"The central question here is whether a court is going to treat a blog as being the equivalent of a news organization," Kirtley said. She said a few appellate cases across the United States suggest that courts so far have accepted looser standards for blogs because of a conclusion that readers of blogs are skeptical and do not expect such sources to be completely factual.
What kind of bizarre reasoning is that? It’s OK to lie because your readers know you’re lying or at least suspect it????????????????
Does anyone get why this is not in the interest of a free press? Does anyone get how a free press can be destroyed by means of tolerating smears?
I can’t speak to the facts in this case because I do not know them. However, the day we tolerate deception and fraud under the pretext of a free press is the day we are finished as a society.
No comments:
Post a Comment