If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AZ Family)   It turns out Fox News has a Constitutional right to air suicides on live television   (azfamily.com) divider line 89
    More: Followup, News Corp., constitutional right  
•       •       •

11305 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Feb 2014 at 11:24 AM (36 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



89 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-15 01:34:49 PM  
Get off, get off, get off, get off, get off, GET OFF IT!
 
2014-02-15 01:35:37 PM  
It's interesting when people die...
 
2014-02-15 01:46:37 PM  
Bullshiat. It was tossed because brown people were complaining in Arizona.
 
2014-02-15 01:46:58 PM  

Kome: "The First Amendment has some limitations," Robbins said.

It certainly does, but I was not aware one of those limitations was that news outlets had to do everything in their power to censor depictions of violence because it's uncomfortable to people. Violence happens, and sometimes it's really shocking. We shouldn't be shielded from seeing the outcome of very real acts of harm. It'd be one thing if a news outlet was playing those moments on a loop, so that it could be seen over and over again as though it were a snuff film, or if it was displaying it for the viewers later in the evening news even though it adds nothing to the story that can't be conveyed without the visuals. But this was a live event, unpredictable things happen. Was it a mistake to not use the time delay? Yea, maybe, depending on one's sensibilities. That does not make it a first amendment issue though.


Yes news outlets should not have to censor horrific deplorable violence.  Boobies on the other hand is a valid limitation of the first amendment.

/neither violence or nudity should be censored.
 
2014-02-15 01:48:16 PM  
You people with your death cults and what not who ha

i141.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-15 01:52:15 PM  

Kome: . Was it a mistake to not use the time delay? Yea, maybe, depending on one's sensibilities. That does not make it a first amendment issue though.


I remember this story, this article presents 'the facts' quite a bit differently than what I remember - because Fox WAS running the feed on delay, a 3 second delay doesn't mean that it isn't still considered 'live'.  You can hear Shepard Smith counting up the seconds until the video went onto the air as he said 'cut it cut it CUT IT'.  Later he ID's the spot where the industry standard delay went in(everything pauses for a few seconds when the guy gets out of the car).  The dude controlling the feed must have been asleep at his station.

The first amendment part comes in that they're presenting news, and news can be disturbing.  You don't have much free speech if you can't present the news simply because it might be disturbing.  That it was a mistake was almost irrelevant.
 
2014-02-15 01:52:24 PM  
It turns out that broadcasting news is protected. Fark you subby.
 
2014-02-15 01:52:43 PM  

wambu: The lawsuit was filed by Angela Rodriguez, the mother of Romero's three sons, ages 15, 13 and 9 and egged on by some ambulance-chasing scumbag lawyer (but I repeat myself).


We all pretty much knew that.
I hope.
 
2014-02-15 01:54:19 PM  

MFAWG: Kome: "The First Amendment has some limitations," Robbins said.

It certainly does, but I was not aware one of those limitations was that news outlets had to do everything in their power to censor depictions of violence because it's uncomfortable to people. Violence happens, and sometimes it's really shocking. We shouldn't be shielded from seeing the outcome of very real acts of harm. It'd be one thing if a news outlet was playing those moments on a loop, so that it could be seen over and over again as though it were a snuff film, or if it was displaying it for the viewers later in the evening news even though it adds nothing to the story that can't be conveyed without the visuals. But this was a live event, unpredictable things happen. Was it a mistake to not use the time delay? Yea, maybe, depending on one's sensibilities. That does not make it a first amendment issue though.

Fox has a Constitutional Right!!! to do things, but that doesn't make it OK. In this case they kept rolling after the local affiliate had put it on delay and after Shep Smith recommended doing the same live numerous times.


And Fark you too
 
2014-02-15 02:08:05 PM  
s24.postimg.org
 
2014-02-15 02:10:15 PM  

skinink: Of course if it had been CNN that had aired a suicide on air, Fox News would be screaming all over the place how CNN was causing the fall of America or something.


nah the litigants were latino.
 
2014-02-15 02:12:15 PM  
if it bleeds it leads.
no matter who it hurts

not sure what public interest was served by showing that live w/o a delay but you can bet your ass if it had been a naked body they wouldn't have shown it.
 
2014-02-15 02:15:33 PM  

BumpInTheNight: So can anyone help me out here?  What's the proper etiquette for watching a suicide in progress and instagram?  Like can you take a selfie before and during but not after?  After seems kind of morbid but during is kind of hard to capture unless you have one of those phones with the preview screen on the front.


