Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

(90,061 posts)

10. What is required is a clear distinction between observed fact and opinion.

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 10:38 AM

Apr 2013

That can be tricky at the boundaries, but that's what juries are for. Make it a civil matter and let the jury sort it out.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

15 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The requirement for convicting a media source of libel ought to be much lower. [View all] TimberValley Apr 2013 OP

It sounds good - but it could have a chilling effect on discourse el_bryanto Apr 2013 #3

The bar has to be high to discourage frivolous lawsuits hack89 Apr 2013 #5

Freedom of press shouldn't apply if the information is false. TimberValley Apr 2013 #6

I want the government to be scared of the press hack89 Apr 2013 #8

+1 onenote Apr 2013 #7

well if you go too far then you have the English system dsc Apr 2013 #11

"Honest mistakes" should still be suable, just like any other industry. TimberValley Apr 2013 #13

Here is why we have this standard dsc Apr 2013 #14

for non-public figures that is the law. onenote Apr 2013 #15