I hope enough people check this forum out and give me an actual response and not cynicism.
I am actually thinking of challenging the legalality of all the Major/Minor News networks that have continously lied about the campaign. By using misinformation and or purposefully misleading the viewer with doctored information about the presidential campaign. After all CNN as of right now is shown to already have named Romney the Nominee and show that he is the main holder of most of the Delegates, when in fact Ron Paul holds many of the Delegates and that there is still voting occuring among the GOP. This entire election campaign has been influenced by the media and thus purposefully given me misleading information if not blatant false information about the presidential hopefuls. I believe there could be a case if i can prove that they were trying to influence the election in some way. Im not a legal expert and i know there is terminology that can clear things up, but i would like some advice as i am seriously giving thought to this.
Legal Advice!
Moderator: Moderators
-
99percentatheism
- Banned
- Posts: 3083
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:49 am
Post #2
@MyReality,
When the "United States" falls to pieaces economically and of course socially, and is split up into several different countries, Ron Paul can be promoted to be Prince over one of them.
Take heart. The ideals of the "Anthing Goes" permissiveness society that is ronpaulianism, will surely rise to have its day in the sun.
Ron's not worrying about the timeframe.
When the "United States" falls to pieaces economically and of course socially, and is split up into several different countries, Ron Paul can be promoted to be Prince over one of them.
Take heart. The ideals of the "Anthing Goes" permissiveness society that is ronpaulianism, will surely rise to have its day in the sun.
Ron's not worrying about the timeframe.
Re: Legal Advice!
Post #3I'd suggest you think this one out again. Ron Paul's sort of a libertarian. To a libertarian, the solution for someone not speaking the truth is to point out where that person is wrong. (or, in the specific case of Ron Paul supporters, to unleash some sort of bot to make their online life hell and shut them up. http://www.reddit.com/r/ideasfortheadmi ... _the_bots/) The solution is not to use the government to force the other person to tell the truth. A lawsuit is asking one branch of the government, the judicial branch, to use it's governmental authority to require others to tell what you consider to be the truth. In defending Ron Paul this way, you'd be opposing what he usually purports to stand for.MyReality wrote:I hope enough people check this forum out and give me an actual response and not cynicism.
I am actually thinking of challenging the legalality of all the Major/Minor News networks that have continously lied about the campaign. By using misinformation and or purposefully misleading the viewer with doctored information about the presidential campaign. After all CNN as of right now is shown to already have named Romney the Nominee and show that he is the main holder of most of the Delegates, when in fact Ron Paul holds many of the Delegates and that there is still voting occuring among the GOP. This entire election campaign has been influenced by the media and thus purposefully given me misleading information if not blatant false information about the presidential hopefuls. I believe there could be a case if i can prove that they were trying to influence the election in some way. Im not a legal expert and i know there is terminology that can clear things up, but i would like some advice as i am seriously giving thought to this.
Re: Legal Advice!
Post #4I know it would be a very very tricky thing to make a case out of this. I understood that it is their freedom to choose what to air and not air, and i could infringe that right. But intentional deceit would be a good start for an argument. I believe that the news media have a responsibility to the public, being that it is a vital information hub in this nation. They should report everything to the people without censorship or editing. I know it seems illogical but i have an idea and its very hard trying to translate it for others to understand. Thus the reason i needed input from other people. We all know that each news station have their own views and that's fine, but the presidential race censored a candidate completely and utterly. Edited out and not even spoken of since unless there was no way around it. CNN was always having malfunctions when Ron Paul supporters started talking about his intentions of repealing the NDAA, Patriot Act, and future bills such as SOPA/CIPA. Intentional deceit towards the public when it came to numbers, what candidates running, and trying to influence the votes by directing the public to whoever candidate that station wanted. Like i said, nothing simple, and if links are needed to provide some evidence i will. Although if anyone but RP wins, then their is not a chance in hell to even start a case against anyone. I'm not looking to win, i just want to put the spot light on the media for everyone to see.Thatguy wrote:I'd suggest you think this one out again. Ron Paul's sort of a libertarian. To a libertarian, the solution for someone not speaking the truth is to point out where that person is wrong. (or, in the specific case of Ron Paul supporters, to unleash some sort of bot to make their online life hell and shut them up. http://www.reddit.com/r/ideasfortheadmi ... _the_bots/) The solution is not to use the government to force the other person to tell the truth. A lawsuit is asking one branch of the government, the judicial branch, to use it's governmental authority to require others to tell what you consider to be the truth. In defending Ron Paul this way, you'd be opposing what he usually purports to stand for.MyReality wrote:I hope enough people check this forum out and give me an actual response and not cynicism.
