Iowa's Gary Dolphin Suspended For Rest Of The Year

[Cheeks]

So you are advocating that if someone is 100% lying about another person's action that they should have significant punishment....I don't think anyone disagrees. However, a not guilty verdict does not make accusations 100% false, just means they aren't provable. The scenario you describe for massive penalties is near zero in terms of actual cases that have or could happen.

Never said anything about a not guilty verdict...did I?  I don't think so and hope it didn't come off that way.  I believe I said someone that is PROVEN to have made it up with the intent to harm someone else. 

When we have absolute evidence of someone faking a sexual assault attack in order to get back at someone, etc, where if a jury convicted the accused they could do decades of time, the punishment for willfully trying to frame someone has to be severe. It cannot be disorderly conduct.

It's a high bar to prove, but there are to many examples of this stuff and the person is merely charged with filing a false report. That has got to stop. 

I'd also push for complete overhaul of libel laws to hold the media accountable.  Some of the crap they get away with is terrible for a democracy and society.  The standards have fallen so far.  Smear smear smear...oops, we sorry.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

I'd also push for complete overhaul of libel laws to hold the media accountable.  Some of the crap they get away with is terrible for a democracy and society.  The standards have fallen so far.  Smear smear smear...oops, we sorry.

Oh hey, are we going to include politicians in your revised laws?

[Jockey]

In the four weeks between when Smollett made his claims and his arrest, there was not one resulting act of violence.
Your very silly claim that it was going to lead to mass riots is very silly and not to be taken seriously.

I find it fascinating that in a very good discussion about race and the implications of language that is used, our resident racist decided to insert a random post about a black man doing something bad. It was utterly predictable.

[Jockey]

I think that's all very reasonable.  But, I think a lot of people absolutely blur the line between "that's racist" and "he's racist."  I think that distinction is frequently lost in the public discourse.  And I think that often the people who are yelling the loudest on these issues (not referring to anyone on this board) are perfectly happy to blur that distinction.  If I believed that people would treat the phrase "that's racist" as non-pejorative, I'd probably be fully on board with you.  But in my experience, the interpretation that you espouse is a distinct minority.

I love all of your posts here, Still. I don't know that I agree with all that you say, but as far as your comments about "that's racist" and "he's racist" and your remark about the difference between "racist" and "offensive", I think you have hit the nail on the head. You have made several other excellent points as well.

If we are to have a dialog in this country about race, these two things would be great openers for the discussion.

[Jockey]

Brother TAMU,

I honestly don't know what should happen to the radio announcer. He said something (live, in the heat of battle, as it were) that was at best in bad taste and at worst racist. I wish we lived in a world where the worst possible interpretation of people's words wasn't the fail safe opinion of many but it is what it is. In my experience (anecdotal, I know), people who give others the benefit of the doubt are much more happy than those who don't.

Completely agree, Lenny. When I read his comments I never had a thought about whether he was racist or not. Only that his comment really crossed the line. Whether he should be punished or not? I really don't know.

[Pakuni]

I'd also push for complete overhaul of libel laws to hold the media accountable.  Some of the crap they get away with is terrible for a democracy and society.  The standards have fallen so far.  Smear smear smear...oops, we sorry.

Next thing you know, Cheeks will be telling us the press is the enemy of the people.
Anyhow, I'm very skeptical of your understanding of libel laws. Suffice to say, if the media operated as you seem to think, they could easily be sued out of existence. But have you ever wondered why, if the media is so continuously telling lies about your leaders, they don't sue? (Hint: Truth is a defense).

[Cheeks]

Oh hey, are we going to include politicians in your revised laws?

Hell yes.

[Cheeks]

Next thing you know, Cheeks will be telling us the press is the enemy of the people.
Anyhow, I'm very skeptical of your understanding of libel laws. Suffice to say, if the media operated as you seem to think, they could easily be sued out of existence. But have you ever wondered why, if the media is so continuously telling lies about your leaders, they don't sue? (Hint: Truth is a defense).

Media that purposely distorts the truth is the Enemy of the people. I don't k ow how anyone would disagree with that.  Now, do I think most of the media fits into this descriptor? Of course not.  Do some? Absolutely. 

I'm talking about KNOWINGLY distorting. Do you support that?  Is that doing society a service by knowingly doing that?  Purposely caught in undercover video manipulating polls, purposely caught faking evidence, so on and so forth.  Purposely making claims they know are false. 

Trust in media at all time lows right now.  They are doing a bang up job.