TheFeniX wrote:
How do we clearly define parody and satire? Not counting what I've read online, I knew of at least three people personally who thought Stephen Colbert was hardline conservative when his show first started airing and for a year or so afterward. He was championed as the foil to Stewart (and Comedy Central has continued to play this angle for laughs). Hell, sometimes even I could forget who he was in the beginning (he's a lot more tame now that the cat is out of the bag).
It wouldn't be hard to find a group of people who would force CC to payout time and/or money due to his over-the-top reporting.
It's true that you can only do so much for idiots. Is it that immersion breaking to have to declare parody? Besides, even what Stephen Colbert says about people tends to actually be true. I don't think he'd have a problem sticking to it.
Quote:
So, what happens when Stewart calls X a lying fuck for being a lying fuck, then they force CC to prove he's lying or face the same consequences? What happens if I call Obama weak on civil rights and point to his extension of the Patriot Act as an example and his legal team points to his championing of gay rights (or whatever else) as a counter-point? Who is lying? Who determines this?
They prove to a tribunal that they were not in fact lying. John Stewart's statements and those of his target would be a matter of record, there shouldn't be a need to have an e.g. discovery process.
And nor is it intended to be a vehicle to shut down legitimate discourse. If Obama brings those charges against you and fails, he deserves to face a penalty of some sort. It's meant to stop e.g. Glenn Beck comparing the children slaughtered in Norway with the Hitler Youth.
Quote:
Limbaugh spends more time (at least from what little I've listened) taking factual information and using that to just insult liberals. His audience agrees with his stances on unemployment, taxes, etc to such an extent, he doesn't really have to lie, just say "Obama gives more benefits to the unemployed: COMMUNISM!"
I was specifically referring to Michael J Fox, there. Which he did apologize for, for what little credit I will give him. I don't think it would be particularly onerous on him.
Quote:
One of his big points (that I had to listen to personally) was when he was being a racist fuck (or more so than usual) in pointing out how much looting their was in New Orleans after the hurricane than there was in.... Ohio(?) after their disaster. He made the assumption that the good small-townsey folk (read: white) were just less violent. But he also left out that the national guard was on the ground before the disaster even hit whereas everyone in power basically said "Fuck New Orleans" before and after the hurricane hit.
It would probably have to be worded more carefully then I've written above, but I would count lying by omission as lying, too.
Quote:
Or larger news organizations would flood the courts with such cases, purposely slowing them down (legally), wasting millions of taxpayer dollars. Whereas smaller news organizations with less money would get fucked either way. I could see this being used to primarily target blogs and other little guys.
Err, you have to specifically be a slandered or libeled individual or group to bring these charges. You would face a penalty if, in fact, you are the lying douchebag you've been made out to be. As the statements by the defense are already public knowledge, phases can be skipped. It would only turn into a large trial if the defense was privy to some otherwise unknown bit of evidence, in which case it is obviously sensitive and the would-be prosecution might not want to seek the libel/slander route as a means of drawing attention to it.
I'll freely admit that it probably requires more thinking through. In general, we could do with stronger libel and slander protections, and has kept Fox et. al. rather effectively out of Canada.
