"Our First Amendment stands as a major block..."

[seminole97]

It was so much easier to manufacture consensus in the past.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

 

[goldmom]

Why the long face, John?

 

[seminole97]

Why the long face, John?

He's sad the government has less control on the flow of information.
He prefers the good old days.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

 

[swagsurfer02]

I would think the most obvious question is, who determines what is misinformation?

 

[goldmom]

I would think the most obvious question is, who determines what is misinformation?

I had a government professor (Harvard dude) who said consult every source - print and spoken - then think about the issue using your OWN BRAIN.
What a concept and a useful guide for everything in your life, huh?

 

[seminole97]

Nevertheless, there are some people who wish us to enact laws which would seriously damage the right of free speech and which could be used not only against subversive groups but against other groups engaged in political or other activities which were not generally popular. Such measures would not only infringe on the Bill of Rights and the basic liberties of our people; they would also undermine the very internal security they seek to protect.

Laws forbidding dissent do not prevent subversive activities; they merely drive them into more secret and more dangerous channels. Police states are not secure; their history is marked by successive purges, and growing concentration camps, as their governments strike out blindly in fear of violent revolt. Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.

We must, therefore, be on our guard against extremists who urge us to adopt police state measures. Such persons advocate breaking down the guarantees of the Bill of Rights in order to get at the communists. They forget that if the Bill of Rights were to be broken down, all groups, even the most conservative, would be in danger from the arbitrary power of government.
-Harry S. Truman, August 8, 1950

 

[Aardvark86]

Why the long face, John?

Art history joke:

Hey Modigliani, why the long face?

 

[Tom Paris]

I would think the most obvious question is, who determines what is misinformation?

FOX News themselves and their lawyers showed us they are the ones when they admitted in court and later settled for 787 MILLION DOLLARS. That’s a good start on knowing who has caused a shit ton of damage to our populace. They continue to be the enemy within.

I know you won’t agree and that’s ok.

 

[seminole97]

FOX News themselves and their lawyers showed us they are the ones when they admitted in court and later settled for 787 MILLION DOLLARS. That’s a good start on knowing who has caused a shit ton of damage to our populace. They continue to be the enemy within.

I know you won’t agree and that’s ok.

This 'gotcha' game is pointless, are you smart enough to realize that?
No single entity, much less the government, is or should be construed as the fount of 'truth'.

Judge Concludes NBC's Allegations of "Mass Hysterectomies" by Doctor at ICE Facility Were False, May Have Been Knowingly/Recklessly False​

Eugene Volokh | 6.27.2024 3:16 PM

From Amin v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC, decided today by Judge Lisa Godbey Wood (S.D. Ga.):

NBC published multiple reports about allegations that Plaintiff, Dr. Mahendra Amin, performed mass hysterectomies on female detainees at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") facility in Georgia. NBC reported allegations that Dr. Amin performed hysterectomies that were unnecessary, unauthorized, or even botched. Dr. Amin then brought this case, asserting that NBC defamed him under Georgia law….

The controversy stemmed from allegations by "a former nurse at the facility named Dawn Wooten" (see the end of this post for more details on those allegations, but the excerpts below also incorporate some discussion of the Wooten claims). The letter led to a good deal of media coverage, including reports on NBC. (It also led, after the coverage, to a government investigation, which found evidence of various improprieties at the facility, but no evidence of mass hysterectomies performed by Amin.)

The judge granted summary judgment in favor of Amin as to the falsity of some of the statements that NBC had made:

Multiple statements are verifiably false. The undisputed evidence has established that: (1) there were no mass hysterectomies or high numbers of hysterectomies at the facility; (2) Dr. Amin performed only two hysterectomies on female detainees from the ICDC; and (3) Dr. Amin is not a "uterus collector." The Court must look to each of the statements in the context of the entire broadcast or social media post to assess the construction placed upon it by the average viewer. Doing so, the undisputed evidence establishes that multiple NBC statements are false.

