I’d like to ask you all a hypothetical question. All of you lawyers out there will be especially useful, but it’s not just a legal topic, so everyone can chime in.
Laws, especially criminal laws, have “elements” to them – criteria that must be satisfied for the law to apply to the situation. For example, in Minnesota the “elements” of a defamation charge are:
- Someone has to say something about you to a third party or parties…
- …that is untrue…
- …that has a reasonable chance of damaging your livelihood and/or reputation…
- …and, if you’re a public figure (and there are elements to the definition of “public figure”), it has to be done with malicious intent.
If you want to sue someone for libel or slander you have to meet each, as in all three of the criteria (four if the plaintiff meets the criteria for being any form of “public figure”), of the criteria above, for the charge to even be allowed to go to court.
If someone were, hypothetically, to propose a law that would make media bias illegal, what would the “elements” of such a law be?
Now, let’s be clear; I’m not advocating such a law. This exercise has nothing whatsoever to do with proposing a law; the law would be unconstitutional anyway.
But if we were, hypothetically, to try to make such a law, what would be the defining factors of the crime of Media Bias?
There’ll be another hypothetical question tomorrow.
If someone were, hypothetically, to propose a law that would make media bias illegal, what would the “elements” of such a law be?
Not sure, but everyone at WCCO would be doing hard time.
You’d need to be able to determine intent… which is pretty tricky.
Let’s ask Peev… he’s pretty good about slavish devotion to The One That Won and the SorosSphere.
Define media.
For example, would blogging be ‘media’ in the context of your question?
I would love to see how you define bias for the purpose of this law, as well.
For example, I agree with you on some things; disagree with you on others. Would you assert that I am biased all of the time, some of the time, only when I disagree with you — or could I be biased when I agree with you as well?
Hypothetically speaking.
Define pedantic.
Somebody put out an APB on LearnedFoot, this sounds like its right up his alley.
A week or two ago I heard an NPR interview with the guy who broke the “Mehlman is gay” story in the Atlantic. The NPR interviewer asked the writer how Mehlman had justified working for a political party that “domonized gay people”. Love that assumption that whatever the GOP stance on gays in civic life is, it amounts to “demonizing” them.
My taxes payed for that bit of demonization of people with my political views.
I forgot about the part of our platform that demonizes gay people. Was that next to the heil Hitler salute resolution or the KKK cross burning section?
For example, I agree with you on some things; disagree with you on others. Would you assert that I am biased all of the time, some of the time, only when I disagree with you — or could I be biased when I agree with you as well?
Those questions keep everyone on this board awake at night, Mrs. Teasdale.
From the interview I mentioned above:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129454424
My problems with NPR are legion, but at the base of them all is my anger that this “National Public Radio”, supported by my tax dollars, has a pervasive left-wing political bias in a nation with a majority conservative population.
Mr. D,
Doesn’t her word choice and mode of speaking remind you of Monty Python at all?
This would be hard. I listen to NPR/MPR/WPR (Wisc) on occasion and it is..ummmm interesting. But I hate laws against saying a lie. On the right….people have proposed laws limiting what college professors can say. As much as I hate certain aspects of acadamia, I think this is a bad law.
And take Israel. How do you start suing media for telling lies about the mideast?
How about the NYT and the Catholic church? Where did the New York Times find so many anti-Catholic bigots to write for them?
So far it doesn’t look like any lawyers have weighed in. I’m not one either, but Mitch I think you are mixing civil suits (tort law) with criminal law. For example, OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder charges in a criminal action but later found responsible for wrongful death in a civil action. He didn’t get what he deserved, except that he got so desperate for money he committed the crime for which he’s presently incarcerated.
The burden of proof is different in the two situations. If you sue me for malpractice in medicine, you need to satisfy the requirements in tort law, not criminal law. If a county attorney wants to charge me with committing a crime–lets say a mercy killing, standards for convicting me are much higher.
As you said, a law against media bias would likely be unconstitutional anyway. In spite of the preponderance of left wing bias in the mass media, I’m not in favor of muzzling it with laws. The laws could be misused by the same people you think are biased anyway. The best defense against media bias is a vigorous presence of truth seekers. Powerline versus CBS and Dan Rather, for example. I’d say the outcome there was pretty good and we didn’t need to plug up the courts with expensive litigation.
Doesn’t her word choice and mode of speaking remind you of Monty Python at all?
Sure it does, Badda. She’s a member in good standing of the Ministry of Silly Distinctions. But most of all, I get the Margaret Dumont vibe, which is why I invoke the name of Mrs. Teasdale from Duck Soup.
MM (Media Matters for America) claims that the problem with the mainstream media is that it has a “Right Wing Bias” due to the fact that much of it is funded by . . . wait for it . . . corporations!
Media Matters for America is funded by currency speculator and unapologetic Nazi collaborator George Soros. Media Matters vehemently denies that Soros funds it — they say that their funding comes from “Democracy Alliance”. Democracy Alliance is, in fact, funded by Soros & his son, which shows how much you can trust MM’s “reporting” on media bias.
And who do you sue or charge with slander? Do you sue the St Paul Pioneer Press when they run false stories against Sarah Palin or the Catholic Church, or do you sue McCatchy or New York Times since they originated the lies.
“I get the Margaret Dumont vibe, which is why I invoke the name of Mrs. Teasdale from Duck Soup.”
Or, perhaps you could have invoked Frau Blucher from Young Frankenstein, which would have been equally appropriate!
