prissythecat Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 (edited) There is a reason why school and employment applications ask "have you been convicted of a crime" rather than "have you been accused of a crime". Edited May 10, 2018 by prissythecat 3
cba fan Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 (edited) 46 minutes ago, Robert James said: I disagree. In addition to trying to get the facts right, newspapers also have to consider whether what they are publishing is newsworthy. Here, it is reasonable to question that since the story is old news that was fully reported at the time it occurred and that has not suddenly become newsworthy again. Interestingly, the EU recognizes a "right to be forgotten," which essentially holds that at some point citizens have a right not to have old indiscretions (or alleged indiscretions) republished. This enables people to move on with their lives, and EU law requires Google to take down URLs after a valid delisting request is made. I see no valid reason for this story to have been reported again now, and agree with the OP. As for the OP being a publisher, the law is well settled that publishing a hyperlink to content does not make you a republisher of that content and you cannot be held legally liable for the accuracy of the content linked to. It's treated as a suggestion to check out information published elsewhere. So, legally speaking, me providing you a link to an article published on the Sports Illustrated website is treated more or less like me telling you that there is an interesting article you should check out on the Sports Illustrated web site. I'm not treated as a publisher. I like the EU way of handling this "when is news old enough to purge". Thanks for that info.. question though: So just providing the link and only commenting on the link, this somehow reduces your exposure and responsibility? What if you provide the link and also quote the link. Are you now responsible? Edited May 10, 2018 by cba fan
Fortunesmith Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 Studies show between 2 to 6 percent of sexual assault allegations in the US are false. With 94% being true , it's hard not to take any allegation seriously until proven otherwise. 1
Robert James Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 (edited) 52 minutes ago, cba fan said: I like the EU way of handling this "when is news old enough to purge". Thanks for that info.. question though: So just providing the link and only commenting on the link, this somehow reduces your exposure and responsibility? What if you provide the link and also quote the link. Are you now responsible? Directly quoting the link would make you responsible as a republisher of whatever portion you quoted. Once you say it, you are responsible. So, if you accused Matt Patricia of being a predator, I couldn't protect myself by saying "cba fan says that Matt Patricia is a predator." I wouldn't be shielded by the fact that I accurately reported what you said -- I'd be responsible for the accuracy of what I repeated. The adage is "tale bearers are as bad as tale makers." Suggesting someone check out a link doesn't fall into that category. If I vouch for the content of the linked material that's a different story. So, if I link to your accusation and introduce it by saying, "cba fan has finally exposed Matt Patricia, follow this link to find out the truth about the Lions' new coach," I'd be on the hook. Edited May 10, 2018 by Robert James
Jay_Fixit Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 2 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said: I bet Teef thinks this is REM or something. @teef I don’t think teef has any electricity where he lives.
Just Joshin' Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 6 minutes ago, Fortunesmith said: Studies show between 2 to 6 percent of sexual assault allegations in the US are false. With 94% being true , it's hard not to take any allegation seriously until proven otherwise. Studies show that 100% of stats presented as facts without back-up evidence are not trust worthy. 1
Haze_21 Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 The Detroit GM and President said they were not aware of the charge when they hired him so yes it is a story.
Fortunesmith Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 4 minutes ago, Dalton said: Studies show that 100% of stats presented as facts without back-up evidence are not trust worthy. voila http://kunskapsbanken.nck.uu.se/nckkb/nck/publik/fil/visa/197/different also https://theconversation.com/heres-the-truth-about-false-accusations-of-sexual-violence-88049 4
BigBuff423 Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 5 hours ago, Max Fischer said: You clearly clearly have a strong opinion on women speaking out on alleged sexual assault. It’s not “taking sides” to report something that happened. Even you would have to admit that a woman reported an assault by three men and a grand jury thought there was enough evidence to warrant a trial. Those are facts. The reporter also explained what happened next, which I thought was fair to Patricia and the woman. Yes, he is innocent in the court of law. Yes, he very well may be entirely without fault and the woman made up the whole thing. But we also cannot assume we know anything else and mostly because the writer posed questions we may never know. I have no idea what happened, and I support any victim's right to seek justice within the boundaries of the law, but the bold portion of your statement is inaccurate. A grand jury indicts, which means there is sufficient evidence to substantiate the charges, as in a preponderance of evidence but that says nothing about being enough for a trial. Trial level evidence requires so much more than a "preponderance of the evidence" which is only intended to substantiate the charges so that willy-nilly and false charges can't be constructed to falsely accuse and punish innocent people. But, as I noted there is probably some truth to the story no matter what....the problem is, with any of these types of concerns there are always layers of truth and misinformation and it's in those details that often determine whether a crime was committed or whether someone made unethical or in some cases, immoral (by someone else's code, not mine) choices.
