More on Terri Schiavo--UPDATE: Schiavo dead 31 Mar 05

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2005-03-29 10:48pm

Darth Wong wrote:Just try watching Starship Troopers and telling me that the Federation Propaganda Network does not remind you of FOXNews.

The biggest difference I can think of would be Fox's lack of a "Would you like to know more?" option. Fox knows their viewers well enough to know that the answer to that question would be a resounding "NO!"

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2005-03-30 12:14am

RedImperator wrote:
Wicked Pilot wrote:What a fucking circus!

List of Schiavo Donors Will Be Sold by Direct-Marketing Firm
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and JOHN SCHWARTZ

ASHINGTON, March 28 - The parents of Terri Schiavo have authorized a conservative direct-mailing firm to sell a list of their financial supporters, making it likely that thousands of strangers moved by her plight will receive a steady stream of solicitations from anti-abortion and conservative groups.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/polit ... &position=
The irony, it burns! Maybe they'll start respecting people's privacy now.
You have got to be fucking kidding me. I had to actually check the link--I thought that was a God damn Onion article.

We live in an age where satire is dead, because the lines between it and Reality have blurred to where they are now totally unrecognisable.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2005-03-30 12:17am

mwm1331 wrote:Like I said I cant say as we dont get fox news here in eastern europe

I believe that once upon a time, Eastern Europe's version of what we today know as FOX "News" was known in its day as Pravda.

Post by **Vympel** » 2005-03-30 12:41am

Durandal wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Just try watching Starship Troopers and telling me that the Federation Propaganda Network does not remind you of FOXNews.
The biggest difference I can think of would be Fox's lack of a "Would you like to know more?" option. Fox knows their viewers well enough to know that the answer to that question would be a resounding "NO!"

I'm reminded of a voiceover at the begnning of the Greta van Sustern show back in early 2003.

"Saddam Hussein- the threat is REAL. So why won't the world listen?"

Fair and balanced.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2005-03-30 12:44am

I hate the sound of that voice for the voiceovers they have.

Thag · Post by **Thag** » 2005-03-30 12:45am

I've been following this mess off and on since it started, and frankly, this whole circus has more in common with Monty Python's parrot skit than an actual legal/moral conflict. I keep half expecting a news report talking about a guy walking into a Florida courtroom wearing a British army uniform and telling everyone that things have become too silly.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2005-03-30 03:23am

Edi wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Gil Hamilton wrote:What gets me is the way this is being reported. If you watched the news, particularly networks like FOXNews exclusively, you'd probably come to the conclusion that Terri Schiavo was merely disabled and her depraved husband was trying to kill her for the money. Most channels are trying their hardest to look balanced, which means treating the loonies like they aren't so, and letting people like Mrs. Schiavo's younger brother and father be media whores spouting whatever allegation they think will get people on their side (recently the trend has been not only is Michael Schiavo trying to kill her, but strongly implying without openly saying it that he beat her into that condition in the first place). Then there is FOXNews which has been utterly open to the fact that they are putting out propaganda on the matter, endlessly parading people who have recovered from vegetative states that weren't even close to as serious as Mrs. Schiavo's, plus having all their talking heads sounding off about Mrs. Schiavo is merely disabled and is not dying and is recovering and all that jazz.

We may think "God, how could anyone buy into that bullplop?!" but if you go by the media, it's actually pretty easy, particularly if you are the type that exclusively watched FOX. It's no wonder alot of people think the tube should be reinserted and that Mr. Schiavo is a Snidley Whiplash style murderer, because they get bombarded with it in droves.
This is why I think that someone needs to set a precedent and sue the living shit out of FOX. Media bullies will recklessly say anything that gets them ratings for as long as they're allowed to, and it really doesn't matter to them whether it's sound journalism.
Very difficult. I don't know if you could apply the duty-of-care statutes to commercial news reporting, but that would be about the only thing you could use. US libel and slander laws require the person who is the target to prove a negative, i.e. prove that the allegations are not true, instead of the lying sack of shit needing to prove that his bullshit is true. That fucked up little statute allows the TV networks to get away with anything as long as the great unwashed masses approve of it.

