

Chas