Doc Brown Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 5 hours ago, corta765 said: Its funny if they looked at BB's tree for guys who went on to be GM's and Presidents its farrr more successful. You have Ozzie Newsome for starters, Scott Peoli, Demtrioff etc.. Coach wise Saban may be his most successful and he is in the college ranks. But I think those who got his tutelage for non coaching positions have done well in my $.02 opinion I agree. The Andy Reid coaching tree is also more successful than Belichick's. John Harbaugh, Ron Rivera, Doug Peterson, and hopefully Sean McDermott. Matt Nagy and Pat Schurmur also have a chance to build on that resume. I'd include Todd Bowles in there, but I hope he fails miserably. That's two Superbowl winners (Harbaugh and Peterson) and one Superbowl loser (Rivera). The irony is that Reid has always fielded consistently good playoff football teams that can never quite close the deal and win a Superbowl.
BigBuff423 Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 What's equally perplexing to me is the "Court Activity"....[NONE FOUND]....in NY at least, when a grand jury is impaneled and the charges and case presented, under court activity, it would show "Grand Jury" with the charges and the date because often the charges change. They're either escalated or reduced based on additional collection of evidence, such as witness or victim testimony and evidence received in the interim. But the fact that it said, NONE FOUND, makes even less sense to this twisted scenario. On a side note, I'm from Oneida County....don't know the man or his family but put that out there in a sort of, full disclosure notice.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 4 hours ago, LABillzFan said: If everything was reported as fact, the story would be two sentences long. But it's not. Why? Because once you get past the facts, that Patricia is legally innocent, the writer doesn't stop there. The writer MUST push the questions against a legally innocent man. Do thse sound like facts to you about Patricia's case? No. It sounds like the author has his own ideas of what he thinks should have happened, and needs everyone to follow his train of thought. Did the journalist stop when he stated Patricia was innocent? No. Of course not. Now' let's add more reason to end the story. End of story? No. Of course not. Not let's add yet another reason to end the story. End of story? No. Of course not. The author needs you to get behind his implied belief that even though Patricia was legally innocent... IF he's innocent? Really? Few people hate all things that have ever sprung from NE*, but this article is irresponsible. Trashy. Clickbait. Embarrassing. i read through the articles and subsequent posts looking for this sort of reply. You nailed it. It's a report on factual events with a Dickinsonian flair. Like many things in life, the only problems that come out of it are for the accused (if innocent) and/or the accuser (if truthful, assuming she relives what would have been horrible). No one knows what actually happened other than it all went away. And by the way, the headline could as easily read: Lions Matt Patricia Devastated By Questions Answered Long Ago. Well done sir.
YoloinOhio Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 Classic Bellicheat. Bill realized he doesnt want to coordinate the D after all up in NE so he desperately leaked this item to get him fired in Detroit so he can then hire him back in NE
boyst Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 1 hour ago, Fortunesmith said: Studies show between 2 to 6 percent of sexual assault allegations in the US are false. With 94% being true , it's hard not to take any allegation seriously until proven otherwise. Ya know, except like Constitutional rights and the whole innocent until.proven guilty thing. But the cool part I like is 99% of statistics are made up. So even if I bothered asking for a source it's probably so discreditable that it doesn't matter
Fortunesmith Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 Just now, Boyst62 said: Ya know, except like Constitutional rights and the whole innocent until.proven guilty thing. But the cool part I like is 99% of statistics are made up. So even if I bothered asking for a source it's probably so discreditable that it doesn't matter I posted sources a couple posts down, slick. The US government has to uphold the right of innocent until proven guilty - people's opinions do not have such a requirement.
boyst Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 1 hour ago, Fortunesmith said: voila http://kunskapsbanken.nck.uu.se/nckkb/nck/publik/fil/visa/197/different also https://theconversation.com/heres-the-truth-about-false-accusations-of-sexual-violence-88049 Rebuttal with links showing your links to be crap. Would be easy to provide and so easy I won't bother. But your links are not reasonably honest as no such statistics are kept by law enforcement.
JohnC Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 4 minutes ago, Boyst62 said: Ya know, except like Constitutional rights and the whole innocent until.proven guilty thing. But the cool part I like is 99% of statistics are made up. So even if I bothered asking for a source it's probably so discreditable that it doesn't matter Where did you get the statistic that 99% of statistics are made up? Did you just make that up? 1
Recommended Posts