I'm guessing that taking a selfie is  unpossible post-suicide, if it goes according to plan, unless you set the camera with a 10-15 second delay and also figure how to auto-post pics (there's prolly an app for that). While this might be possible, it would Shirley be easier to have a friend take & post pics for you, thus supporting the notion that 'no man is an island'.
 
2014-02-15 02:21:31 PM  

Lee451: I watch Fox and was tuned in the day that happened. Shepherd Smith was nonplussed, to say the least, but the professional he is carried on with the show.


Shep is the only shred of legitimacy they have left, and they know it. I'm astounded that he hasn't gotten headhunted by another network by now.
 
2014-02-15 02:24:04 PM  

mcmnky: The_Mad_Dutchman: One Bad Apple: Who is the girl ?

News anchor who also committed suicide while on the air live.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Chubbuck

Let me guess...she was mad as hell and just wouldn't take it anymore?


Funny you should say that, since her case was supposedly a heavy influence on Network.
 
2014-02-15 02:30:21 PM  

ReverendJynxed: Bullshiat. It was tossed because brown people were complaining in Arizona.


QFT
 
2014-02-15 02:33:10 PM  
Just to recap:

Indecent: half of a nipple at the SuperBowl.

Acceptable: a live-action actual, literal snuff film.
 
2014-02-15 02:33:44 PM  

Begoggle: bluorangefyre: I'm surprised Shep is still at Faux News.  Is there no other job he can get?

Not after he worked at Faux News.
/surprised an obvious gay man is the main FOX anchor


... Because it challenges your pejorative opinion and preconceived notions?

I actually lol'ed when Shep kicked it to Jonathan Hunt  during the royal wedding by saying, "Looks like you got your wish, Jonathan, to be Queen for a day. (paraphrased)"
 
2014-02-15 02:43:11 PM  

Hobodeluxe: if it bleeds it leads.
no matter who it hurts

not sure what public interest was served by showing that live w/o a delay but you can bet your ass if it had been a naked body they wouldn't have shown it.


They had the delay in place, dude was asleep at the switch or something.

As for the suicide itself, they were covering a car jacking w/police pursuit, they didn't know the guy was going to kill himself there.
 
2014-02-15 02:48:45 PM  

Firethorn: dude was asleep at the switch or something.


riiiiiiiiight
 
2014-02-15 03:12:08 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: [static1.wikia.nocookie.net image 529x410]

[www.famouswhy.ca image 199x254]

/approve


s13.postimg.org
 
2014-02-15 03:28:02 PM  
What FOX news may look like.

www.jasoncollin.org

/hot link
//no one mad as hell?
 
2014-02-15 04:37:33 PM  

flup: Just to recap:

Indecent: half of a nipple at the SuperBowl.

Acceptable: a live-action actual, literal snuff film.


IT'S FOX NEWS SO IT'S AUTOMATICALLY BAD! WHO CARES ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION? WE HAVE SOME REPUBLITARDS TO PISS OFF!!!!11!!!!

And you obviously have no idea what a snuff film actually is.

A snuff film is a motion picture genre that depicts the actual murder of a person or people, without the aid of special effects, for the express purpose of distribution and entertainment or financial exploitation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snuff_film

This wasn't a murder (suicide is not murder) and the killing wasn't done just for it to get filmed and distributed for entertainment and profit.
 
2014-02-15 04:48:47 PM  
Seems reasonable. Fox is scum, but if everything that sent any viewers into swooning tizzies was somehow not covered by First Amendment you'd have nothing left but 'This week in adorable kittens'. ... okay, maybe I just changed my mind.

But seriously, 'the right to not be offended' is an extremely stupid and dangerous legal argument. Which also applies to a lot of other stupid stuff like Nipplegate.
 
2014-02-15 04:51:36 PM  
Some political party to counter by ruling it child abuse to let a child watch the news before the age of 16.
 
2014-02-15 05:06:30 PM  
They should put in some delay to avoid this sort of thing
 
2014-02-15 05:20:43 PM  
Btw, I also think a bit of nudity shouldn't necessarily be censored either, so I don't know why a few people responding to my post think I'm okay with that.
 
2014-02-15 05:53:45 PM  

One Bad Apple: FirstNationalBastard: [static1.wikia.nocookie.net image 529x410]

[www.famouswhy.ca image 199x254]

/approve

Who is the girl ?


Seconded

///Knows Bud Dwyer
 
2014-02-15 06:17:31 PM  
Constitutional rights stop at the point that people get outraged by someone exercising them. Everybody knows that.
 
