"Reason" has been biased against abusive policing (the ostensible cause of much of this summer's unrest) for years, even decades longer than many of this summer's self-righteous activists. In particular, "Reason" has long opposed the War on (Some) Drugs, which generates a disproportionate amount of ill-will between cops and fraught communities. (Cops enforcing Drug Prohibition tend to act as and be seen as occupiers, while cops arresting muggers and rapists tend to be seen as defenders). "Reason" also opposes (1) civil forfeiture without conviction for crime (aka robbery at badge-point), (2) militarization of police, and (3) Fourth Amendment violations, eg lying to get search warrants.
Some people are annoyed, however, when "Reason" calls out progressive fibs. For example, "Reason"s Robby Soave was one of the very first to research the tapes of the Covington Kids case and blow up the fable of MAGA-hat-wearing high-school bullies stalking a peace-loving native-American Vietnam veteran.
<sarc>
The First Amendment only restricts Congress (Go back and read it). Presidents still have the power to censor, as does any judge who wakes up with a bad toothache.
</sarc>
IANAL, but I see justification for tougher standards against police officers (or soldiers), empowered to use deadly force against the public, and other public servants without this special power.
The OP has a legitimate complaint that the sensationalist "settlement" coverage might encourage more shaky libel lawsuits. But I agree with your implied moral accounting.
In terms of ethics rather than libel case law, this was an underage kid (and his school) exposed to the full fury of the national Internet. The school were so scared (with good reason) that they threw the kid to the wolves (though they would take him back once the truth emerged). It used to be considered unethical to publish the identity of juvenile murderers; are kids belonging to disfavored groups (eg the Religious Right) to be treated worse?
Hugo S Cunningham (profile), 26 Jul 2020 @ 12:00pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Malpractice, but hardly the worst
So there are two Sandmanns suing the <i>Washington Post</i>? I was aware of one suing them about the Covington affair. What was the other one suing them about?
My comment was about coverage of the Sandmann/ Covington affair.
If I had brought in Walter Duranty's cover up of Stalin's Collectivization famine, then that would be arguably be whataboutism. But the original poster's phrase "as close to journalistic malpractice as any article I've seen" invites wider comparisons.
The NY "Post"s story is seriously misleading for the reason you stated, but hardly the worst. That distinction should go to false stories that harm or threaten real innocent people, like the original coverage of the fake Vietnam veteran's confrontation of Sandmann.
and have Calvin Coolidge's profile under the feathered headdress. (Google can help you find a famous photo of Cal in Indian headdress. Warned that people would laugh at him, he replied that a little laughter wouldn't do any harm.)
Academies depend on perception as everyone's good.
The Woke Left are on the march, particularly the next generation of graduate students. It is just a matter of mopping up, to impose Maoist thought-reform and self-criticism.
But will the story end there? Academies have had their ups and downs, but ultimately benefitted from a perception of basic decency: any parent would send their child there. If that perception ends, severe consequences could follow surprisingly quickly. The Right could join the populist Left in taxing university endowments. (Currently, there is a nuisance tax on endowment income, but higher taxes on principal as well would be perfectly legal.) Or, in a political culture dominated by the plaintiff's bar, veterans and others could be weaponized to file lawsuits. A few ten millions here, a few there, and before long even the oldest institutions would be dependent on annual tuition and legislative appropriations.
the possibly most harmful thing to spring from Trump's mouth, ever; "There are >very fine people on both sides" - about the KKK and the neo-nazis getting it on >with civil rights protestors in Charlottesville.
Trump's Presidency has been a disaster for the country. Nevertheless, his "fine people" statement was not about neo-Nazis (whom he specifically condemned at the same press conference), but rather about moderate statue-preservationists (and moderate statue opponents).
In the last few weeks, national opinion against Confederate statues has hardened, but Trump's "both sides" view was not radical when he expressed it last year (2009 April).
As another illustration of how quickly views can change, the following Trump remark at the same press conference was dismissed as hyperbole:
"So this week it’s Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?"
