Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes they have to source the story and there is more to the Dan Rather story than that, in fact there was a movie made about it. That is nothing like conspiracy theories that convince people they need to take a gun to Washington DC from North Carolina. The "sudden panic" is because someone brought a gun into the pizza restaurant in order to do their own "investigation".
I tried watching that movie on a flight....it was brutal. Like career killing brutal.
Interesting article regarding legal recourse for 'Fake News' stories and something that forum members may want to be aware of.
Media sites can be sued for 'fake news' stories that are defamatory.
So that pizzeria owner could (and should) literally sue every site that published that garbage. Not only that, but when the defamatory fake news story is 'republished' by posting it or sharing it with anyone, that person may also be sued. And people are not really 'anonymous' online or forums if they can be tracked down through legal methods and subpoenas.
Attorneys should be volunteering to sue anyone who passed on the pizzeria fake news story, on a contingency basis. So should Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and John Podesta. That would really make extremist sites think twice about simply making up or passing on fake stories that defame people.
And Trump has actually threatened to make it easier to sue for this type of behavior, though he himself, could now probably be sued for passing on fake news.
"...They can hold accountable anybody who has communicated the defamatory statement to anybody else. That includes the person who originated the defamatory statement, but under something called the republication rule, it also includes anybody who repeated the defamatory statement. Now simply retweeting a defamatory statement is probably not going to be enough to qualify for republication, but passing on information that you heard from somebody else certainly is republication..."
...And if you can track those people down, if you can find out those identities, then yes, you can sue every single person who sort of adds to that defamatory statement or repeats that defamatory statement...
Interesting article regarding legal recourse for 'Fake News' stories and something that forum members may want to be aware of.
Media sites can be sued for 'fake news' stories that are defamatory.
So that pizzeria owner could (and should) literally sue every site that published that garbage. Not only that, but when the defamatory fake news story is 'republished' by posting it or sharing it with anyone, that person may also be sued. And people are not really 'anonymous' online or forums if they can be tracked down through legal methods and subpoenas.
Attorneys should be volunteering to sue anyone who passed on the pizzeria fake news story, on a contingency basis. So should Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and John Podesta. That would really make extremist sites think twice about simply making up or passing on fake stories that defame people.
And Trump has actually threatened to make it easier to sue for this type of behavior, though he himself, could now probably be sued for passing on fake news.
"...They can hold accountable anybody who has communicated the defamatory statement to anybody else. That includes the person who originated the defamatory statement, but under something called the republication rule, it also includes anybody who repeated the defamatory statement. Now simply retweeting a defamatory statement is probably not going to be enough to qualify for republication, but passing on information that you heard from somebody else certainly is republication..."
...And if you can track those people down, if you can find out those identities, then yes, you can sue every single person who sort of adds to that defamatory statement or repeats that defamatory statement...
Attorneys aren't going to volunteer to sue on a contingency basis when they have to spend a lot of time and money figuring out who to sue, and when the people they do sue have little in the way of assets. The cash outlay is too high, and the prospect of a big pay-out is too low.
Many of the "Pizzagate" threads have been closed, so I am going to ask a very simple question:
HAS the Pizzagate "story" been investigated and debunked -- and if so, by whom?
Personally, I think that there MIGHT be some truth to it, and I am basing this on the FACT of the Franklin Cover-Up. Have you never heard of that? Here you go -- and this documentary, as indicated, was banned after it was already scheduled to be aired and listed in the TV Guide in May 1994.
Many of the "Pizzagate" threads have been closed, so I am going to ask a very simple question:
HAS the Pizzagate "story" been investigated and debunked -- and if so, by whom?
Personally, I think that there MIGHT be some truth to it, and I am basing this on the FACT of the Franklin Cover-Up. Have you never heard of that? Here you go -- and this documentary, as indicated, was banned after it was already scheduled to be aired and listed in the TV Guide in May 1994.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
