Defamation
Today I read an article of someone being accused of a terrible act. There were many hate comments posted towards the accused. In the eyes of the law, the person is innocent until proven guilty, but in the eyes the public, the person is guilty on being accused. The public conviction towards that person will not go away, even if that person is found innocent. I think the media should only be allowed to write negative things about a person that has a guilty ruling.Do you think it is defamation on the part of the media to ruin an innocent person's life?
Comments (4)
If the media is only printing the facts, then no, it's not defamation. If they just say "John Doe was charged with stealing Farmer Brown's chickens and arrested. The hearing is scheduled for June 2."
I don't see the harm in that because it informs the public. And someone in the public may very well come forward to stand up for John Doe's character.
But when is media ever unbias?
Not often.
Usually it lands with a slant.
"John Doe, who has been arguing with Farmer Brown for years, was charged with stealing innocent Mr. Brown's chickens. It is speculated that John Doe may very well be running a chicken theif ring. The hearing is scheduled for June 2. As of this time the only comment John Doe has made is "No Comment". Farmer Brown on the other hand has publicly proclaimed that justice must be served before everyone else gets their chickens stolen at the hands of this malicious bird thief."
Just for the record, I'm also totally against any type of application that asks "Have you ever been charged with a crime?" instead of asking if one's been convicted. There's a difference!
I once filled out an application for 7-11 that asked, how many times have you stolen 1 - x amount, how many times have you done drugs 1 - x amount.
Is it right...no; but what can be done other than boycott the agency. What's the chance of that happening?
Sorry for not placing this in the first one.