I am actually thinking of challenging the legalality of all the Major/Minor News networks that have continously lied about the campaign. By using misinformation and or purposefully misleading the viewer with doctored information about the presidential campaign. After all CNN as of right now is shown to already have named Romney the Nominee and show that he is the main holder of most of the Delegates, when in fact Ron Paul holds many of the Delegates and that there is still voting occuring among the GOP. This entire election campaign has been influenced by the media and thus purposefully given me misleading information if not blatant false information about the presidential hopefuls. I believe there could be a case if i can prove that they were trying to influence the election in some way. Im not a legal expert and i know there is terminology that can clear things up, but i would like some advice as i am seriously giving thought to this.
Re: Legal Advice!
Post #5[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 005#456005]
I know it would be a very very tricky thing to make a case out of this. I understood that it is their freedom to choose what to air and not air, and i could infringe that right. But intentional deceit would be a good start for an argument. [/quote]
For the libertarian, as I understand the position, even fraud is not a matter for the government to police. The way to combat fraud is by exposing it as individuals, not through government action.
Everyone who doesn't own a media outlet gets frustrated that the public discourse is skewed. We get frustrated when it's skewed against us and are more complacent when it's skewed in our favor. Many of the issues I care about, especially those involving economic justice, are not unfairly portrayed in the public debate, they are largely ignored. But even when I see discussions that misrespresent the facts, I don't consider suing. For one thing, these are largely matters of opinion and spin and people are entitled to speak their minds. Especially in the political field, it's essential that we not have the government, in this case the courts, determining which facts are correct and which are not. limiting public discussion only to court approved facts and interpretations of those facts.
If I supported a candidate with little chance of election, I'd be angry if that candidate was not included in a debate. If I supported a candidate more likely to win, I'd be upset that time that could be spent in a debate hearing what people with realistic chances of being our next leader have to say is interrupted by people who can't realistically win and are thus irrelevant distractions. Someone's going to be unhappy either way. I'm sure there are scenarios in which Ron Paul could still win the nomination. He has unique viewpoints which, perhaps, should be given voice whether he has a chance of winning or not.
I'd like to see publically financed debates that allow all to participate under pre-agreed rules for determining relevancy. I'd also like to see renewed focus on equal time laws to prevent only the richest and most influential from being heard. But both of those would be impossible if, say, Ron Paul were to take power. They are already pipe dreams harkening back to a more innocent era before we discovered just how much of a sensitive, caring, emotionally vulnerable person an international corporation is.
I know it would be a very very tricky thing to make a case out of this. I understood that it is their freedom to choose what to air and not air, and i could infringe that right. But intentional deceit would be a good start for an argument. [/quote]
For the libertarian, as I understand the position, even fraud is not a matter for the government to police. The way to combat fraud is by exposing it as individuals, not through government action.
Everyone who doesn't own a media outlet gets frustrated that the public discourse is skewed. We get frustrated when it's skewed against us and are more complacent when it's skewed in our favor. Many of the issues I care about, especially those involving economic justice, are not unfairly portrayed in the public debate, they are largely ignored. But even when I see discussions that misrespresent the facts, I don't consider suing. For one thing, these are largely matters of opinion and spin and people are entitled to speak their minds. Especially in the political field, it's essential that we not have the government, in this case the courts, determining which facts are correct and which are not. limiting public discussion only to court approved facts and interpretations of those facts.
If I supported a candidate with little chance of election, I'd be angry if that candidate was not included in a debate. If I supported a candidate more likely to win, I'd be upset that time that could be spent in a debate hearing what people with realistic chances of being our next leader have to say is interrupted by people who can't realistically win and are thus irrelevant distractions. Someone's going to be unhappy either way. I'm sure there are scenarios in which Ron Paul could still win the nomination. He has unique viewpoints which, perhaps, should be given voice whether he has a chance of winning or not.
I'd like to see publically financed debates that allow all to participate under pre-agreed rules for determining relevancy. I'd also like to see renewed focus on equal time laws to prevent only the richest and most influential from being heard. But both of those would be impossible if, say, Ron Paul were to take power. They are already pipe dreams harkening back to a more innocent era before we discovered just how much of a sensitive, caring, emotionally vulnerable person an international corporation is.
Post #6
Thanks for the input. I have been given a lot to think about. I completely understand the point of view of favoring ones candidate over others, but if that was the only reason i would not attempt such a task. I stopped watching the news altogether because of certain broadcast a few years ago that i knew from personal knowledge to be absolutely false. I usually scour the internet to read what was going on from many different sources nowadays taking each with a grain of salt.
Well guess my next step is to talk to an actual lawyer who is just as insane as i am atm. Wish me luck. I plan on undertaking this project after the elections.
Well guess my next step is to talk to an actual lawyer who is just as insane as i am atm. Wish me luck. I plan on undertaking this project after the elections.
