NationStates

I'm glad he's facing a trial, but feel the maximum is too high for this particular offense. 20 years on just one of the counts strikes me as absurd, and i'm concerned that Smollett has alienated literally everyone there will be no concern for proportionality in his sentence, and a draconian punishment may be handed down without protest from people. He could potentially spend the rest of his life in prison if convicted on all 16 counts.

I'm not convinced that is proportional given that Smollett was not the person who created the material circumstances by which his actions harmed others, the sensationalist media was. Were the media not so reckless and determined to push a political narrative, this incident would have merely been a waste of officials time, certainly something that warrants punishment, but not something that has caused direct harm to others. Any sentence Smollett receives should be viewed within the context of him being a scapegoat for media recklessness.

The media are the ones who, through reckless disregard for truth in pursuit of sensationalism, and through negligence, caused the majority of the harm in this incident. We shouldn't punish Smollett simply because punishing the media is beyond our means, we should instead punish Smollett for what he actually did, wasted officials time, and evaluate the harm this incident has caused overall, before concluding the media needs to be reigned in and regulated after decades of this kind of shit.

Ostroeuropa wrote:I'm glad he's facing a trial, but feel the maximum is too high for this particular offense. 20 years on just one of the counts strikes me as absurd, and i'm concerned that Smollett has alienated literally everyone there will be no concern for proportionality in his sentence, and a draconian punishment may be handed down without protest from people. He could potentially spend the rest of his life in prison if convicted on all 16 counts.

I'm not convinced that is proportional given that Smollett was not the person who created the material circumstances by which his actions harmed others, the sensationalist media was. Were the media not so reckless and determined to push a political narrative, this incident would have merely been a waste of officials time, certainly something that warrants punishment, but not something that has caused direct harm to others. Any sentence Smollett receives should be viewed within the context of him being a scapegoat for media recklessness.

The media are the ones who, through reckless disregard for truth in pursuit of sensationalism, and through negligence, caused the majority of the harm in this incident. We shouldn't punish Smollett simply because punishing the media is beyond our means, we should instead punish Smollett for what he actually did, wasted officials time, and evaluate the harm this incident has caused overall, before concluding the media needs to be reigned in and regulated after decades of this kind of shit.

but he did waste valuable police resources and faked a hate crime when he was really crying wolf the max sentence is more then enough not only for what he did to the CPD and the City but he also did it to advance his career as well as for other wrong reasons and his story fell apart faster then Venezuela's economy.

Ostroeuropa wrote:I'm glad he's facing a trial, but feel the maximum is too high for this particular offense. 20 years on just one of the counts strikes me as absurd, and i'm concerned that Smollett has alienated literally everyone there will be no concern for proportionality in his sentence, and a draconian punishment may be handed down without protest from people. He could potentially spend the rest of his life in prison if convicted on all 16 counts.

I'm not convinced that is proportional given that Smollett was not the person who created the material circumstances by which his actions harmed others, the sensationalist media was. Were the media not so reckless and determined to push a political narrative, this incident would have merely been a waste of officials time, certainly something that warrants punishment, but not something that has caused direct harm to others. Any sentence Smollett receives should be viewed within the context of him being a scapegoat for media recklessness.

The media are the ones who, through reckless disregard for truth in pursuit of sensationalism, and through negligence, caused the majority of the harm in this incident. We shouldn't punish Smollett simply because punishing the media is beyond our means, we should instead punish Smollett for what he actually did, wasted officials time, and evaluate the harm this incident has caused overall, before concluding the media needs to be reigned in and regulated after decades of this kind of shit.

... It's the media's fault that Smollett lied about getting lynched by two white dudes to spark a race war... because... reasons?

Ostroeuropa wrote:I'm glad he's facing a trial, but feel the maximum is too high for this particular offense. 20 years on just one of the counts strikes me as absurd, and i'm concerned that Smollett has alienated literally everyone there will be no concern for proportionality in his sentence, and a draconian punishment may be handed down without protest from people. He could potentially spend the rest of his life in prison if convicted on all 16 counts.