The defendant cell-phone owner is vile, having officially accused an innocent man of rape. If her criminal conviction is not feasible without decryption, perhaps her victim could be aided and encouraged to file a civil lawsuit, where privileges against self-incrimination do not apply. It would be a social good to have a public legal record somewhere of this woman's malignant and untrustworthy character, lest she try to abuse the legal system again.
.
Hugo S Cunningham (profile), 22 Jun 2020 @ 10:05am
Million-dollar unjobs
Budget deficit hawks (a dying breed) have ridiculed "million-dollar jobs" from questionable government "investments." Trust AT&T and their lobbyists to come up with "million-dollar unjobs" (more precisely, 1.024 million-dollar unjobs).
On the post: Appeals Court Reinstates Injunction Blocking Federal Agents From Assaulting Portland Journalists
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Reason" has been biased against abusive policing (the ostensible cause of much of this summer's unrest) for years, even decades longer than many of this summer's self-righteous activists. In particular, "Reason" has long opposed the War on (Some) Drugs, which generates a disproportionate amount of ill-will between cops and fraught communities. (Cops enforcing Drug Prohibition tend to act as and be seen as occupiers, while cops arresting muggers and rapists tend to be seen as defenders). "Reason" also opposes (1) civil forfeiture without conviction for crime (aka robbery at badge-point), (2) militarization of police, and (3) Fourth Amendment violations, eg lying to get search warrants.
Some people are annoyed, however, when "Reason" calls out progressive fibs. For example, "Reason"s Robby Soave was one of the very first to research the tapes of the Covington Kids case and blow up the fable of MAGA-hat-wearing high-school bullies stalking a peace-loving native-American Vietnam veteran.
On the post: Appeals Court Reinstates Injunction Blocking Federal Agents From Assaulting Portland Journalists
Re: Re:
Freedom is slavery...
(I thought Orwell was just having fun, but apparently not...)
On the post: Congress, With Nothing Important On Its Hands, Seeks To Rush Through Nomination Of Anti-230 FCC Commissioner
Re: Re:
<sarc>
The First Amendment only restricts Congress (Go back and read it). Presidents still have the power to censor, as does any judge who wakes up with a bad toothache.
</sarc>
On the post: Appeals Court Reinstates Injunction Blocking Federal Agents From Assaulting Portland Journalists
https://reason.com/2020/09/04/youre-not-allowed-to-film-the-fight-for-control-over-who-reports-from- portland/
Will the judge issue an injunction against progressives who block reporting of Portland unrest?
On the post: Internet Of Broken Things Jumps The Shark With IoT Chastity Penis Lock That Can Be Hacked
Re: You know...
Can the same people receive both Darwin Awards and Ig Nobel Prizes?
On the post: Federal Court Temporarily Extends The NYPD's Famous Opacity, Blocks Release Of Misconduct Records
Re: sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander, right?
Be careful what you wish for.
Any regime that likes to "disappear" people would be happy to respect privacy in this way...
On the post: Appeals Court: City Employee's Horrific Facebook Posts About Tamir Rice Shooting Were Likely Protected Speech
Re:
IANAL, but I see justification for tougher standards against police officers (or soldiers), empowered to use deadly force against the public, and other public servants without this special power.
On the post: NY Post's Journalistic Malpractice: Misleading Reporting On Nick Sandmann's Washington Post Settlement
Re:
Greta Thunberg actively sought personal publicity.
On the post: NY Post's Journalistic Malpractice: Misleading Reporting On Nick Sandmann's Washington Post Settlement
Re:
The OP has a legitimate complaint that the sensationalist "settlement" coverage might encourage more shaky libel lawsuits. But I agree with your implied moral accounting.
On the post: NY Post's Journalistic Malpractice: Misleading Reporting On Nick Sandmann's Washington Post Settlement
Re:
In terms of ethics rather than libel case law, this was an underage kid (and his school) exposed to the full fury of the national Internet. The school were so scared (with good reason) that they threw the kid to the wolves (though they would take him back once the truth emerged). It used to be considered unethical to publish the identity of juvenile murderers; are kids belonging to disfavored groups (eg the Religious Right) to be treated worse?