Viewed in their entirety, the September 15, 2020 episodes of Deadline: White House, All In With Chris Hayes, and The Rachel Maddow Show accuse Plaintiff of performing mass hysterectomies on detainee women. It does not matter that NBC did not make these accusations directly, but only republished the whistleblower letter's allegations. If accusations against a plaintiff are "based entirely on hearsay," "[t]he fact that the charges made were based upon hearsay in no manner relieves the defendant of liability. Charges based upon hearsay are the equivalent in law to direct charges." NBC charged Plaintiff with performing high numbers of hysterectomies at the facility. NBC argues that the "gist" of these broadcasts was that Plaintiff was accused of conducting "unnecessary and unconsented-to medical procedures on detainees at ICDC, including large numbers of hysterectomies." But the focus of these three broadcasts was not on unnecessary or unconsented-to "medical procedures." The focus was on "mass hysterectomies" and "high numbers of hysterectomies," performed without necessity and consent, at the facility. This is reinforced by MSNBC's own headlines: "WHISTLEBLOWER: HIGH NUMBER OF HYSTERECTOMIES AT ICE DETENTION CTR." and "COMPLAINT: MASS HYSTERECTOMIES PERFORMED ON WOMEN AT ICE FACILITY." …

While opinions and hyperbole are typically non-actionable, they become actionable when they are capable of being proved false. Statements 5, 6, 9, 14, 15, 16, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 34 meet this requirement.

 

[Tom Paris]

This 'gotcha' game is pointless, are you smart enough to realize that?
No single entity, much less the government, is or should be construed as the fount of 'truth'.

Judge Concludes NBC's Allegations of "Mass Hysterectomies" by Doctor at ICE Facility Were False, May Have Been Knowingly/Recklessly False​

Eugene Volokh | 6.27.2024 3:16 PM

From Amin v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC, decided today by Judge Lisa Godbey Wood (S.D. Ga.):

NBC published multiple reports about allegations that Plaintiff, Dr. Mahendra Amin, performed mass hysterectomies on female detainees at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") facility in Georgia. NBC reported allegations that Dr. Amin performed hysterectomies that were unnecessary, unauthorized, or even botched. Dr. Amin then brought this case, asserting that NBC defamed him under Georgia law….

The controversy stemmed from allegations by "a former nurse at the facility named Dawn Wooten" (see the end of this post for more details on those allegations, but the excerpts below also incorporate some discussion of the Wooten claims). The letter led to a good deal of media coverage, including reports on NBC. (It also led, after the coverage, to a government investigation, which found evidence of various improprieties at the facility, but no evidence of mass hysterectomies performed by Amin.)

The judge granted summary judgment in favor of Amin as to the falsity of some of the statements that NBC had made:

Multiple statements are verifiably false. The undisputed evidence has established that: (1) there were no mass hysterectomies or high numbers of hysterectomies at the facility; (2) Dr. Amin performed only two hysterectomies on female detainees from the ICDC; and (3) Dr. Amin is not a "uterus collector." The Court must look to each of the statements in the context of the entire broadcast or social media post to assess the construction placed upon it by the average viewer. Doing so, the undisputed evidence establishes that multiple NBC statements are false.

Viewed in their entirety, the September 15, 2020 episodes of Deadline: White House, All In With Chris Hayes, and The Rachel Maddow Show accuse Plaintiff of performing mass hysterectomies on detainee women. It does not matter that NBC did not make these accusations directly, but only republished the whistleblower letter's allegations. If accusations against a plaintiff are "based entirely on hearsay," "[t]he fact that the charges made were based upon hearsay in no manner relieves the defendant of liability. Charges based upon hearsay are the equivalent in law to direct charges." NBC charged Plaintiff with performing high numbers of hysterectomies at the facility. NBC argues that the "gist" of these broadcasts was that Plaintiff was accused of conducting "unnecessary and unconsented-to medical procedures on detainees at ICDC, including large numbers of hysterectomies." But the focus of these three broadcasts was not on unnecessary or unconsented-to "medical procedures." The focus was on "mass hysterectomies" and "high numbers of hysterectomies," performed without necessity and consent, at the facility. This is reinforced by MSNBC's own headlines: "WHISTLEBLOWER: HIGH NUMBER OF HYSTERECTOMIES AT ICE DETENTION CTR." and "COMPLAINT: MASS HYSTERECTOMIES PERFORMED ON WOMEN AT ICE FACILITY." …

While opinions and hyperbole are typically non-actionable, they become actionable when they are capable of being proved false. Statements 5, 6, 9, 14, 15, 16, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 34 meet this requirement.