I'm not convinced that is proportional given that Smollett was not the person who created the material circumstances by which his actions harmed others, the sensationalist media was. Were the media not so reckless and determined to push a political narrative, this incident would have merely been a waste of officials time, certainly something that warrants punishment, but not something that has caused direct harm to others. Any sentence Smollett receives should be viewed within the context of him being a scapegoat for media recklessness.

The media are the ones who, through reckless disregard for truth in pursuit of sensationalism, and through negligence, caused the majority of the harm in this incident. We shouldn't punish Smollett simply because punishing the media is beyond our means, we should instead punish Smollett for what he actually did, wasted officials time, and evaluate the harm this incident has caused overall, before concluding the media needs to be reigned in and regulated after decades of this kind of shit.

In what way is presenting the facts as the evidence available at the time showed them to be sensationalism?

Torrocca wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:I'm glad he's facing a trial, but feel the maximum is too high for this particular offense. 20 years on just one of the counts strikes me as absurd, and i'm concerned that Smollett has alienated literally everyone there will be no concern for proportionality in his sentence, and a draconian punishment may be handed down without protest from people. He could potentially spend the rest of his life in prison if convicted on all 16 counts.

I'm not convinced that is proportional given that Smollett was not the person who created the material circumstances by which his actions harmed others, the sensationalist media was. Were the media not so reckless and determined to push a political narrative, this incident would have merely been a waste of officials time, certainly something that warrants punishment, but not something that has caused direct harm to others. Any sentence Smollett receives should be viewed within the context of him being a scapegoat for media recklessness.

The media are the ones who, through reckless disregard for truth in pursuit of sensationalism, and through negligence, caused the majority of the harm in this incident. We shouldn't punish Smollett simply because punishing the media is beyond our means, we should instead punish Smollett for what he actually did, wasted officials time, and evaluate the harm this incident has caused overall, before concluding the media needs to be reigned in and regulated after decades of this kind of shit.

... It's the media's fault that Smollett lied about getting lynched by two white dudes to spark a race war... because... reasons?

Yeah, I was previously of the opinion that the media fucked up but I don't really see what they could have done differently now.

Ifreann wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:As has been pointed out by everybody but yourself, the charges are entirely in line with normal police procedure in this kind of case, as well as the peculiarities of how misinformation charges are generally handled in the US.

Police don't charge criminals, prosecutors do.

In the state we're talking about the police notify prosecutors of the circumstances, and make charging recommendations which are usually followed.

Scomagia wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
... It's the media's fault that Smollett lied about getting lynched by two white dudes to spark a race war... because... reasons?

Yeah, I was previously of the opinion that the media fucked up but I don't really see what they could have done differently now.

It's not like they could've worked with information they didn't have. All they had to go on was the accusation of an unsuccessful lynching, something that hasn't happened in America since the 1970s. It's not like they could've done anything different.

Torrocca wrote:

Scomagia wrote:Yeah, I was previously of the opinion that the media fucked up but I don't really see what they could have done differently now.

It's not like they could've worked with information they didn't have. All they had to go on was the accusation of an unsuccessful lynching, something that hasn't happened in America since the 1970s. It's not like they could've done anything different.

Exactly, and although they should follow the story in the current phase to ensure that the right information is projected, it's his fault and nobody elses that this story was released in the first place.

Ostroeuropa wrote:I'm glad he's facing a trial, but feel the maximum is too high for this particular offense. 20 years on just one of the counts strikes me as absurd, and i'm concerned that Smollett has alienated literally everyone there will be no concern for proportionality in his sentence, and a draconian punishment may be handed down without protest from people. He could potentially spend the rest of his life in prison if convicted on all 16 counts.

I'm not convinced that is proportional given that Smollett was not the person who created the material circumstances by which his actions harmed others, the sensationalist media was. Were the media not so reckless and determined to push a political narrative, this incident would have merely been a waste of officials time, certainly something that warrants punishment, but not something that has caused direct harm to others. Any sentence Smollett receives should be viewed within the context of him being a scapegoat for media recklessness.

