It is acceptable to not apply "innocent until proven guilty" in the "court of public opinion" bec there are no real ramifications & freedom of speech is a higher priority.
This reminds me of cases like the Duke lacrosse team members that were falsely accused of rape. Many assumed Guilty, but later they were acquitted and the accuser admitted to lying.
The court of public opinion can have a huge impact on a person's future, regardless of the findings of a judiciary court.
very much agree
The court of public opinion is largely dependent on what the media says. Given that is the case, and the media reports what gets good ratings, judgment inevitably follows, however ill-informed.
does seem that way
There are real ramifications. Riots have started and cities burned because the "mob" didn't get the answer it wanted...
*cough treyvon Martin cough cough George cough Zimmerman cough cough*
lol I heard Zimmerman got an assault or something on his GF. That dude is legit crazy, he should of gotten manslaughter.
This user is currently being ignored
Sorry no. I still believe the press should only report facts. Individuals have free speech yes but the media has a job to do and it's not entertainment.
media or specifically self-named news groups? i think most media makes no attempt at news and is only for entertainment.
We may not have true media anymore.
It's acceptable because public opinion is still just that, opinion, and has no official standing. "Free speech", as a right and legal concept, has absolutely nothing to do with it.
I think free speech as everything to do with it. speculation is often protected as free speech, regardless of whether there is anything backing it up or not.
Free Speech, in the legal (and only literal) sense, is the right that all American citizens have to keep *the government* from persecuting you for saying something they don't like. Public opinion isn't that, so it's irrelevant.
you're saying public opinion is not protected as free speech?
I'm saying anyone who argues "I'm allowed to talk as though this person is guilty because I have the right to freedom of speech" is being ignorant unless the guilty person is a politician. They're allowed to talk that way, but it's not because of
some sort of special freedom granted by the Constitution.
but I bet that would be the argument on commentary shows and by people in general conversation. they are informing the public of possible facts, which until proven either way are opinion, and would argue that they have the right to express under FoS.