 |
| Is the media always right? |
Interesting that it appears, from this initial case management report, that the case will continue into August of 2025. I'm told this sort of a document is standard and is subject to change and revisions as the case progresses. In speaking with multiple attorneys on this matter, I am told that it is a novel area of law--replevin of data-- and there is a lot of research to be done.
The Gannett motion for dismissal was filed as well, in addition to the assignment of an attorney for Jonathan Owens.
It will be interesting to watch how this proceeds and how the parallel investigation into the theft of the files from the county and the associated crime of multiple individuals' possession of personal identification information, which appears to be a Felony as the information possessed unauthorized contains records on more than 5 individuals, intermixes with this civil trial.
A lot of people believe the media can do anything they want, anytime they want, to anybody they want with reckless abandon and disregard for the truth and regardless of damage their actions cause. After all, who holds them accountable?
Maybe they are right?
I believe that is too much power to give to anyone, even the media. Others agree.
Meanwhile that question simmers as this case is simply about retrieving stolen property. People still have to answer questions though, under oath, so who knows what additional information comes from this civil case and bleeds over into other cases and investigations? Remember, don't lie under oath in this case, or to investigators in another parallel investigation......
Back to the media's unfettered right to do anything they want----I don't know the answer to that question but I did follow the multiple lawsuits filed by one student against the titans of media for a combined total of nearly a billion dollars for the media's feckless, reckless, inappropriate way they collectively distorted the truth about what happened at a Washington DC rally in 2019.
The media also paid a large settlement when apparently baseless assertions about the accuracy of voting systems from one company were spouted by at least one large cable news network. They paid a large settlement for the damage they caused in that case, too.
So sometimes the media don't get everything they want. Sometimes they lose.
And I know this: most in this area have a negative perception of the PNJ and the PNJ know it. Garbage like this current situation reinforces that sentiment, demonstrated also by PNJ's diminishing subscriber base and their associated revenue losses.
Commissioner Bergosh, a sincere thanks for the update, and a tongue-in-cheek thanks for implicitly making the case that there is no reason to pull down the protections of NYT vs Sullivan--or run the unconstitutional garbage Andrade is running--to hold media accountable. Fox could in the end go bankrupt (and, IMHO, that should be their fate) from all of the pending suits their constant libel and countless lies have brought cascading onto them.
ReplyDeleteI'm sticking firm that while some of what the PNJ has reported so far has been really distasteful and unnecessary--the worst form of pandering to the lowest common denominator (e.g. the texts with your wife), what they have printed would be ruled in any court of law to be public record.
Are they biased in their cherry picking? Of course; their first goal is to increase membership (and every time you complain about them, it probably gains them a handful more subscriptions). The act of publishing your texts on redistricting wasn't a hack job, but the surround arguably was, as they led the public to believe that they were seeing a law being broken when they know that it wasn't. Bias isn't illegal, however.
It will be really interesting to see how this gets ruled on per them receiving stolen property, as the more I read on that case law, the more it reveals itself to be a hot mess. But I agree with you 100% that they should not be able to retain the private and sensitive content, and that they should have turned it over to the police when they recognized it was fishy--that's what more ethical news sources would have done, and have done.
Interesting that Gannett is bringing SLAPP. Hopefully this will result in some good, rather than destructive, case law in protecting free speech while not allowing criminal activity. I haven't looked into case law in SLAPP since we were done dispensing with Edler's suit against me, but if not much has changed, their lawyers won't have a lot of precedent to go on.
It wouldn't be a surprise if Gannett manages to peel themselves off the case. While it's clear that will bother you immensely, as far as I'm concerned every blog post that focuses on them is one more red herring away from where the real focus should be: Jonathan Owens, Alex Arduini, and whoever else the depositions lead to--*especially* whatever County staff was involved with Team Doug having more access and influence than they should have over the years. I really hope that everybody at the County has got stuff locked down and that the new IT director has got his thumb on things. Kohler and Stroberger won't hesitate to use any means they can to dig in; creating chaos seems to be their one and only objective. At least Doug tried to steal some money from the board every once in a while to get stuff for his neighborhood. These two just seem to gravitate towards pissing into the wind for the hell of it.
Is an employees/commissioners retirement election form a public record?
ReplyDeleteToday's forecast is gloom and doom with a nice negative outlook. Its so sad thats all some people have to do is look at all the bad things in life. I think being happy lets look at the positive side of life. We live in the best country we a free nation free speech . I think one person really misses Doug Underhill it makes them sad that he no longer a county commissioner. The person wont admit it but they really enjoyed fighting with Doug for over 3 years. I know down deep inside they both really liked each other.
