Eddie Johnson v. The Trib and Skip Bayless

The First Amendment does not offer the right to publish anything no matter what. Responsibility comes with it. That's why there are libel laws, etc.

Continually bleating: "First Amendment! Let's band together!" every time there's a mistake in print is somewhat clueless.

 

I think I'd like to sue you, DyePack, for the mistake in your sig line.

The comma goes inside the quotes, and it's caused me a lot of pain and suffering.

 

So lawyer up. I'll represent myself. I'll even tell you some of the evidence I'll present: Your defense of a newspaper making a wild assumption that someone was a child molester and running with it recklessly.

 

DyePack is definitely not one of those guys with deep-rooted personal hatred for certain companies or people...

 

I just scoff at newspapers that assume area athletes are child molesters and don't check their facts. I'm funny that way.

 

You claim to have been an editor. Why is the comma outside the quotes? Seriously. It's a mistake most editors would not make.

 

Comma Chameleon could straighten him out.

 

I surely do get it, I represent journalists....and sports celebrities. The rights of one group doesn't automatically negate the rights of the other.

The First Amendment protects a lot of freedoms--making reckless mistakes that damage an individual isn't one of them. Of course, it will be up to a court to decide whether the Tribune was indeed reckless, or whether Johnson suffered damages. I'd guess the Trib skates on this one, but I don't get a vote.

 

The standard is incredibly high for public figures, swenk. Almost impossibly high. I believe the case always cited as a plaintiff's victory is Carol Burnett vs. The National Enquirer. Most news organizations are a hell of a lot more responsible than The National Enquirer.

I've also noticed some celebs are winning these kinds of claims in Europe, where there is no First Amendment to afford protections. Bully for them. I prefer America...

 

That should restore the public's faith in journalism. I hope you don't truly mean that.

If so, I very much disagree. The First Amendment DOES NOT give us the right to say "all kinds of nasty and sometimes false shit -- and not get punished for it."

That's bullshit. And comparing this to getting some kids name wrong in a high school softball story is a ridiculous leap and trivializes the fact that a man was accused of CHILD MOLESTATION because of a lazy mistake, not in the process of practicing good journalism. The First Amendment DOES NOT give us that right. I don't think the Tribune stepping up and settling this one hurts the profession, I think it could go a long way in restoring some faith by showing they understand and value the unbelievable power the First Amendment affords us and appreciate the responsibilities that comes with it.

I think it is a journalist's duty to protect the First Amendment, not diminish its value with shoddy work that has the potential to ruin a man's life.

 

There's a quote, a concept... whatever:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

 

I think we both have generally the same feeling on the First Amendment, to a point. But I can't defend a person's right to defame someone with shoddy journalism. In fact, seeing as how there is a law against saying anything you want with a reckless disregard for the truth, I think it clouds the argument by calling it a right at all. When we us the First Amendment properly, we strengthen it. When we don't, we allow distrust to enter the equation and weaken it's power.

Am I wrong?