Class action lawsuit aginst the MSM? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Class action lawsuit aginst the MSM?


RonS
10-02-2012, 16:21
I have been wondering about this. The old saw is that you can sue anyone for anything. The liberal media is out of control, there is no check on their lies and manipulations and they have been playing kingmaker for years to the detriment of the nation and the people as a group and as individuals.

Would it be possible for citizens to form a group and raise funds to support lawsuits aginst media outlets that are caught in outright lies and deception?

jeanderson
10-02-2012, 16:25
You're dreaming. Damn near impossible to prove anything. Their worst crime is what they don't report about the most corrupt presidency in U. S. history.

Gundude
10-02-2012, 16:29
Would it be possible for citizens to form a group and raise funds to support lawsuits aginst media outlets that are caught in outright lies and deception?It's not against the law for media outlets to lie or deceive. There is no legal distinction between fiction and non-fiction. There's no legal reason the "news" has to be any more factually accurate than CSI or South Park.

If they lie about a specific person or organization and that person suffers damages as a result, that person can sue.

But besides that, there's no basis to sue them on.

IvanVic
10-02-2012, 17:10
Suing someone for free speech because you don't like their message? Good god, this country is in trouble.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

RonS
10-02-2012, 17:53
Suing someone for free speech because you don't like their message? Good god, this country is in trouble.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

No, not because I don't like their message. If they want to express opinions, or report only what they want to report that is their right and I support it fully.

They are editing photographs (Zimmerman), audio/video footage (Romney), making up quotes (Palin, last election) for the purpose of harming the victims. Free speech does not give you the right to commit slander and libel. Harm was done and is being done to these people by media executives who are knowingly making false statements with the intent to cause harm.

I think all the elements are present for a solid civil suit against individuals in the mass media.

sbhaven
10-02-2012, 17:58
Suing someone for free speech because you don't like their message? Good god, this country is in trouble.
Since they cannot sue, next you'll hear calls for laws that restrict what the MSM can say...

To the OP. With freedom comes the fact that you may not like what someone does with that freedom. Just remember if you could successfully sue a news organization for their content, so can the "other side" of the political spectrum. Don't like what the MSM has to say? You have several options, easiest of which is to change the channel and find another news outlet. The Internet is full of them now. Or you could always start your own news organization and run the news you see fit to print/televise.
:dunno:

coastal4974
10-02-2012, 18:37
I would prefer criminal charges.

Gundude
10-02-2012, 18:42
Harm was done and is being done to these people by media executives who are knowingly making false statements with the intent to cause harm.Then those people should sue. The "class" in a class action suit is everybody who was harmed by the action, not those who were simply pissed off by it.

Clutch Cargo
10-02-2012, 18:43
You cannot sue someone who controls the flow of information. They would simply turn off/redirect the flow

RonS
10-02-2012, 18:54
Maybe I'm dense here but I think a line has been crossed from protected free speech into something else.

If I owned a newspaper in Joetown and I wrote a news story that I knew to be a complete fabrication claiming that the owner of Joetown Bank and Trust was a thief and had felony convictions and the bank went out of business as a result, is that free speech?

If I created a video tape and dubbed in a voice actor to make it sound like a local politician had made racist statements, knowing that it was not true, and that individual lost an election, and thus his job, is that free speech?

I think the mass media has met all five tests for defamation.

The statements were published.

They knew that they were false.

The victim was directly identified.

The statements were defamatory.

They harmed the victim.

If the media constantly thows elections to the left, does what that does to the economy, taxes, our jobs, our civil liberties not constitute harm?

Where is the check on the power of the media?

Fracball
10-02-2012, 19:24
Since they rely on revenues to exist, seems it would be more effective, and relatively easier, to target their revenue sources.

Gundude
10-02-2012, 21:05
Where is the check on the power of the media?It's between your ears. The media can't make you do anything or believe anything.

The courts shouldn't be enlisted to forgive people their own stupidity. You'd probably agree the courts have gone way too far down that road already. Is going even further the answer?

concretefuzzynuts
10-02-2012, 21:07
It falls under the 1st Amendment protection.

IvanVic
10-03-2012, 05:37
No, not because I don't like their message.

So are you also hoping there are class action lawsuits against right wing websites/talk radio hosts that do the same thing?

Again, nothing they are doing is illegal. It's amazing that someone would actually want to live in a world where free speech is attacked just because you may not like their message, or they may not be telling the truth.

G29Reload
10-03-2012, 11:26
I have been wondering about this. The old saw is that you can sue anyone for anything. The liberal media is out of control, there is no check on their lies and manipulations and they have been playing kingmaker for years to the detriment of the nation and the people as a group and as individuals.

Would it be possible for citizens to form a group and raise funds to support lawsuits aginst media outlets that are caught in outright lies and deception?

No. lawsuits can be dismissed too.
Free speech still exists.
There is no duty and obligation to provide you with anything.