ReplyDeleteYou are a constant shit show and embarrassment to anyone looking to move to our community
ReplyDeleteWell this won't be the first time this area challenged the first ammendment to the constitution of the USA. Prevailed with Becket on one clause. Don't have to scrub the publics square of a cross.
ReplyDeleteGo for it.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-9-1/ALDE_00000395/
Says the press doesn't have a right to docs the public doesn't have a right to.
Last paragraph. Says
"Several Supreme Court holdings firmly point to the conclusion that the free press clause does not confer on the press the power to compel government to furnish information or otherwise give the press access to information that the public generally does not have."
Gannett just put that anti slapp there as a matter of record.
I don't think it applies.
Stay in office and get it done.
Chief Justice Burger's quote is compelling also.
ReplyDeleteI think it appropriate that one of your past fellow board members challenged the first ammendment and prevailed at SCOTUS. Try to keep up. đŸ˜‰
First City.
Maybe that's your real destiny.
Mel Pino maybe you and Steven Stroberger should gown down the isle as Husband and Wife it would give you someone to argue with. I am sure yall could live happily ever after. Im sure you would get lessons on being proper housewife. Im sure ole Douf would walk you down the isle.
ReplyDeleteWho's needs an AI generator to dumb it down when we have our own Eric chiming in.
ReplyDeleteNYT vs Sullivan is, quite literally, the only case law that actually, materially upholds the right to free speech in this country. It's not just media protection; it's protection for free speech period. That's why they want to do away with it--the poison pill is that *nobody's* free speech will be protected. That's why my attorneys argued from that basis during Edler's suit. The whole reason the Supreme Court had to hear that case to begin with is there is *not* enough protection for free speech enshrined in our constitution.
ReplyDeleteAll that said, I have no doubt that the GOP will go after it and could very well use Andrade's bill they've got him running as the springboard. Clarence Thomas is absolutely drooling over blowing away more rights, so they're trying to get it shopped up to him.
No.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39
The media should be held to a higher standard. Printing falsehoods and stolen data should not be tolerated.
ReplyDeleteChecks and Balances.
Another gloom and doom forecast spreading FUD makes them happy. We need focus on the good and positive things in our country. Being pessimistic means that you tend to see the worst parts of things or think the worst will happen. A pessimistic person is one who is often seen as lacking hope and joy and is marked by disbelief or distrust. Basically, to be pessimistic means expecting the worst in all situations.
ReplyDeleteNegative self-talk can be devastating for your mental well-being. It undercuts your motivation, leaves you susceptible to mental health problems, and makes it harder to be successful in life. Fortunately, you can take steps to change negative thoughts into more realistic or positive ones.
How do you cheer up a pessimist?
Acknowledge Their Point of View
Use active listening skills , and give your pessimists time to explain their thoughts. Keep an open mind, and try to be objective about what they say.
Signs of Pessimism
Expecting the worst in a situation.
Experiencing surprise when a situation turns out well.
Becoming annoyed with those who are optimistic.
Not exploring things due to fears of failure.
Thinking negative thoughts or engaging in negative self-talk.
Low self-esteem.
Why do people become pessimistic?
Pessimism can develop to evolve from a few different sources and variables. There is some research that supports the finding that genetics may predispose some people to be pessimistic. Family upbringing and role modeling have also been shown to shape pessimism often by years of exposure to other people's negativity.
What does a pessimist see?
A pessimist is someone who always looks on the dark side of things, and thinks about all the negative outcomes of an event or situation. They tend to dwell on this, which can be very draining for them and others around them
For heaven sake lets look the bright side of life. I know for some people its not possible to do.
The constitution allows free speech. Which is the right to redress government. Make no law. Get rid of Times vs Sullivan.
ReplyDeleteIt granted too much over reach to the press at a time where people actually trusted the free press to not purposely print lies.
People don't even understand free speech.
And also the county should not have given Edlers drivers license number in a sunshine request.
It was unlawful to possess that. And publish it. On facebook.
Also HR and Aministrator doesn't need to pass documents to the PNJ regarding employee discipline.
Also one don't publish the insides of people's bathrooms and children's bedrooms complete with stuffed animals in an attempt to intimidate.
And in tort law you don't interfere with someone's contractual career.
Everything isn't black and white. And red all over.
The first ammendment enshrined free speech. Make no law. In other words Times vs Sullivan will be repealed.
ReplyDelete.
6:35 I agree that the media shouldn't post any material that's stolen unless that material falls under public record, because nobody can technically steal record that is actually public.
