Dear Trend lover, suppose you are walking through the hood (assuming you're a white girl) anda group of black teens or even one black teen is walking toward you and you decide to cross the street, to avoid this person. You have judged that person. I only used this as an example but I'm sure you have been in a situation where you have trusted your gut instinct to "avoid" an uncomfortable situation with a person or persons. You are guilty as Zimmerman...... Now tell me you've never done this. We all have.
Trendlover lives in China. She has no concept of what a black neighboorhood is like. She has probably never even seen a black person in the flesh.
There are too many incidents to list. Either they're not asking the questions that need to be asked, or they're embellishing , fabricating information out of thin air, or mis-informing about some story they have no business in. Funny thing, it all seems to favor the Dear Leader and his Ministry of Truth. Used to be they were the man behind the curtain. Now there is no curtain and the crazy thing is, they tore the curtain down themselves. They have exposed themselves as blatent leftists without apology, and couldn't care less what anyone thinks.
This case reads like a first year law school exam. The Supreme Court ruled decades ago that "public figures" can only win defamation cases if they prove actual malice. Malice is defined basically as knowingly publishing harmful untruths or a reckless disregard for truth. Zimmerman is the classic accidental public figure. He's not a politician or celeb, just an ordinary guy who became a public figure because the media made him one. There have been some cases on this, but I don't know how they came out. Let's assume he is a public figure. NBC will argue that what they broadcast was factual. They were his own words, after all. They will argue that editing decisions are at the core of First Amendment protections, and they shouldn't be second-guessed by courts. Zimmerman will argue that malice is actually established by the fact his words were taken out of context to make it seem as if he had said something totally different. In a sense, it is more damaging to use his own words to paint a false picture rather than to just accuse him of racism. I am not sure what Florida law requires regarding proof of actual damages in this type of case. There is a category of libel that usually does not require proof of damages, eg accusations of committing serious crimes, etc. If he does have to prove actual damages, that could be difficult. NBC will argue that his problems stemmed fromt he shooting itself, his arrest and the public uproar, and not from their report. I see this as a very close case. Normal people would have no difficulty saying he was defamed and NBC should pay big, but the law bends over backwards to protect the mainstream media. Add in liberal judges and he has a problem. ps. Before we get too outraged over this, how do you feel about the black woman who worked for the USDA and gave a speech about how she hated white people? A conservative media outfit published it but left out the part where she said she helped white people despite her feelings. The argument was they took her words out of context too.
And Ms. Sherrod was rewarded quite handsomely. We'll see how a leftist judical system works when the victim is not black, but as the media protrayed him, a "white hispanic". http://www.sodahead.com/united-stat...3mil-win-in-lawsuit-against-usda/blog-382245/ I know the cases are dis-similar in the basis of the suit brought, but you get my drift.
Depends. And none of the side stuff matters (conservative or liberal media, white or black man or woman, hating whites or blacks). Did they fundamentally present her words as saying something very different than what she actually said? And is that new presentation damaging? Further, did she suffer real damages that we can put a price tag on? WAY too little data to go on, IMO.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nutmeg, you are right if I am walking to the train at night for example in the city, I will be afraid if I am alone and I see group of black or white boys. I will cross the street if I think they look mean. But this is not what happened with Trayvon. He is only one boy walking. George Zimmerman is not walking, he is in his car and he have his gun. And he follow Trayvon. And I think Trayvon know someone follow him. Some older man is following him in the car. George Zimmerman never see crime nutmeg, he never see that crime. And George is never walking alone and have no gun, and with many teenagers walking toward him. He is safe in his car with his gun. And he judge one boy walking. And it is only 7:00pm so is not like that is the strange to see someone walking.
Nutmeg, is really different. Because if I am walking alone to the train and I see group of boys walking to me, I will feel afraid. So I will cross the street. But I know I will never think is fact they will hurt me. I do not know, so I cross the street. But George Zimmerman is only seeing Trayon walking, and he call the police? He tell them Trayvon is suspicious? Then he is "These assholes always get away" George have judged guilty. Then he follow that boy with his gun. He kill him. What if that is YOUR brother? Or YOUR son?