In point of fact, FOX could indeed be sued by Michael Schiavo for libel and simply offering up the "it's our opinion" defence would not be a sufficent protection against actionability for their numerous inflammatory and irresponsible statements by their on-air staff regarding his character. In the case of Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. et al (1990), the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Ohio courts which dismissed the libel action brought by a high school wrestling coach against the Loraine Journal newspaper in 1986 which alleged in an op-ed piece that petitioner Milkovich committed perjury before a hearing of the Ohio High School Athletic Association under the theory that opinion pieces had wholesale constitutional protection from actionability. SCOTUS found that an opinion piece which makes a positive assertion of fact can be as defamatory as an outright statement of fact that someone is a perjurer (or murderer or whatever) and that the precedent cited in the case of Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1967) did not create a wholesale "opinion" exception to the operation of libel law under the rubric of First Amendment protection (the Gertz case extended the precedent of New York Times v. Sullivan to cover opinion and news items of non-public figures which cast the subject of said items in an unfavourable light) and that there is no constitutional protection for false statements of alleged fact.

These passages from the Court's majority opinion are particularly instructive:

Linky

William J. Rehnquist in Milkovich wrote:The Court has also determined that "in cases raising First Amendment issues . . . an appellate court has an obligation to 'make an independent examination of the whole record' in order to make sure that 'the judgment does not constitute a forbidden intrusion on the field of free expression.'" Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 499 (1984) (quoting New York Times, 376 U.S., at 284-286). "The question whether the evidence in the record in a defamation case is sufficient to support a finding of actual malice is a question of law." Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 685 (1989).

Respondents would have us recognize, in addition to the established safeguards discussed above, still another First-Amendment-based protection for defamatory statements which are categorized as "opinion" as opposed to "fact." For [18] this proposition they rely principally on the following dictum from our opinion in Gertz:

"Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas. But there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact." 418 U.S., at 339-340 (footnote omitted).

Judge Friendly appropriately observed that this passage "has become the opening salvo in all arguments for protection from defamation actions on the ground of opinion, even though the case did not remotely concern the question." Cianci v. New Times Publishing Co., 639 F. 2d 54, 61 (CA2 1980). Read in context, though, the fair meaning of the passage is to equate the word "opinion" in the second sentence with the word "idea" in the first sentence. Under this view, the language was merely a reiteration of Justice Holmes' classic "marketplace of ideas" concept. See Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (dissenting opinion) ("[T]he ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas--. . . the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market").

Thus, we do not think this passage from Gertz was intended to create a wholesale defamation exemption for anything that might be labeled "opinion." See Cianci, supra, at 62, n. 10 (The "marketplace of ideas" origin of this passage "points strongly to the view that the 'opinions' held to be constitutionally protected were the sort of thing that could be corrected by discussion"). Not only would such an interpretation be contrary to the tenor and context of the passage, but it would also ignore the fact that expressions of "opinion" may often imply an assertion of objective fact.

If a speaker says, "In my opinion John Jones is a liar," he implies a knowledge of facts which lead to the conclusion that Jones told an untruth. Even if the speaker states the facts [19] upon which he bases his opinion, if those facts are either incorrect or incomplete, or if his assessment of them is erroneous, the statement may still imply a false assertion of fact. Simply couching such statements in terms of opinion does not dispel these implications; and the statement, "In my opinion Jones is a liar," can cause as much damage to reputation as the statement, "Jones is a liar." As Judge Friendly aptly stated: "[It] would be destructive of the law of libel if a writer could escape liability for accusations of [defamatory conduct] simply by using, explicitly or implicitly, the words 'I think.'" See Cianci, supra, at 64. It is worthy of note that at common law, even the privilege of fair comment did not extend to "a false statement of fact, whether it was expressly stated or implied from an expression of opinion." Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 566, Comment a (1977).

. . .

We are not persuaded that, in addition to these protections, an additional separate constitutional privilege for "opinion" is required to ensure the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. The dispositive question in the present case then becomes whether a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the statements in the Diadiun column imply an assertion that petitioner Milkovich perjured himself in a judicial proceeding. We think this question must be answered in the affirmative. As the Ohio Supreme Court itself observed: "[T]he clear impact in some nine sentences and a caption is that [Milkovich] 'lied at the hearing after . . . having given his solemn oath to tell the truth.'" Scott, 25 Ohio St. 3d, at 251, 496 N. E. 2d, at 707. This is not the sort of loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language which would negate the impression that the writer was seriously maintaining that petitioner committed the crime of perjury. Nor does the general tenor of the article negate this impression.

. . .