ReplyDeleteNYT vs Sullivan is more about about defamation, and the element of malice. Although the trial pertained to the media, its outcome also gives all speech more protection.
What really needs new law is extra protection per a right to a speedy trial when there are TROs being sought. I was in court with Edler for that entire time on just their requests for TROs, and in effect you have to try the case before you try the case. In Edler's suit, her lawyer kept shotgun filing revised versions of complaints, so she was willingly dragging things out assuming she could out-spend us into making me shut up. But imagine if I actually had libeled her, and had continued to do so--a plaintiff who is actually being libeled shouldn't have to deal with the cases dragging on for months on end before there is any possibility of relief, any more than an innocent defendant should. There are plenty of ways to fix what's broken. That's not what people trying to destroy our right to free speech are after.
https://constitutioncenter.org/news-debate/podcasts/should-the-supreme-court-reconsider-nyt-v-sullivan
ReplyDeleteIt is about actual malice. This is another good article.
Time vs Sullivan gives too much protection to the press.
Eric, those are noble mind sets to strive for but if you can not see DU is involved then you fall in the category of HUHA.
ReplyDelete10:48, yes, I've been following the GOP's push to pull down NYT vs Sullivan and continue to slaughter our constitutional rights in every way possible for some time. Clarence Thomas is already set to lead the charge if it makes its way up the channels. Hopefully our lower courts will continue to afford us some protection from a rogue "Supreme" "Court", if only in making obvious how corrupt, inept, and out of control those political hacks really are by way of comparison.
ReplyDeleteThe bar for "actual malice" *should* be very high--including and especially for the press--because that one term is what our entire framework of free speech rests on. That's why a previous supreme court recognized that they needed to further codify free speech through case law, because they saw that it was not concrete enough in the constitution itself. Pull it down, and that's all she wrote.
Which is why the people trying to pull down our democracy and institute an authoritarian autocracy recognize it needs to be gone. They're not targeting the press; they're targeting everybody who gets in their way of that goal. Hopefully the conservative shock jocks in Florida who make their money lying and libeling will raise up another clamor, but I'm willing to bet that this thing has been seeded and they've thread the needle in ways that aren't apparent yet. Andrade's not stupid--he's highly intelligent, which is what makes his absolute sell-out such a sad shame. We can be sure that whatever lawyers pushing him to run this thing again--and the constitutional convention attorneys are dug in *very* deep all over the country--have some reasonable expectation they can get it through, even if in a pared down version. It received such horrified response from both sides of the aisle the last time through, that when DeSantis was asked about it during the last debate, he pulled his head into his neck and shrugged it off with the muffled comment "some legislator." We'll see what happens this round, but if it goes they're banking on a whole lot of dissident voices leaving the state in another purge to solidify their absolute power, and that legislation will be one of the most impactful yet. When monsters such as Bridget Zeigler say that they won't quit until there isn't a single democrat left in the State of Florida, they mean it. Plenty more cretins chomping at the bit to fill the void when she and her husband get the hammer for having sex with who they want in the way they want (which is the grounds the GOP is forcing them out on, apart from and in advance of the rape investigation, which doesn't look like it's going anywhere, most likely for good reason if the reporting of the video is accurate).
I cannot see one speck of actual malice in anything Jim Little has written or reported on concerning the text messages, by *any* definition of the term. Is he being a jerk? Of course; no doubt the PNJ would argue that Commissioner Bergosh asks for it. I thought that Andy Marlette *did* libel the BCC when he reported it as a fact that they had been out of the sunshine prior to Doug being censored, and I publicly advocated for the BCC to sue PNJ/Gannett then, but apparently there was no stomach for it.
So my objective opinion is that unfortunately the BCC let actual libel fall by the wayside, which won't be neutralized by conflating the stolen text messages with NYT vs Sullivan and the question of actual malice. There is no actual malice in what Jim has printed, and I can't see that he has reproduced anything that's not public record in his reporting--in a biased surround that leads people to thing there was a Sunshine violation (Commissioner Bergosh disagrees the texts with his wife are public record, so noting that).
(2.con) Here's the issue: Jim may very well have thought at the time of going to print that it *was* a Sunshine violation--a *lot* of people don't understand the Sunshine law, and believe those texts represent a roaring instance of it, when they actually indicate the opposite. Therefore an actual malice argument would never stand up, for good reason. If people thought they could be sued for making an honest mistake, nothing would ever get printed period in this country by anyone not backed by corporate attorneys and money--then all we'd have is Gannett, Fox, MSNBC, Newsmax, etc.