Riiiight, because everything Jussie's in trouble for was not sensationalist at all and definitely didn't push a political narrative! All he did was falsify racist attacks against him in order to fuel racial divides in America, through pretending to send himself poison and making false police reports which wasted the CPD's time. I think you underestimate the fact that when he committed mail fraud, he committed a federal crime.

Ostroeuropa wrote:The media are the ones who, through reckless disregard for truth in pursuit of sensationalism, and through negligence, caused the majority of the harm in this incident. We shouldn't punish Smollett simply because punishing the media is beyond our means, we should instead punish Smollett for what he actually did, wasted officials time, and evaluate the harm this incident has caused overall, before concluding the media needs to be reigned in and regulated after decades of this kind of shit.

Smollett is being punished for what he's actually done. The "majority of the harm" was done by him, not by the media.

Vassenor wrote:

Inkopolitia wrote:As I said, people that affect situations that are happening in the world do not deserve sympathy. Smollett's stupidity and ignorance had a consequence, which comes in the form of 16 felony counts.

Which, as as been pointed out, is excessive for what actually happened.

Excessive or not, Smollett doesn't deserve sympathy from anyone because people who have suffered hate crimes will just be called liars.

Vassenor wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:I'm glad he's facing a trial, but feel the maximum is too high for this particular offense. 20 years on just one of the counts strikes me as absurd, and i'm concerned that Smollett has alienated literally everyone there will be no concern for proportionality in his sentence, and a draconian punishment may be handed down without protest from people. He could potentially spend the rest of his life in prison if convicted on all 16 counts.

I'm not convinced that is proportional given that Smollett was not the person who created the material circumstances by which his actions harmed others, the sensationalist media was. Were the media not so reckless and determined to push a political narrative, this incident would have merely been a waste of officials time, certainly something that warrants punishment, but not something that has caused direct harm to others. Any sentence Smollett receives should be viewed within the context of him being a scapegoat for media recklessness.

The media are the ones who, through reckless disregard for truth in pursuit of sensationalism, and through negligence, caused the majority of the harm in this incident. We shouldn't punish Smollett simply because punishing the media is beyond our means, we should instead punish Smollett for what he actually did, wasted officials time, and evaluate the harm this incident has caused overall, before concluding the media needs to be reigned in and regulated after decades of this kind of shit.

In what way is presenting the facts as the evidence available at the time showed them to be sensationalism?

You're underestimating just how much the far-right will seize onto anything that can remotely demonize the media and justify Trump “reigning them” in (which, let's be honest, we all know what that really means).

Torrocca wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:I'm glad he's facing a trial, but feel the maximum is too high for this particular offense. 20 years on just one of the counts strikes me as absurd, and i'm concerned that Smollett has alienated literally everyone there will be no concern for proportionality in his sentence, and a draconian punishment may be handed down without protest from people. He could potentially spend the rest of his life in prison if convicted on all 16 counts.

I'm not convinced that is proportional given that Smollett was not the person who created the material circumstances by which his actions harmed others, the sensationalist media was. Were the media not so reckless and determined to push a political narrative, this incident would have merely been a waste of officials time, certainly something that warrants punishment, but not something that has caused direct harm to others. Any sentence Smollett receives should be viewed within the context of him being a scapegoat for media recklessness.

The media are the ones who, through reckless disregard for truth in pursuit of sensationalism, and through negligence, caused the majority of the harm in this incident. We shouldn't punish Smollett simply because punishing the media is beyond our means, we should instead punish Smollett for what he actually did, wasted officials time, and evaluate the harm this incident has caused overall, before concluding the media needs to be reigned in and regulated after decades of this kind of shit.

... It's the media's fault that Smollett lied about getting lynched by two white dudes to spark a race war... because... reasons?