Let me know when they settle for 787 million or their lawyers argue in court that anyone with logic knows they’re just entertainment. Otherwise FOX is an enemy of the state.

 

[goldmom]

Let me know when they settle for 787 million or their lawyers argue in court that anyone with logic knows they’re just entertainment. Otherwise FOX is an enemy of the state.

Seriously. That’s all I can think of when I read your posts, which are increasingly sad - and border on the hysterical.

 

[seminole97]

Let me know when they settle for 787 million or their lawyers argue in court that anyone with logic knows they’re just entertainment. Otherwise FOX is an enemy of the state.

That's already happened.
You knew that, right?

OAN sued Maddow, MSNBC, and its parent corporation Comcast, Inc. for defamation, alleging that it was demonstrably false that the network, in Maddow's words, “literally is paid Russian propaganda." In an oddly overlooked ruling, an Obama-appointed federal judge, Cynthia Bashant, dismissed the lawsuit on the ground that even Maddow's own audience understands that her show consists of exaggeration, hyperbole, and pure opinion, and therefore would not assume that such outlandish accusations are factually true even when she uses the language of certainty and truth when presenting them (“literally is paid Russian propaganda").

In concluding that Maddow's statement would be understood even by her own viewers as non-factual, the judge emphasized that what Maddow does in general is not present news but rather hyperbole and exploitation of actual news to serve her liberal activism:

On one hand, a viewer who watches news channels tunes in for facts and the goings-on of the world. MSNBC indeed produces news, but this point must be juxtaposed with the fact that Maddow made the allegedly defamatory statement on her own talk show news segment where she is invited and encouraged to share her opinions with her viewers. Maddow does not keep her political views a secret, and therefore, audiences could expect her to use subjective language that comports with her political opinions

Thus, Maddow’s show is different than a typical news segment where anchors inform viewers about the daily news. The point of Maddow’s show is for her to provide the news but also to offer her opinions as to that news. Therefore, the Court finds that the medium of the alleged defamatory statement makes it more likely that a reasonable viewer would not conclude that the contested statement implies an assertion of objective fact.

The judge's observations about the specific segment at issue — in which Maddow accused a competitor of being “literally paid Russian propaganda" — was even more damning. Maddow's own viewers, ruled the court, not only expect but desire that she will not provide the news in factual form but will exaggerate and even distort reality in order to shape her opinion-driven analysis (emphasis added):

Viewers expect her to do so, as it is indeed her show, and viewers watch the segment with the understanding that it will contain Maddow’s “personal and subjective views” about the news. See id. Thus, the Court finds that as a part of the totality of the circumstances, the broad context weighs in favor of a finding that the alleged defamatory statement is Maddow’s opinion and exaggeration of the Daily Beast article, and that reasonable viewers would not take the statement as factual. . . .

 

[swagsurfer02]

FOX News themselves and their lawyers showed us they are the ones when they admitted in court and later settled for 787 MILLION DOLLARS. That’s a good start on knowing who has caused a shit ton of damage to our populace. They continue to be the enemy within.

I know you won’t agree and that’s ok.

I don’t know how much experience you have with larger corporations but settlement doesn’t always mean an admission of guilt. I also believe getting rid of “talking heads” who represent your network alleviates the business of having to go through possible future lawsuits. Don’t believe me, look at all major networks. I will concede that is a TON of money to settle for if you didn’t believe you were in the wrong.