Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
What many see here, and not without precedent, is yet another attempt by the media, most especially CNN, to bully and intimidate private, everyday citizens into convicting Manafort.
Just funny to see the breitbart miss information posted as some how True
Is it false to say "what many see here" followed by the rest of your sentence? I admit it is a rhetorical trick, but so is saying something is a "complete fabrication" when that is not demonstrably true. Many may well see a bullying tactic, and the precedents that Breitbart lists may well be seen by many as bullying as well.
Bullying is one of those current trigger words--you know, like racist, sexist, and various phobes, and lots of other stuff. They are quite effective in riling folks up against other folks.
Names are only released after a trial everyone knows that except breitbart readers one example The Communist News Network will use any tactic necessary to deprive Americans of their rights, including the right to a fair trial.
Typically the first amendment guarantees the public has a right to know the jurors' key words after the trial
|
The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on that particular privacy issue (apparently, re Roe v Wade, privacy is an important right). Various state courts are leaning to giving jurors that right.
And if the First Amendment gives the public a right to know the jurors, there is no specification as to when that right kicks in. One could assume if the public has that right, it would have it before or during as well as after the trial.
There seems to be a lot in dispute and undecided about the issue. And about even if you have the right to publish names and addresses, is it ethical to do so. And maybe even about "What many see here".
Threaded Mode