It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
www.fromthewilderness.com...
Accepting a defense rejected by three other Florida state judges on at least six separate motions, a Florida appeals court has reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information.
In a six-page written decision released February 14, the court essentially ruled the journalist never stated a valid whistle- blower claim because, they ruled, it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.
In the lawsuit filed in 1998, Akre claimed she was wrongfully terminated for threatening to blow the whistle to the FCC. After a five-week trial that ended August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that she was indeed fired for threatening report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows.
Continued....
We agree with WTVT that
the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news – which the FCC has
called its “news distortion policy” – does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or
regulation” under section 448.102.
The FCC has never published its news distortion policy as a regulation
with definitive elements and defenses. Instead, the FCC has developed the policy
through the adjudicatory process in decisions resolving challenges to broadcasters’
licenses.
Continued....
www.2dca.org...
Originally posted by djohnsto77
Yeah, Dan Rather would be in jail now if it was against the law to lie on the air.
Originally posted by ArchAngel
Legal precedant has been established.
The media can lie to you all they want because the FCC News Distortion Policy is not a law, or rule, or regulation.
Originally posted by Nygdan
THere is no law that requires anyone to be honest, ever.
Originally posted by df1
Originally posted by Nygdan
THere is no law that requires anyone to be honest, ever.
Actually there is a law we could use on the media. We could place a judge at certified media outlets and swear in the news commentators/reporters, then if they lie we could prosecute them under the perjury laws. If that goes well we could expand its use in political campaigns.
What do you think?
Originally posted by Skibum
Originally posted by df1
Originally posted by Nygdan
THere is no law that requires anyone to be honest, ever.
Actually there is a law we could use on the media. We could place a judge at certified media outlets and swear in the news commentators/reporters, then if they lie we could prosecute them under the perjury laws. If that goes well we could expand its use in political campaigns.
What do you think?
I think that would probably be viewed as infringing on the first amendment.
As long as slander or libel is not involved I don't know of much that could be done.
Originally posted by Nygdan
Its allways been permissible for them to report false news. THere is no law that requires anyone to be honest, ever.
from gbr.pepperdine.edu...
Businesspersons must be especially aware of the federal lying statute contained in Title 18 of the U.S. Code Section 1001, which states that: “(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any judicial matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years or both.”[17]
Under this statute it is a crime to knowingly and willfully make any materially false statement concerning any matter within the jurisdiction of the United States. The falsehood must be material; but this requirement is met if the statement has the “natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of influencing the decision of the decision making body” which receives the false statement.[18] This statute has an extraordinarily wide scope. Unlike perjury, the false statement need not be given under oath. Any statement, whether made orally or in writing, can violate this law.