Zimmerman sues NBC

FlyLikeAnEagle

Well-Known Member
Oh and btw, FOX News has already set precedence about the media lying when they argued there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States when they were sued in 2003 for lying.


The Media Can Legally Lie
By Mike Gaddy
Writer for lewrockwell.com.​
[HR][/HR] In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox “Investigators” team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise.

According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox's actions to the FCC, they were both fired.(Project Censored #12 1997)

Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18, 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury's words) “a false, distorted or slanted story” about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows. They further maintained that she deserved protection under Florida's whistle blower law. Akre was awarded a $425,000 settlement. Inexplicably, however, the court decided that Steve Wilson, her partner in the case, was ruled not wronged by the same actions taken by FOX.

FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to Akre. The Court held that Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation." In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a "law, rule, or regulation," it was simply a "policy." Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.

During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob Linger commented, “It’s vindication for WTVT, and we’re very pleased… It’s the case we’ve been making for two years. She never had a legal claim.”

http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
What is that, an ultrasound or is it a toad layed own while another toad fucks it... could be a turtle.. or maybe one of those dinosaurs where they had the helmet thing on their head.

he should have bought some land somewhere so that he wouldn't have to be worried about being stalked and killed by mentally unstable vigilantes with histories of violence.
 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
oh noes! NBC cropped what he said and had their own experts weigh in on what they think he said! sue them!

this thing is going down in flames.
"Cropped" implies NBC cut off the beginning, or end of Z's statements on the call. They didn't. NBC cut out the middle of Z's statement. So, they lied. The only question is whether Z was harmed by their lie. They turned Z's account of a self defense homicide into what looked like murder with racism as the motive. NBC then went further with their "fucking coon" crap in furtherance of their frame job.

How much "harm" is done to a person who is framed for murder?
 

FlyLikeAnEagle

Well-Known Member
"Cropped" implies NBC cut off the beginning, or end of Z's statements on the call. They didn't. NBC cut out the middle of Z's statement. So, they lied. The only question is whether Z was harmed by their lie. They turned Z's account of a self defense homicide into what looked like murder with racism as the motive. NBC then went further with their "fucking coon" crap in furtherance of their frame job.

How much "harm" is done to a person who is framed for murder?
Framed?? There was another shooter we're not aware of?

Regardless, one has to be convicted of murder to have been framed of murder.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
"Cropped" implies NBC cut off the beginning, or end of Z's statements on the call. They didn't. NBC cut out the middle of Z's statement. So, they lied. The only question is whether Z was harmed by their lie. They turned Z's account of a self defense homicide into what looked like murder with racism as the motive. NBC then went further with their "fucking coon" crap in furtherance of their frame job.

How much "harm" is done to a person who is framed for murder?
so he got out of his truck and tracked the kid down and chased him and you call that self defense?

cool story, bro!

he did say 'fucking coons' by the way.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Good for Zimmy......now he can pay his lawyers. Hope he hits the lawsuit lottery!
how noble of him to profit from the death he caused!

why, i'm gonna go out tonight and chase someone down in self defense, kill them, and then sue anyone who makes me look like a monster for chasing down and killing an unarmed teen (self defense).

of course, i'll be sure to give the police 15,647 versions of what happened and then i'll make sure to sit there with a straight face as my wife lies to the court, lies that we orchestrated together well in advance of lying to the judge.

i will await your praise.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
i love how the trayvon martin case really shines a light on people like DEA dude and catrapist.

i mean, it was one thing when they just attached themselves to rawn pawl's nuts like a tick, it was another thing when they say stuff like blacks should just move somewhere else if they don't like being treated like second class citizens contrary to the constitution of the united states, it's something else when they argue for the rights of racist business owners over the rights of the public to expect equal treatment.

but to watch them lose their marbles over this case is just "aaaaahhhhhhhhh. refreshing!".
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
UncleFallacy,

1) Government should not provide transportation. That is retarded.
2) The only thing I walked into was your fallacies.
3) The buses were privately operated.

The issue was always that the government was discriminating - not that discrimination existed. Race is no different that being ugly/pretty or tall/short. You can't very well police peoples priva.. oh wait.. I forgot you are a statist.
the buses in montgomery were a public transportation system. do you understand what that means, catrapist?

and your stance on that was made clear: if blacks didn't like being forced to the back of the bus, they should have gone and purchased land somewhere that they didn't have to.

and how is it policing people's privacy when a business claims to be 'open to the public'?

keep massaging that statist hate boner, maybe get a rickety box and stand on a corner preaching ayn rand and we can put those blacks in their place one of these days! be the change you want to see in the world, clawfoot!
 

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
the buses in montgomery were a public transportation system. do you understand what that means, catrapist? the city of montgomery paid for those buses to run. idiot.

and your stance on that was made clear: if blacks didn't like being forced to the back of the bus, they should have gone and purchased land somewhere that they didn't have to.

and how is it policing people's privacy when a business claims to be 'open to the public'?

keep massaging that statist hate boner, maybe get a rickety box and stand on a corner preaching ayn rand and we can put those blacks in their place one of these days! be the change you want to see in the world, clawfoot!