The numerous decisions discussed above establishing First Amendment protection for defendants in defamation actions surely demonstrate the Court's recognition of the Amendment's vital guarantee of free and uninhibited discussion of public issues. But there is also another side to the equation; we have regularly acknowledged the "important social values which underlie the law of defamation," and recognized that "ociety has a pervasive and strong interest in preventing and redressing attacks upon reputation." Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 86 (1966). Justice Stewart in that case put it with his customary clarity:

"The right of a man to the protection of his own reputation from unjustified invasion and wrongful hurt reflects no more than our basic concept of the essential dignity and worth of every human being--a concept at the root of any decent system of ordered liberty.

. . .

"The destruction that defamatory falsehood can bring is, to be sure, often beyond the capacity of the law to redeem. [23] Yet, imperfect though it is, an action for damages is the only hope for vindication or redress the law gives to a man whose reputation has been falsely dishonored." Id., at 92-93 (concurring opinion).

FOX and Bill O'Reilly and/or whichever of their animated blow-up dolls have been running their mouths could most definitely be sued for their attacks on Michael Schiavo, no matter how much they may believe otherwise that simply handwaving away the libel laws with the excuse that they're merely giving opinion and not news makes liability for their irresponsibility disappear. Of course, as we've seen with the last two legal controversies in which Mr. O'Reilly has been at the centre, it's fairly obvious that the FOX management and their on-air personalities are getting lousy advice from their legal department. Or they may simply be counting on Schiavo not having the money to go after their lying asses. But the day will come when FOX will target their bile on the wrong person who will have both the determination and the resources for a protracted legal fight, and that's when they'll get their asses handed to them in court.

Post by **Edi** » 2005-03-30 05:23am

Ah, thanks, Patrick. One can always rely on you to set things straight. I do believe that I will be quoting that in the future

My previous erroneous belief was based on what one of the other denizens said in an earlier thread, and on what I read years and years ago about certain events that happened in the 1960s. At the time of that reading, some of the precedents you cited hadn't even happened yet.

I think this might be a good time to ask if the "fair and balanced" slogan Fox is using applies only to their news, or do they use it to describe the whole of their programming that deals with news, commentary and current events? Because if the latter, it just compounds their problems...

Edi

Psycho Smiley · Post by **Psycho Smiley** » 2005-03-30 06:15am

And back to the courts we go...

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/03/30/terrischiavo050330.html]CBC.ca wrote:[/url]
U.S. court grants review in Schiavo case
Last Updated Wed, 30 Mar 2005 01:03:36 EST
CBC News

ATLANTA, GA. - A U.S. federal appeal court agreed early Wednesday to consider a petition for a new hearing on whether to reconnect Terri Schiavo's feeding tube.

The ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, announced before 1 a.m. local time Wednesday, came as the brain-damaged Florida woman edged closer to death on her 13th day without nourishment.

Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, fought a seven-year court battle because they believe their daughter wants to live and can recover after 15 years of being in a persistent vegetative state.

Michael Schiavo insists his wife, who is now 41, would never have wanted to live in her current state.

The federal appeal court ruling was sure to surprise many legal experts, who said the Schindlers had exhausted all legal options after they lost two more appeals in Florida courts on Saturday.

Jesse Jackson prays with parents

Just hours earlier, Rev. Jesse Jackson joined the Schindlers to pray outside the Florida hospice where Schiavo lingered, asking God to work a miracle.

"This is one of the profound moral, ethical issues of our time ... today we pray for a miracle, for God's intervention and God has done it before," Jackson told reporters after meeting with Schiavo's parents.

He also appealed to U.S. legislators to "please help us find some way to get food and water to Terri."

"While the law is important, the law must be tempered with mercy to have justice. We ask for justice today," said Jackson.

Jackson was only the latest in a long string of well-known figures who have waded into the case, including President George W. Bush and his brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

The president signed legislation that allowed the parents to appeal to federal courts, beyond the Florida state courts where they had already lost. Those appeals were unsuccessful.

The governor tried legal and political manoeuvres, including an effort to make her a ward of the state, which also failed legally.

Schiavo has been taken off her feeding tube twice before and later reattached.

Uh, why? Why are we doing this again?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2005-03-30 06:21am

Christ, if they reinsert the feeding tube the fundies will never, ever shut up about God's miracles.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2005-03-30 06:34am

fuck the feeding tube someone remove the batteries, and unplug the AC adaptor.

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2005-03-30 06:44am

Personally i'm sick of it.

Michael Schiavo is as dumb as the Shindlers, he should've taken the money and ran when they offered him tem million and let her parents have her. And teh Shindlers need to get a grip and realize that Terri is never going to come back to them, or failing that be instatutionalized because they're about stone nuts.

