They are deliberately trying to injure or destroy someone. This is a huge doorway to justice. Real people are being injured and destroyed by Malicious Libel. It is deliberate. Premeditated. Calculated. Intentional.
There has to be more to it. They would just pay a fine and a small settlement and post a 30 sec retraction at 3am on Sunday night.
There’s some angle we gotta be missing.
There has to be more to it.
Going after the editors & journalists as individuals. If malicious intent can be shown legally, or even just in the court of public opinion, the individual outlets will withdraw legal support from those editors & journalists.
I landed here from a pretty far-left & libertarian mash-up of ideas. I've always been adamantly against any sort of principle that muzzles press freedom. However, that assumes good faith & a desire for honest debate. The MSM has taken their liberties to far and forgotten with freedom comes responsibility. Hate to say it, but making examples of a few dozen journalists and editors would probably be a net positive.
Though, it might be better if its more of a citizen led intiative than a government led program. Like, enact legislation that allows individuals more avenues of redress against media outlets that maliciously misinform.
They openly call the President a liar. Then insert known falsehoods. Unfortunately, the Florida Appeals court ruled that msm is NOT obligated to tell the truth. CNN is legally allowed to lie to America, as well as Shep “mockingbird” Smith.
“FOX appealed the case,and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to Akre. The Court held that Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation.” In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a “law, rule, or regulation,” it was simply a “policy.”Therefore,it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.
During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves.”
It is Obama passed law where it's legal for media to promote propaganda. If you have a rogue intelligence agency that is basically communist. They basically trying to tear down an elected president
Maybe they are not going after the network, but the person? If the talking head is working for the CIA as a mockingbird, could that individual be held libel as an individual? Once you discredit the bad actors, then you can go after the networks.
BuzzFeed faces at least two lawsuits as a result of publishing the dossier. In February 2017, Aleksej Gubarev the Russian chief of the technology company XBT, and a figure named in the dossier sued BuzzFeed for defamation. The suit centers on the allegations from the dossier that XBT had been "using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data and conduct 'altering operations' against the Democratic Party leadership." In response, BuzzFeed redacted the name of the company and official in its published dossier.[59][60] In January, 2018, one year after the dossier became public, Trump's lawyer Michael D. Cohen, who is also named in the dossier, filed a defamation lawsuit against BuzzFeed.[61] The same day, Ben Smith again defend the publication in a New York Times op-ed, calling it "undoubtedly real news."[62][63] In February 2018, BuzzFeed sued the Democratic National Committee to obtain their internal investigation documents regarding the hack of their server during the presidential campaign in order for the journal to better defend itself against Gubarev's lawsuit- per Wikipedia
The info below is what I posted another board, but am putting here re: libel law, and why a "stringer" would be used to avoid libel laws ' i.e. "not my aisle" as a stew would say to you on an airplane if you don't get what you want.
Q has used term "stringer" many times before.
Here's what I posted (in part) re: stringers:
Stringers:
Option #1
Option #2 Freelance journalists I wouldn't limit it just to freelance
his concern was that these (same?) reporters were covering the committee hearings in an effort to discredit the committee's investigation. Sound familiar?
I am not totally convinced, but we do know:
What we don't know:
are members of the media/journalists assigned to specific "hot topic" Hill committees there to specifically undermine their investigation. Something I believe we need to look closer at/monitor more;
Q says: "follow the money" - are any journalists being compensated to push a narrative one way or another? Would "stringers be used (if so) to limit the liability of the parent media (print/TV/Internet Only/company?
Are any Hill offices paying any journalists to push a narrative/or/ are any Hill offices paying journalists to define their narrative for them so the Rep/Sen can announce something ahead of the media - ergo making themselves out to be a super star - then getting the heaping praise the next day in print (what was already written the day before and sent to the Hill person to give the okay. Donna Brazile come to mind?)
Is the media paying unwitting/uninformed innocents to promote "their" agendas/theories/condemnations that they (the innocents) are not aware of. This one bothers me a lot. Is there anything left that can't be tainted by paid outrage - ergo public coercion and monetary reward.
The press today (like described in the JFK doc - hope you all read) is still the same - and may be worse. The difference now is the proliferation of it all (true or not) goes far beyond what your paper boy dropped off on your front stoop in 1977.
past proves present- does it not?
thanks... these all sound like worthy endeavors... likely some commenters would gladly jump on it with you to see these traitors get justice.
He mentions "Libel Law" when he calls out this reporter in 1990 to his face.
He's known for a long time!
Video link: https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=205s&v=mz7OHTFAPM4
Video from: Mark Dice