got you on tape

[mckinley arthur]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? texas

I was arrested on a child support warrant and the person I was arrested with was arrested for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. i was then taken out of the police car and filmed and had my pictures taken by the media. I was then taken into custody and question about a retail theft that i knew nothing about. I was then released without any charges. Two days later after i was released there was a news clip that aired on t.v and the internet and also an article show my involvement in an organized crime theft ring. It also show my picture. Now my family think im a criminal involved in organize crime and employers will not hire me thinking that im going to steal from them. what can i do?

 

[quincy]

If you were arrested on a child support warrant but you were later misidentified by the media as having involvement with an organized theft crime ring, you could very well have a defamation action you can pursue with success against the media organization that filmed the story.

I suggest you have the news film clip reviewed by, and go over all of the facts of your arrest with, an attorney in your area.

Defamation suits are notoriously expensive to pursue, especially when a suit is to be brought against a media group, but if the facts support a suit, it could be worthwhile for you to initiate such an action.

Good luck.

 

[HawaiianBurger]

No, the media has immunity from such stuff because they have no obligation to provide factual information to the public whom they advertise they are telling the truth to. As a side example, Fox News recently misconstrued a speech by Obama to convey entirely untruthful info in the name of supporting their agenda. You are not alone in this, but there is nothing that can be done.

 

[quincy]

HawaiianBurger, what you wrote is SO absolutely and unbelievably INCORRECT that I do not even know where to begin with corrections to what you wrote.

 

[HawaiianBurger]

HawaiianBurger, what you wrote is SO absolutely and unbelievably INCORRECT that I do not even know where to begin with corrections to what you wrote.

Go on...

It has been stated on this board many times before that the media does have immunity when it comes to actual facts. Essentially, no, they do not have to verify what they are saying is true. Which means that "accidents" do occur. Journalists, and thus the news station, are not obligated to be 100% truthful 100% of the time.

The Fox news thing was for reals. Remove thy tinfoil hat and do a bit of research, Quincy.

 

[Zigner]

Perhaps you need to become familiar with the facts of THIS thread. Media does enjoy a great amount of latitude/immunity...but it's not UNLIMITED.

Go on...

It has been stated on this board many times before that the media does have immunity when it comes to actual facts. Essentially, no, they do not have to verify what they are saying is true. Which means that "accidents" do occur. Journalists, and thus the news station, are not obligated to be 100% truthful 100% of the time.

The Fox news thing was for reals. Remove thy tinfoil hat and do a bit of research, Quincy.

 

[HawaiianBurger]

Perhaps you need to become familiar with the facts of THIS thread. Media does enjoy a great amount of latitude/immunity...but it's not UNLIMITED.

My apologies, I was taken back by Quincy's assertion of the complete incorrectness of my argument. Thanks for pointing to the gray area.

(one additional note: I noticed Quincy is not impressed by those not attempting to impress him)

 

[quincy]

HawaiianBurger, I apologize for the series of "." I generally do not respond to a post in that manner. I do NOT, however, apologize for my comment, because what you posted was a total piece of garbage.

You stated: "The media has immunity from such stuff. . ." and that statement is absolutely false. The media can be held legally liable, and has been held legally liable, for not only publishing defamatory statements but for republishing the defamatory statements of others.

The media is not above the law. They cannot trespass, commit fraud, invade privacy, infringe on copyrights or trademarks, disparage a business, or violate any other law when gathering the news or publishing the news, without risk of having legal action taken against them. There are numerous cases that have been brought against the media in the past and the media does not exactly win them all. This hardly seems like "immunity" to me.

There are some defenses to lawsuits that are commonly available to the media. These include three privileges: the "fair comment privilege," the "neutral report privilege" and the "fair and accurate report privilege." Not all three privileges are recognized in all states. When exercised properly, these privileges can be used by the media to successfully defend against a claim. When not exercised properly, the media can lose this defense.

You also said that the media has "no obligation to provide factual information to the public." That, too, is a false statement. The media has a legal, moral and ethical obligation to provide factual information to the public. To publish false statements of fact can get the media sued, and it is a sure fire way for whoever wrote and published the false information to lose his job. Accuracy is vital. Checking and verifying facts is vital. The truth, as much as it can be discerned, is vital.

Free speech has always had limits, and press freedoms have always been limited. In the situation described here by mckinley, the media seems to have overstepped the limits of free speech and published defamatory material about him. To determine this for sure, mckinley needs to consult with an attorney in his area. You said "there is nothing that can be done" but that is another false statement. There may, indeed, be something mckinley can do.

As for the tin foil hat, you are mistaken. I wasn't wearing the hat - I merely caught it as it flew off the head of boboconnor, who was being quickly escorted off the FreeAdvice premises. It appears "bobo" and a few of his friends failed to read the Terms of Service for this site, which prohibits the posting of false, defamatory, abusive, vulgar or harassing messages. Perhaps you may want to review the Terms of Service yourself? The tin foil hat is still available, by the way - and it appears to be just your size.



(one additional note: I noticed your signature, HawaiianBurger, is a direct quote from Wikipedia. Impressive.)