"Faux Noose: We Aren't Even Trying Any More!"

[theweaselking]

Comments

[leighdb.livejournal.com]

Oh, for God's sake.

[anivair.livejournal.com]

wow ... isn't there some way you can sue a company for putting out news under the guise of truth?

Or maybe for libel? Are they constantly fending off libel suits?

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

isn't there some way you can sue a company for putting out news under the guise of truth?

Why yes! There was - and Fox successfully argued in court that the law didn't actually require them to tell the truth, and so they could lie with impunity without being subject to any legal liability.

Are they constantly fending off libel suits?

Where's the libel?

[mrbankies.livejournal.com]

...




They should just change their name and fess up to what they are - Republican Propaganda Channel

[anivair.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure that making that sort of negative connection isn't covered under lible. it's not as if they don't know what they're doing. At the very least someone ought to sue them for needless defamation of character.

[giza.livejournal.com]

In this case, that someone would have to be the damaged party, namely Obama and/or Biden.

The challenge here is that under US defamation laws, the more of a "public figure" you are, the less protection you have (i.e., the more damages you would have to prove in court). IANAL, but my understanding is that the law is written that way so that people can still criticize their elected officials, etc., without fear of being sued by them for a single offhand comment. And I think we can all agree that Obama and Biden are public figures.

Is FOX crossing the line in this case? Maybe. But it would take a protracted court battle to find out, and I think Obama is busy with other things right now. ;-)

[anivair.livejournal.com]

No maybe. fox is crossing the line. It's just a matter of it being too inconvenient to call them to task on it, i think. good point.

[unclebebby.livejournal.com]

I'm actually really pissed off at FOX News right now. You'd think with all the media money they'd have, they haven't designed a program so that anything footage of Obama will cause a turban and an ak-47 to be drawn with him.

Because seriously, if all they are doing is throwing out speculations, well, that's just lazy reporting.

[chaosrah.livejournal.com]

well, if he loses the election, wouldn't that be considered damages?

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

That's all they ever do, isn't it?

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

#1: Are you going to wait until then to complain?

You have to complain about DAMAGES. Not "potential damages".

#2: Are you seriously going to have a presidential candidate argue that the *sole reason* he lost was the "insignificant" "mistakes" of America's Finest News Source? You're going to just give, outright, that kind of ammunition to the propagandists?

[zastrazzi.livejournal.com]

Out of curiosity, why is a Faux News image in a CNN Sucks folder? :)

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

"CNN Sucks" is the name of the folder for all my news screencaps, since the original images that needed separation were:

[chaosrah.livejournal.com]

hm. guess that would make him seem like a sore loser, right?

i guess he's just fucked.

[fortysevenbteg.livejournal.com]

Haha, haven't seen that second one before. :)

[elffin.livejournal.com]

Here's the thing:

There is, legally, in the screenshot above, neither libel nor slander.

Obama and Biden are both public figures, so there is less they can do under the law about negative portrayals than a private citizen can.

The screenshot above: Entirely legal under US law.

It is also completely and utterly immoral, unethical, vile, despicable, a complete and utter abuse of the Socratic method, out-and-out /ad hominem/, the worst kind of propaganda, intellectual smut, cock-Goebbeling of the GOP interests, an end-run around all civilised discourse and common decency and a declaration of complete cultural genocide.

[elffin.livejournal.com]

Under US law, Obama and Biden are both public figures, so there is far less that they can do about negative portrayals than a private citizen can.

[silmaril.livejournal.com]

Now tell us how you really feel about it.

(Or, actually, don't. Just know that I am doing a standing ovation, here.)

[autobotsrollout.livejournal.com]

You have to complain about DAMAGES. Not "potential damages".

Actually, the legal system does recognize "loss of a chance" as a genuine damage, although I agree there's no case here for other reasons already mentioned.

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

I'm calling Photoshop--but reposting anyway.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

My point is, he can't claim that he's lost the chance *because of Fox News' lies*.

Partly because he isn't, and partly because even if he was, he *can't*

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

It's real. There's gootoobery of it.

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

I can't find it. Do you have a link?


Yes, I know I'm asking to to compensate for my poor research skills. I haven't had caffeine yet.

[harald387.livejournal.com]

Cock-Goebbeling. Ooh, I'm gonna remember that one.

[publius1.livejournal.com]

Yes -- that is coinage gold.

[giza.livejournal.com]

Again, I'm not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV), but my understanding of the law in question is that he would have to prove that FOX's comments played a significant role in him losing the election. That would be a real challenge. FOX could just as easily say in their defense that they didn't cause him to lose the election, and that John McCain's attack ads did.

I think it sucks, but having once been on the receiving end of legal threats from an elected official over a blog post, I can appreciate the fact that our defamation laws seem to be slanted in favor of citizens and not politicians.

[reyl.livejournal.com]

Whenever you post, I always think there's a 1985 Judd Nelson on John's f-list. Then I remember that it's 2008 and he's probably not as cool as you. The Nintendo light gun doesn't help my temporal confusion. Please don't shoot me.

[itlandm.livejournal.com]

As if the Democrats had not noticed this the first time they wrote "Obama/Biden" on a flyer or website. Human brains, pattern matching. You don't exactly need to be clever to come up with that one, just slightly blurry-eyed. So what is the political significance of that? I can't count the times my brain has matched George BUSH AND DICK Cheney, but this has had zero influence on my political views.

Whether a spoof or not, this can do nothing but make Fox News look stupid.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

Schroedinger's Terrorist.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

You'll notice the association was posed in the form of a question, not a statement. Making a statement to that effect would open you up to possible legal liability. Posing a question does not, since it implies that Faux is just asking a question.

Really, see Outfoxed for more on those idiots. The question posing is part of their standard MO.

[harald387.livejournal.com]

Fox News doesn't need help looking stupid.

[pope-guilty.livejournal.com]

Thirding the love for cock-Gorbbeling.

[the-colombian.livejournal.com]

All you gotta do is add a question mark and you're good to go.

Example:

"Osama Bin Laden Obama's Lover?"

[glitteringlynx.livejournal.com]

Not the first time on my friends' list I've seen that correlation. The first time was someone posting right after the announcement of Biden and how they were not happy about the nomination of him as VP as a result of Obama/Biden looking like "Osama bin Laden."

Sorry, I don't see it even if I TRY.

[dewhitton.livejournal.com]

Words fail me.

[corruptedjasper.livejournal.com]

Well, Osama and Obama are pretty much the same thing, by repeated fox news assertion, and bin laden minus LA equals Biden.

OMG, they're going to nuke LA.