2014-02-15 06:30:11 PM  
"An Arizona judge..."

img.4plebs.org
 
2014-02-15 07:15:36 PM  
Fox is no more guilty of a crime than the networks that aired JFK's assassination live.
 
2014-02-15 07:21:48 PM  
According to TFA, the main reason for dismissing the suit wasn't necessarily the 1st Amd. grounds, it was that those pushing the lawsuit didn't satisfy the essential elements of claiming intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress, like any intentional tort, requires that the defendant have specific intent to cause severe emotional distress to the plaintiff, in this case by an extreme and outrageous act beyond all notions of common decency. So if the kids' lawyers were alleging INTENTIONAL infliction of emotional distress, they would have had to show that the Fox News affiliate here showed the video of the suicide with either the deliberate intention of causing distress to the kids, or with deliberate disregard for the reasonable certainty such injury could happen--that is, they knew with reasonable certainty the kid would be watching the newscast, but went ahead and showed it anyway. And by the attorney's own evidence, that was not in fact the case: The rumors at the school that there "might" be a televised suicide had caused the older boys to go home and check out You Tube.

So whether or not Fox has any 1st Amd. rights to air people killing themselves on live broadcasts; it's just a fact that there was absolutely no intent to cause emotional harm to this man's children by forcing them to watch the broadcast; and the judge rightly dismissed the case.
 
2014-02-15 08:14:31 PM  

Kome: Btw, I also think a bit of nudity shouldn't necessarily be censored either, so I don't know why a few people responding to my post think I'm okay with that.


Animal nudity or human nudity?
'Cause all the nekked animals offends the fark outta me.
 
2014-02-15 09:27:10 PM  

PaLarkin: Fox is no more guilty of a crime than the networks that aired JFK's assassination live.


Well, since that would be none of them, then no, I guess not.
 
2014-02-15 09:42:15 PM  

Gyrfalcon: PaLarkin: Fox is no more guilty of a crime than the networks that aired JFK's assassination live.

Well, since that would be none of them, then no, I guess not.


Ok then.  What about all the news outlets and other broadcasters that have shown the film over the last 50 years?  Somehow I get the feeling that if it were CNN or MSNBC that had shown on LIVE tv this guy shooting himself, none of the fox news haters would have a problem with it.
 
2014-02-15 11:37:57 PM  
Carlin called it ladies and gentlemen.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7S4nJFt3aY
 
2014-02-16 03:30:18 AM  

KyDave: Begoggle: bluorangefyre: I'm surprised Shep is still at Faux News.  Is there no other job he can get?

Not after he worked at Faux News.
/surprised an obvious gay man is the main FOX anchor

... Because it challenges your pejorative opinion and preconceived notions?

I actually lol'ed when Shep kicked it to Jonathan Hunt  during the royal wedding by saying, "Looks like you got your wish, Jonathan, to be Queen for a day. (paraphrased)"


No, because FOX News is a propaganda machine for right-wing extremists, who hate gay people.
 
2014-02-16 10:00:30 AM  

Begoggle: KyDave: Begoggle: bluorangefyre: I'm surprised Shep is still at Faux News.  Is there no other job he can get?

Not after he worked at Faux News.
/surprised an obvious gay man is the main FOX anchor

... Because it challenges your pejorative opinion and preconceived notions?

I actually lol'ed when Shep kicked it to Jonathan Hunt  during the royal wedding by saying, "Looks like you got your wish, Jonathan, to be Queen for a day. (paraphrased)"

No, because FOX News is a propaganda machine for right-wing extremists, who hate gay people.


And MSNBC and other "news" outlets aren't pushing propaganda? Hell, look how awful CNN has become.
 
2014-02-16 01:26:43 PM  

machoprogrammer: Begoggle: KyDave: Begoggle: bluorangefyre: I'm surprised Shep is still at Faux News.  Is there no other job he can get?

Not after he worked at Faux News.
/surprised an obvious gay man is the main FOX anchor

... Because it challenges your pejorative opinion and preconceived notions?

I actually lol'ed when Shep kicked it to Jonathan Hunt  during the royal wedding by saying, "Looks like you got your wish, Jonathan, to be Queen for a day. (paraphrased)"

No, because FOX News is a propaganda machine for right-wing extremists, who hate gay people.

And MSNBC and other "news" outlets aren't pushing propaganda? Hell, look how awful CNN has become.


Well, you need "balanced" reporting.
So both lie.
It is our Constitutional Right to both sides of complete lies and fabrications.
 
Displayed 39 of 89 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report