I dont care who wins or what happens now i'm just following it because i'm a morbid little dude.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2005-03-30 07:17am

Christ, if they reinsert the feeding tube the fundies will never, ever shut up about God's miracles.

I´d be more concerned about Terri "coming back to life again". Then we´d definitely never hear the end of it, even if an investigation proves her recovery as just another rare medical phenomenon. Fundies would never, EVER shut up if that was the case.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2005-03-30 07:26am

18-Till-I-Die wrote:Personally i'm sick of it.

Michael Schiavo is as dumb as the Shindlers, he should've taken the money and ran when they offered him tem million and let her parents have her.

He walked away from a fortune, and had all this shit poured on his head, in order to honor the wishes of a woman who's been dead, for all intents and purposes, since 1990. That's old school right there. The man is a fucking hero for standing up to these corpsefuckers.

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2005-03-30 07:40am

RedImperator wrote:
18-Till-I-Die wrote:Personally i'm sick of it.

Michael Schiavo is as dumb as the Shindlers, he should've taken the money and ran when they offered him tem million and let her parents have her.
He walked away from a fortune, and had all this shit poured on his head, in order to honor the wishes of a woman who's been dead, for all intents and purposes, since 1990. That's old school right there. The man is a fucking hero for standing up to these corpsefuckers.

Yeah, right. That's not old school thats retarded. Slight difference.

Look i'm not with the corsefuckers here, but i think anyone with a grain of sense would've just tossed her to her parents YEARS ago, and that would be that. And as you said he turned down TEN FUCKING MILLION DOLLARS to honor the wishes of his wife. And no i dont think he still loves or cares about her, i think he's stuborn and dumb. If i were his girlfreidn or mistress or whatever the fuck that other broad is i'd have torn his balls off and wore tham like a necklace when he turned down TEN FUCKING MILLION DOLLARS!!!111!11

But appearantly she's as dense as he is.

I dont care abother either side anymore really, but at this point just to spite that moron i'd actually prefer for the courts to turn around. I'm just that dumbfounded by his stupid shit. I know this sounds crass and shit but...i mean...God thsi guy is stupid! I'm not yet convinced he isnt brain damaged insteda of Terri, maybe she's teh brains of their partnership.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-03-30 08:06am

18-Till-I-Die wrote:
RedImperator wrote:He walked away from a fortune, and had all this shit poured on his head, in order to honor the wishes of a woman who's been dead, for all intents and purposes, since 1990. That's old school right there. The man is a fucking hero for standing up to these corpsefuckers.
Yeah, right. That's not old school thats retarded. Slight difference.

On some level I'm forced to agree; while Terri Schiavo may not have wanted to live that way, she is also no longer in that body. Ergo, it is not hurting her to be in this state. It is arguably just as irrational to fight so hard to end this mockery of life as it is to prolong it.

Look i'm not with the corsefuckers here, but i think anyone with a grain of sense would've just tossed her to her parents YEARS ago, and that would be that. And as you said he turned down TEN FUCKING MILLION DOLLARS to honor the wishes of his wife. And no i dont think he still loves or cares about her, i think he's stuborn and dumb.

Now that statement is fucking retarded. He is obviously doing this for sentimental reasons, meaning that he still loves his wife and wants to honour her wishes. There is no other conceivable reason for him to do this.

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2005-03-30 08:22am

He's also endangered lives here. People have put 'bounties' on his head, on a judge's head, and he's endangered both his family and Judge Grer.

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2005-03-30 08:26am

And you know her parents, if i had my way, would be fucking institutionalized. It's embarrising. They're obsessed with Terri, they're delusional, and worse it's all so ghoulish as she's practically a corse. Plus they've gone out of there way to be as disruptive to a fucking Hospice as they could, which is the height of fuckery in my opinion. It might shock them...but some people are trying to die with dignity in there!

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-03-30 08:44am

Thag wrote:I've been following this mess off and on since it started, and frankly, this whole circus has more in common with Monty Python's parrot skit than an actual legal/moral conflict. I keep half expecting a news report talking about a guy walking into a Florida courtroom wearing a British army uniform and telling everyone that things have become too silly.

Either that or Micheal ScHiavo starts singing the Lumberjack Song

"I never wanted to be a target for pro-lifers... I wanted to be... A LUMBERJACK!"