1.
It's the medias fault they publicized this at all given that the facts weren't out yet and the police hadn't made a definitive comment. We keep seeing them fuck up like this on false accusations. It is not in the public interest to make this a major news story given that it doesn't impact most peoples lives nor is it information they particularly need to know, and the only way you can view it as public interest is if you up and decide that it is in the public interest for progressive style racism to be advanced at every opportunity to drive a particular political narrative.

2.
Further, the media used it to immediately push a narrative about a class of people in general. They did not merely report on what happened to Smollet, but used it to launch into a rant about whites, males, and Trump supporters and push a political narrative. This is where the "race war" aspect comes from. Smollett couldn't do that by himself, he relied on the media to do it for him. This is substantially different from simply reporting the facts of the case without using those facts to frame a political narrative with an outgroup as "The bad guys." somehow linked to the crime in ideological terms.

Vassenor wrote:In what way is presenting the facts as the evidence available at the time showed them to be sensationalism?

I know for a progressive it might seem like this is what they did, but i'm sorry to say your ideological narrative is not a "fact". They presented a socio-cultural narrative and presented it as true with regards to the case.

Scomagia wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
... It's the media's fault that Smollett lied about getting lynched by two white dudes to spark a race war... because... reasons?

Yeah, I was previously of the opinion that the media fucked up but I don't really see what they could have done differently now.

They could have ignored the whole thing. But that would be a really weird thing for profit-driven organisations to do.

Ifreann wrote:

Scomagia wrote:Yeah, I was previously of the opinion that the media fucked up but I don't really see what they could have done differently now.

They could have ignored the whole thing. But that would be a really weird thing for profit-driven organisations to do.

Precisely my point. Unfettered capitalist media cannot be trusted to be socially responsible, and so must be regulated.

Hanafuridake wrote:
You're underestimating just how much the far-right will seize onto anything that can remotely demonize the media and justify Trump “reigning them” in (which, let's be honest, we all know what that really means).

lol. Opposing capitalist media = far right.
Sure.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Ifreann wrote:They could have ignored the whole thing. But that would be a really weird thing for profit-driven organisations to do.

Precisely my point. Unfettered capitalist media cannot be trusted to be socially responsible, and so must be regulated.

Hanafuridake wrote:
You're underestimating just how much the far-right will seize onto anything that can remotely demonize the media and justify Trump “reigning them” in (which, let's be honest, we all know what that really means).

lol. Opposing capitalist media = far right.
Sure.

You do understand the problem that come with regulating media right?

Ostroeuropa wrote:Precisely my point. Unfettered capitalist media cannot be trusted to be socially responsible, and so must be regulated..

It is a huge stretch to call the mainsteam media unfettered...it's a highly regulated industry with massive barriers to entry and very little competition. Thankfully at least we have the freedom of information provided by the internet, but with the efforts pioneered by the same MSM companies to kill net neutrality it's clear they view it as a threat to their delivery of domestic propaganda.

Andsed wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Precisely my point. Unfettered capitalist media cannot be trusted to be socially responsible, and so must be regulated.



lol. Opposing capitalist media = far right.
Sure.

You do understand the problem that come with regulating media right?

You can regulate large media conglomerates while leaving smaller ones unregulated.

Vetalia wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:Precisely my point. Unfettered capitalist media cannot be trusted to be socially responsible, and so must be regulated..

It is a huge stretch to call the mainsteam media unfettered...it's a highly regulated industry with massive barriers to entry and very little competition. Thankfully at least we have the freedom of information provided by the internet, but with the efforts pioneered by the same MSM companies to kill net neutrality it's clear they view it as a threat to their delivery of domestic propaganda.

The key is to decouple the profit motive from media reporting, or at least mute it, or punish companies for placing it above the public interest.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Ifreann wrote:They could have ignored the whole thing. But that would be a really weird thing for profit-driven organisations to do.

Precisely my point. Unfettered capitalist media cannot be trusted to be socially responsible, and so must be regulated.

Hanafuridake wrote:
You're underestimating just how much the far-right will seize onto anything that can remotely demonize the media and justify Trump “reigning them” in (which, let's be honest, we all know what that really means).

lol. Opposing capitalist media = far right.
Sure.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Emphasis mine.