If you did it “properly,” the list might look something like this:
1. Relevant fact is agreed upon by all “reasonable parties.” (yes, enough legal leeway to drive a truck through, and obviously the left might not qualify)
2. Media outlet knowingly omitted relevant fact.
3. Media outlet’s omission conforms to demonstrated bias of outlet.
Given that most media outlets have trouble getting their editors to recognize misused homonymns, I’m thinking this one is, even apart from the 1st Amendment, better fought in the courts of public opinion, and in the consistently dropping readership/viewership of MSM outlets.
Blucher!
[horses whinny]
Mr. D,
I’m also thinking that the Dog is represented well right here:
Miss Anne Elk
http://matsp888.tripod.com/python/anneelk.txt
No! No, what is your theory?
Anne Elk: What is my theory?
Chris: Yes!
A: What is my theory that it is? Yes. Well, you may well ask what is my
theory.
C: I am asking.
A: And well you may. Yes, my word, you may well ask what it is, this
theory of mine. Well, this theory, that I have, that is to say, which
is mine,… is mine.
C: I know it’s yours! What is it?
A: … Where? … Oh! Oh! What is my theory?
C: Yes!
A: Ahh! My theory, that I have, follows the lines that I am about to
relate. [starts prolonged throat clearing]
C: [under breath] Oh, God!
[Anne still clearing throat]
A: The Theory, by A. Elk (that’s “A” for “Anne”, it’s not by a elk.)
C: Right…
A: [clears throat] This theory, which belongs to me, is as follows…
[more throat clearing]
This is how it goes…
[clears throat]
The next thing that I am about to say is my theory.
[clears throat]
Ready?
C: [wimpers]
A: The Theory, by A. Elk [Miss]. My theory is along the following lines…
C: [under breath]God!
A: …All brontosauruses are thin at one end; much, much thicker in the
middle and then thin again at the far end. That is the theory that I
have and which is mine and what it is, too.
C: That’s it, is it?
A: Right, Chris!
C: Well, Anne, this theory of yours seems to have hit the nail right on
the head.
A: … and it’s mine.
“I get the Margaret Dumont vibe, ”
It’s more like Diane Chambers but in the internet era
Instapundit points out that the media stories about the crooked civic leadership of Bell, CA, don’t seem to contain any references to its political makeup. Yep, they are democrats. Funny that never gets mentioned.
Of course that bit of bias would fit none of Mitch’s criteria for defamation.
Slander/libel laws tend to suppress healthy skepticism. I’d rather we develop tougher skins and question hearsay than put the government in the business of determining truth or divining intent.
Terry, I think that making an issue of anti-gay measures purely to get out the base – as he claims – is a kind of demonizing, targeting for engative attention, however you wish to characterize the focus. It was not positive, and it wasn’t terribly sincere; it was a ploy. In the course of targeting gays for that attention inaccurate and demeaning things were said.
I would put Bradlee Dean’s claims that all/most gays are molesters would qualify as demonize. He alleges criminal, abusive behavior; it is untrue.
Those kinds of false statements were part of why prop 8 was overturned recently. The GOP is out of step with the majority opinion, especially in the younger demographic regardin same sex attraction and issues like overturning Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
Dog Gone said:
“I would put Bradlee Dean’s claims …”
and:
“The GOP is …”
You equate Bradlee Dean with the GOP. You are silly.
Dog Gone, you are wrong on two points. Not that we a difference of opinion, you are wrong.
-“Demonize” is not a verb you can redefine at will.
-The majority opinion is against gay marriage. How you can follow the statement that prop 8 — a measure supported by 52% of California voters — was overturned with the statement “The GOP is out of step with the majority opinion” demonstrates that you have no ability to reflect critically on what you think or what you write.
Below is a statement from Dean.
I would suggest, Dog Gone, that you read this short piece on the rhetorical principal of charity: http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html
“You’d need to be able to determine intent”
Nah. You could have a strict liability sort of law like products liability or statutory rape.
DG;
Once again, you show your value to the demonrat party as a useful idiot.
Prop 8 was overturned by a openly gay, therefore biased with extreme prejudice, judge. If he was truly a defender of the law, he would have recused himself, but, in true liberat fashion, he needed his 15 minutes of fame. If the fact that he overrode a law that was VOTED on and was implemented because more people voted FOR IT than against it, doesn’t scare the bejesus out of you, then please move to Cuba or another commie country, because that is where you will truly fit in!
You probably could accomplish the same result simply by overturning New York Times v. Sullivan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan
Prior to the Supreme Court inventing a new, heightened standard to sue the media, they were held to the same standards of accuracy and truth as anybody else. Repeal their special privilige to lie and voila, reporters cut out the editorial comments and stick to facts.
Which is all Conservatives wanted in the first place.
.
I find the whole Prop 8 thing very ironic. It wasn’t a law the state voted in favor of, it was changing their state constitution. The judge decreed that changing their state constitution was unconstitutional. Where do you go from there? One man just undid the majority wish, following all legally outlined channels, of millions of people. Poster child for judicial activism.
Bill
I am wading into dangerous Con Law territory here (im not planning on ever being a lawyer but if I was it would be Constitutional Law) but I believe the judgement wasn’t that changing the constitution of the state was illegal but that putting this particular provision in it “violates gay peoples rights”. The only similar case I can think of, is the flag burning case that went to SCOTUS. They determined, correctly I actually do believe, that the law itself was unconstitutional because it violated someones 1st amendment rights. I might be rare out there but I am a pure libertarian and believe this actually was the correct ruling. I also believe that the judge is wrong in the way the people who think flag burning should be illegal are wrong. Just because you don’t like the way some people act/voted doesn’t mean you can make it illegal/unconstitutional. Did that make any sense?