ReplyDeleteIt's bad enough as it is that our libel laws are so screwed up that you can get pulled into hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal bills, if you score an inept judge (my first one isn't even a judge any more) and a scheming plaintiff, and never even make it to trial so you can truly fight back. There's no reason to make it even worse.
If the BCC had sued Andy Marlette and Gannett, which they did have grounds for, when Marlette out-and-out libeled them, we might be in a very different place right now. That said, if all of the text messages that got turned over to PNJ had been public record, there wouldn't even be an issue with them--the issue would be even more clearly focused on where it should have been all along, County staff. How Jonathan accessed those text messages, what County employees were involved either at that moment or previously in giving them unwarranted access, and how many people have received them--even temporarily--without notifying the authorities remain the real questions. The rest, in my opinion, is sound and fury signifying nothing, on both sides. I mean, good grief, the actual crime is bad enough. Can't we focus on that, and quit triggering on the PNJ? Yes, they're a maddening instrument of political bias that has done a *lot* of material harm in our community with the bad actors they prop up. That doesn't make them a libel machine--that was Marlette's specialty--and it certainly doesn't make them the worst actors in this scenario. They should have to return the stolen property and make amends for not turning it over. That's like a blip on the radar compared with whole gave Jonathan access to them to begin with, and the list of people he shared them with who also failed to turn them over to the proper authorities. Constitutional officers included.
(2.con) Here's the issue: Jim may very well have thought at the time of going to print that it *was* a Sunshine violation--a *lot* of people don't understand the Sunshine law, and believe those texts represent a roaring instance of it, when they actually indicate the opposite. Therefore an actual malice argument would never stand up, for good reason. If people thought they could be sued for making an honest mistake, nothing would ever get printed period in this country by anyone not backed by corporate attorneys and money--then all we'd have is Gannett, Fox, MSNBC, Newsmax, etc.
ReplyDeleteIt's bad enough as it is that our libel laws are so screwed up that you can get pulled into hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal bills, if you score an inept judge (my first one isn't even a judge any more) and a scheming plaintiff, and never even make it to trial so you can truly fight back. There's no reason to make it even worse.
If the BCC had sued Andy Marlette and Gannett, which they did have grounds for, when Marlette out-and-out libeled them, we might be in a very different place right now. That said, if all of the text messages that got turned over to PNJ had been public record, there wouldn't even be an issue with them--the issue would be even more clearly focused on where it should have been all along, County staff. How Jonathan accessed those text messages, what County employees were involved either at that moment or previously in giving them unwarranted access, and how many people have received them--even temporarily--without notifying the authorities remain the real questions. The rest, in my opinion, is sound and fury signifying nothing, on both sides. I mean, good grief, the actual crime is bad enough. Can't we focus on that, and quit triggering on the PNJ? Yes, they're a maddening instrument of political bias that has done a *lot* of material harm in our community with the bad actors they prop up. That doesn't make them a libel machine--that was Marlette's specialty--and it certainly doesn't make them the worst actors in this scenario. They should have to return the stolen property and make amends for not turning it over. That's like a blip on the radar compared with whole gave Jonathan access to them to begin with, and the list of people he shared them with who also failed to turn them over to the proper authorities. Constitutional officers included.
Sorry: censure, not censor.
ReplyDeleteSCOTUS said they weren't going to review Times vs Sullivan in October 2023.
ReplyDelete1:12, what SCOTUS said in October of 2023 was a temporary hold on Thomas's megalomaniacal thunderings on not wanted the press to report his vile and deep-reaching corruption.
ReplyDeleteAnd their statement--with Thomas concurring--wasn't that they weren't going to review Times vs. Sullivan. It was that Blankenship v. NBCUniversal wasn't the right case to hear it on.
What that meant is that Blankenship v. NBCUniversal would have reinforced the need for NYT vs Sullivan, as Blankenship brought a frivolous piece of garbage because NBC accidentally referred to him as a "felon." Nah, not a felon. Just a piece of garbage in prison on a federal misdemeanor for conspiracy. A judge rightly ruled that it was confused over what to call him. A lot of people have a lot of confusion which exact terms apply to what levels of corruption these days.
That statement should make any--true--defender of free speech's blood run cold. Because what they meant, with Thomas happily agreeing, is that there was no way they could pull down NYT vs Sullivan through a case that showcased the need for it. They need a more intentionally tooled scenario to run. Like, for instance, a suit coming off a piece of unconstitutional legislation, perhaps, say, a bill that has a *lot* of attorneys involved in the background planning good opportunities for Thomas to take advantage of a poison pill.