So no, regulating the press in the US isn't happening.

Ostroeuropa wrote:I'm glad he's facing a trial, but feel the maximum is too high for this particular offense. 20 years on just one of the counts strikes me as absurd,

20 years seems fair given he was willing to press charges when the police told him they'd arrested someone. The fact that he was willing to ruin someone's life to perpetuate the hoax is a million times worse than the hoax itself.

Vassenor wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Precisely my point. Unfettered capitalist media cannot be trusted to be socially responsible, and so must be regulated.



lol. Opposing capitalist media = far right.
Sure.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Emphasis mine.

So no, regulating the press in the US isn't happening.

The Brussels effect can take care of it. The EU can simply ban US news organizations that don't meet their standards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect

This would mean that a US organization that meets those regulations gains access to far more customers and can edge out competitors.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Andsed wrote:You do understand the problem that come with regulating media right?

You can regulate large media conglomerates while leaving smaller ones unregulated.

Vetalia wrote:
It is a huge stretch to call the mainsteam media unfettered...it's a highly regulated industry with massive barriers to entry and very little competition. Thankfully at least we have the freedom of information provided by the internet, but with the efforts pioneered by the same MSM companies to kill net neutrality it's clear they view it as a threat to their delivery of domestic propaganda.

The key is to decouple the profit motive from media reporting, or at least mute it, or punish companies for placing it above the public interest.

Okay to what extent should the media be regulated?

Ostroeuropa wrote:lol. Opposing capitalist media = far right.
Sure.

Opposing the media doesn't equate to opposing capitalism. But a lot of far-righters do oppose capitalism.

Andsed wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Precisely my point. Unfettered capitalist media cannot be trusted to be socially responsible, and so must be regulated.



lol. Opposing capitalist media = far right.
Sure.

You do understand the problem that come with regulating media right?

Do you imagine that the media is not subject to regulation, even in America?

Andsed wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
You can regulate large media conglomerates while leaving smaller ones unregulated.



The key is to decouple the profit motive from media reporting, or at least mute it, or punish companies for placing it above the public interest.

Okay to what extent should the media be regulated?

UK standards on defamation are a good start, but a good second step would be to ban reporting on perpetrators of alleged crimes until conviction unless a warrant is acquired by investigators on the grounds it is likely to yield further information, unless those crimes are of a particular subset of crimes that we should consider carefully, like corruption, bribery, and so on. That'd take care of false accusations where a perpetrator is named.

This wouldn't handle the Smollett case since the perpetrators weren't named. For that you'd need a second regulation surrounding disproportionate reporting and creating a hostile social environment. I'd use similar standards to a hostile work environment.

If the shit you're saying on air and the double standards you are using isn't something you could do to a co-worker, you can't do it to the public. The litmus test would be; "If a member of the group being discussed were instead working at the company, and had been subjected to this treatment by the speaker, would the company be liable for a discrimination lawsuit?".

If yes, fine the company.

The way the media reports on rape for instance would immediately result in massive fines given that they report rape of men by women as "Sex romps" and so on, which if said to a co-worker who was a rape victim would be a slam dunk discrimination lawsuit.

Alternatively, pass a law saying that as far as we are concerned, the on-air statements of news corporations are themselves evidence of a work environment. This would mean when a news company says that, every male working at the company can sue for discrimination even if they were not personally the target of the comment.

This would protect groups from being singled out by the media in the way it tends to in order to demonize them for profit, the most obvious examples being muslims, immigrants, whites, and males.

The rationale being that, for the same reason laws exist to prevent hostile work environments, the media should not be allowed to create a society that is a hostile environment for some groups, and the behavior is the same in both cases.

This also brings the media in line with other businesses. You are not allowed to rant about someone being a nigger when they try to buy a cake from you. People watch the news to consume the news as customers.

Good this guy deserves to go to jail, once he is convicted.
Adding to the sensationalist racism narrative is pretty shit, hoping he gets a loooong arse time.