Re: Libel, Times v. Sullivan
jim bell wrote:
Your last paragraph looks like an exercise of the silly game the TV show "60 minutes" producers often play when they read the letters from the audience about a previous report on a controversial subject. They first read a letter from an outraged viewer who claims that the TV show's producers must have been biased in one direction, and then they read another letter from a different viewer who alleges they showed a bias in the opposite direction. The show is trying to leave you with the impression that they MUST have been unbiased, because they are being accused of diametrically opposite leanings.
Sounds suspiciously like Sandy's approach to 'fair' moderation, to me.
All they are really showing is that given the hundreds and probably thousands of letters they receive on each show weekly (which are, by definition, written by self-motivated people) they can get at least one on each end of the spectrum for whatever subject they've just covered.
Perhaps they author these 'letters' themselves: "I agree wholeheartedly with the position espoused by '60 Minutes'. and, "I don't not think maybe dat dese guys are write, nohow."
A clue is present in the likely fact that the origins of defamation laws were primarily to keep the king and the upper-crust free of printed and verbal attack directed by the lower-classes, even given the presence of whatever nominal "free-speech" guarantees were present.
Next thing you know, saying, "The king is fucking the queen.", is libel and defamation. Go figure... Toto
participants (1)
-
Toto