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-03-30 08:50am

18-Till-I-Die wrote:He's also endangered lives here. People have put 'bounties' on his head, on a judge's head, and he's endangered both his family and Judge Grer.

No, he didnt do that. The corpsefuckers did. DOnt shift the blame to the victim you hatfucking son of a pig.
Oh, and let me say right now I think you are an immoral piece of inhuman trash.

SHe trusted him as she became functionally dead to carry on her wishes, violating that most sacred of trusts if flat out reprehensible

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2005-03-30 08:59am

18-Till-I-Die wrote:And as you said he turned down TEN FUCKING MILLION DOLLARS to honor the wishes of his wife.

You heard it here first, ladies. If you want a man who will sell out your final wishes rather than honour you and your requests, you can't do any better than 18-Till-I-Die.

Try to get a clue as to what committment Michael made and is, against any sense of social self-preservation, trying to honour here.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2005-03-30 09:41am

18-Till-I-Die wrote:
RedImperator wrote:
18-Till-I-Die wrote:Personally i'm sick of it.

Michael Schiavo is as dumb as the Shindlers, he should've taken the money and ran when they offered him tem million and let her parents have her.
He walked away from a fortune, and had all this shit poured on his head, in order to honor the wishes of a woman who's been dead, for all intents and purposes, since 1990. That's old school right there. The man is a fucking hero for standing up to these corpsefuckers.
Yeah, right. That's not old school thats retarded. Slight difference.

In other words, you consider it retarded for him to honor a commitment he made to his wife when he married her to carry out her final wishes if she became incapacitated. You think he's retarded for not allowing his wife to be kept alive as a grotesque meat puppet so her parents don't have to grieve for her, regardless of what she might have thought of that fate. You think he's retarded, as a believing Catholic, to free his wife's soul from the hellish prison her body must be.

I trust you'll share your feelings on a husband's obligations to his wife with whoever you plan on marrying. Then we can change your name to Virgin-Till-I-Die.

Look i'm not with the corsefuckers here, but i think anyone with a grain of sense would've just tossed her to her parents YEARS ago, and that would be that. And as you said he turned down TEN FUCKING MILLION DOLLARS to honor the wishes of his wife. And no i dont think he still loves or cares about her, i think he's stuborn and dumb. If i were his girlfreidn or mistress or whatever the fuck that other broad is i'd have torn his balls off and wore tham like a necklace when he turned down TEN FUCKING MILLION DOLLARS!!!111!11

Not only are you amoral, you're also an idiot. Nobody walks away from ten million dollars for the sake of stubbornness. And obviously his fiancee supports his commitment to his first wife, or she would have been out the door by now. And why not? She knows he's not going to abandon her as soon as she becomes inconvenient.

But appearantly she's as dense as he is.

I dont care abother either side anymore really, but at this point just to spite that moron i'd actually prefer for the courts to turn around. I'm just that dumbfounded by his stupid shit. I know this sounds crass and shit but...i mean...God thsi guy is stupid! I'm not yet convinced he isnt brain damaged insteda of Terri, maybe she's teh brains of their partnership.

You're a fool, an amoral slime, and a borderline troll. If you don't care about the issue, fine. There are 14 public forums including the HOS and Testing. You can find a place to post without being yet another "Oh I'm so tired of this even though I can easily avoid it if I want to! Damn the facts, a pox on both their houses!!!11!11LOLZOR!" retard in this thread.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2005-03-30 12:04pm

18-Till-I-Die wrote:He's also endangered lives here. People have put 'bounties' on his head, on a judge's head, and he's endangered both his family and Judge Grer.

by that definition I should just stop taking my meds, using a computer, listening to music, or even reading and die, because I'm endangering lives by pissing off extremist terrorists by having views different from their own.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-03-30 12:44pm

There's a very good reason he turned down the money, 18: HE CANNOT DECIDE TO HAVE THE FEEDING TUBE REINSERTED. He waived his judgement to the courts, even if he wanted to change his mind now, she'd still be without a feeding tube.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-03-30 12:57pm

18-Till-I-Die wrote:He's also endangered lives here. People have put 'bounties' on his head, on a judge's head, and he's endangered both his family and Judge Grer.

You now reach the level of 'Absolutely disgusting' to me. He didn't put bounties on anyone's head. He is not responsible for fucking psychotics who are acting out their violent fantasies with some flimsy justification.

Just blame it all on the guy whose going through Hell, sure. Fucktard.