On the post: NY Post's Journalistic Malpractice: Misleading Reporting On Nick Sandmann's Washington Post Settlement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Malpractice, but hardly the worst
So there are two Sandmanns suing the <i>Washington Post</i>? I was aware of one suing them about the Covington affair. What was the other one suing them about?
On the post: NY Post's Journalistic Malpractice: Misleading Reporting On Nick Sandmann's Washington Post Settlement
Re: Re: Malpractice, but hardly the worst
My comment was about coverage of the Sandmann/ Covington affair.
If I had brought in Walter Duranty's cover up of Stalin's Collectivization famine, then that would be arguably be whataboutism. But the original poster's phrase "as close to journalistic malpractice as any article I've seen" invites wider comparisons.
On the post: NY Post's Journalistic Malpractice: Misleading Reporting On Nick Sandmann's Washington Post Settlement
Malpractice, but hardly the worst
The NY "Post"s story is seriously misleading for the reason you stated, but hardly the worst. That distinction should go to false stories that harm or threaten real innocent people, like the original coverage of the fake Vietnam veteran's confrontation of Sandmann.
On the post: No, Trademark Trolls Collecting Various Fake Names For A Washington Football Team Will Not Get In The Way Of The NFL Team's Renaming
Re: What could go wrong
and have Calvin Coolidge's profile under the feathered headdress. (Google can help you find a famous photo of Cal in Indian headdress. Warned that people would laugh at him, he replied that a little laughter wouldn't do any harm.)
On the post: EFF, Orin Kerr Ask The Supreme Court To Prevent Turning The CFAA Into A Convenient Way To Punish Site Users, Security Researchers
Re:
galambosian dot com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Joseph_Galambos#Intellectual_property
On the post: Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced
Academies depend on perception as everyone's good.
The Woke Left are on the march, particularly the next generation of graduate students. It is just a matter of mopping up, to impose Maoist thought-reform and self-criticism.
But will the story end there? Academies have had their ups and downs, but ultimately benefitted from a perception of basic decency: any parent would send their child there. If that perception ends, severe consequences could follow surprisingly quickly. The Right could join the populist Left in taxing university endowments. (Currently, there is a nuisance tax on endowment income, but higher taxes on principal as well would be perfectly legal.) Or, in a political culture dominated by the plaintiff's bar, veterans and others could be weaponized to file lawsuits. A few ten millions here, a few there, and before long even the oldest institutions would be dependent on annual tuition and legislative appropriations.
On the post: Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced
Trump's "fine people" Was: Re: Re:
SDM wrote:
Trump's Presidency has been a disaster for the country. Nevertheless, his "fine people" statement was not about neo-Nazis (whom he specifically condemned at the same press conference), but rather about moderate statue-preservationists (and moderate statue opponents).
https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-side s-remarks/
In the last few weeks, national opinion against Confederate statues has hardened, but Trump's "both sides" view was not radical when he expressed it last year (2009 April).
As another illustration of how quickly views can change, the following Trump remark at the same press conference was dismissed as hyperbole:
"So this week it’s Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?"
On the post: Indiana Supreme Court Says Compelled Decryption Of Smartphones Violates The Fifth Amendment
Hard cases ...
The defendant cell-phone owner is vile, having officially accused an innocent man of rape. If her criminal conviction is not feasible without decryption, perhaps her victim could be aided and encouraged to file a civil lawsuit, where privileges against self-incrimination do not apply. It would be a social good to have a public legal record somewhere of this woman's malignant and untrustworthy character, lest she try to abuse the legal system again.
.
On the post: Judge Sides With Twitter Over Devin Nunes In Case Over Satirical Internet Cow: Section 230 Removes Twitter From Frivolous Case
If the guilty cow is not identified
The whole Iowa herd will be sent to the knackers. Their final moos of terror will be forever on the judge's conscience.
On the post: AT&T Has Now Eliminated 41,000 Jobs Since Its $42 Billion Trump Tax Cut
Million-dollar unjobs
Budget deficit hawks (a dying breed) have ridiculed "million-dollar jobs" from questionable government "investments." Trust AT&T and their lobbyists to come up with "million-dollar unjobs" (more precisely, 1.024 million-dollar unjobs).
Next >>