They paid a private carrier to do a job. They specified the segregation. The government should not be specifying the segregation. If a company wishes to keep niggers off its buses, oh well. Fuck em, they can buy land in Niggerton.

You are a seriously retarded individual.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
They paid a private carrier to do a job. They specified the segregation. The government should not be specifying the segregation. If a company wishes to keep niggers off its buses, oh well. Fuck em, they can buy land in Niggerton.

You are a seriously retarded individual.
i don't care who specified the segregation on the PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, your solution to it was to have them uproot their lives and move somewhere else at their own expense and risk rather than simply make a law stopping the segregation.

so, you stand with whoever wants to treat others like second class citizens. your own posting history does you in on this one.

how do you not get this?
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
The government should not be specifying the segregation.
i find it difficult to reconcile this statement with your other statement that blacks should have just bought land somewhere else if they didn't like sitting on the back of the bus.

little help?
 

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
Eagle,

You have the IQ of a turnip. If Fox reported BGH were potentially dangerous, Monsanto could sue for libel, because of lack of conclusive evidence. Saying Zimmerman called Martin a coon is slander and libel. That case doesn't count as precedent for libel because there's not a party being slandered, even if you could prove it was 100% a lie. If Fox reported that monkeys came out of your butt every time you farted, that is without a doubt a lie, even if a court ruled it was allowed, it still wouldn't be precedent for allowing slander and immunity from libel. Derp. :dunce:
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
this is a hard case to prove because media in general have always been given a lot of leeway in terms of how they present stories.

this seems to be a case of predatory advice giving by the lawyer in this high profile case.... interesting to see what happens...
 

skunky33

Active Member
"Cropped" implies NBC cut off the beginning, or end of Z's statements on the call. They didn't. NBC cut out the middle of Z's statement. So, they lied. The only question is whether Z was harmed by their lie. They turned Z's account of a self defense homicide into what looked like murder with racism as the motive. NBC then went further with their "fucking coon" crap in furtherance of their frame job.

How much "harm" is done to a person who is framed for murder?
What NBC did to Zimmerman was wrong. Lets not confuse the situation, Zimmerman is a piece of shit, not some fucking hero. You always post some kind of Rush Limbaugh bullshit...You probably think FOX news is the greatest thing since Joe Mccarthy
 

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
i find it difficult to reconcile this statement with your other statement that blacks should have just bought land somewhere else if they didn't like sitting on the back of the bus.

little help?
You seem to have a problem seeing the difference between government and people. The government treating people differently is wrong. If the government owns and operates a bus service and it treats citizens differently by charging them different rates or by segregating them it is wrong. You are in complete agreement with this I would assume at this point. However, if someone said rich people should pay more to ride the bus then you would have a orgasm of joy and dance in circles for the opportunity to implement it. You would probably also support a white tax to 'equalize' the black and white people. The honest truth is that you make your decisions based on emotional response or just parrot what your leaders say.

On the other hand, I make my decisions based on the principles of private property and personal responsibility. The government's responsibility is to protect people from transgression by others. A private company running a bus line should be able to have whoever it wants as customers and whatever policies it wants - it does not cause any damage to anyone by refusing them service, it just simply does not help them. There is no way to justify forcing a person to give money, services, or attention to another person. Segregation and forced desegregation are the same thing - violations of the most basic human rights.

I think the thing that really makes your position look silly is that the bus lines themselves desegregated on their own - the issue was that the government wanted to force them to stay segregated. The free market had already fixed the problem and the government took steps to make the problem worse and keep it in existence. Businesses are so touchy about the consumers feelings towards them that they do whatever is necessary to keep the customer happy. You can change the world by your interactions with those around you, the government doesn't have to force anything.
 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
What NBC did to Zimmerman was wrong. Lets not confuse the situation, Zimmerman is a piece of shit, not some fucking hero. You always post some kind of Rush Limbaugh bullshit...You probably think FOX news is the greatest thing since Joe Mccarthy
Hallelujah! A lefty admits the obvious.

It is obvious that what NBC did was intentional, and that their intention was to ramp up a salacious story. NBC's actions after the edited recording was played, they fired three employees, demonstrates that they knew it was a lie. Z had not been charged with any crime before NBC played their piece of propaganda. A few days later they continued the narrative with their "fucking coons" reporting. To me, this demonstrates their intent to libel Z. After the edited tape was played multiple times and the "fucking coons" lie was played multiple times and the gullible public (i.e. the "low information" fools such as Unclebuck and yourself) was sufficiently pumped up with blood lust, Z was charged with murder 2. A few weeks later the feds got involved and investigated Z for "hate crimes".

The only question is whether Z was harmed by NBC's lie. How much harm is attached to being charged with murder, which carries a potential life sentence in prison? What compensation would you demand if you were libeled in this way and charged with murder as a result?

The only mention of "hero" I have seen here has come from you.
 
Top