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.
The "reporters" were unable or unwilling to back up their unsubstantiated slander story and the management and legal department refused to allow them to tell lies on the air. So why is that a problem?
What the hell are you talking about?! Is that how Faux is spinning that now?
First, federal law recognizes a dichotomy between rulemaking and adjudication; it does not equate the two. See Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204 (1988) (Scalia, J., concurring). Second, while federal agencies may have discretion to formulate policy through the adjudicative process, the same is not true under Florida law. The Florida Legislature has limited state agencies’ discretion to formulate policy through the adjudicative process by requiring agencies to formally adopt each agency statement that fits the definition of a “rule” under section 120.52. See § 120.54. As noted above, the legislature’s use of the word “adopted” in the whistle-blower's statute was deliberate and was intended to limit the scope of conduct that will subject an employer to liability. This limitation is consistent with the legislature’s requirement that agency statements that fit the definition of a “rule” be formally adopted. Recognizing an uncodified agency policy developed through the adjudicative process as the equivalent of a formally adopted rule is not consistent with this policy, and it would expand the scope of conduct that could subject an employer to liability beyond what Florida’s Legislature could have contemplated when it enacted the whistle-blower's statute. Because the FCC’s news distortion policy is not a “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment in her favor and remand for entry of a judgment in favor of WTVT.
Reversed and remanded.
The "reporters" were unable or unwilling to back up their unsubstantiated slander story and the management and legal department refused to allow them to tell lies on the air. So why is that a problem?
Apparently the case had enough "merit" to get into court........so the FACTS had to be decided by a jury. FOX worked hard to prove that they could, in fact, lie or whatever they wanted regarding the "truthfulness" of their broadcasts and they would not be breaking the law.
What the hell are you talking about?! Is that how Faux is spinning that now?
Looks like that's the case.
The ruling by the 2nd DCA gives FOX exactly what they wanted. So now FOX is trying to turn it around and claim that they went to court because they didn't want to put "lies" on the air. LMAO!
FOX got SUED. They had no choice but to find a "defense"........and the 2nd DCA of Florida accommodated them. LOL
By the way, that area of Florida (Hillsborough County) is well known as a very......hmmmm......well, "provincial" area...with more than a few crooks. LOL
The ruling by the 2nd DCA gives FOX exactly what they wanted. So now FOX is trying to turn it around and claim that they went to court because they didn't want to put "lies" on the air. LMAO!
So they lie about their lying.... it's just science fiction.
The worst part is that Faux fans dont remember and dont want to remember and WILL NOT look up this stuff even though they have all the information right at their fingertips, and Faux knows that to be true and has been living off it all these years.
It would be funny if it werent so awful -- if it didnt have such horrible implications.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
The "reporters" were unable or unwilling to back up their unsubstantiated slander story and the management and legal department refused to allow them to tell lies on the air. So why is that a problem?
momonkey, do you know what the real story was? Please look it up.
Right, there's no law against it, it's "just" hoped that the media wont lie and mislead. You all celebrate that, that makes you feel good. We know.
So what was that anti-Fox news story that had no basis in fact "what so ever"?
I went to the trouble of finding the court's decision that ceaseSpin.org didn't provide for some reason so that we could all discuss the facts involved. The reason their was a court case to begin with is the couple wanted to air a story they couldn't back up with facts. They spent a lot of time and WTVT's money to put togther an irresponsible, unverifiable news piece that more professional reporters would have abandoned when it became clear the proof wasn't there to back up their claims. Instead of taking their lumps and likely a negative review, they lashed out at the station that was simply trying to report news in a responsible fashion. They were effectively canned when the station declined renewing their contracts. They sued the station because the station had a lot of money. The only thing that survived the fist court's decision was the FL whistle blower statute that was wrongly applied because no codified FCC "rule", that FL law required, existed. It was the appeals court that evaluated the law to see if a whistle blower statute applied. It didn't, so the original decision was reversed. How does that become Fox suing for the right to lie?
Here's the link again. Maybe you could read it this time before parroting ceaseSPIN.org's baseless lies and distortions.
The above portion of your posts certainly sounds to me like you are defending FOX news and focusing on the fact that the the jury found taht teh Plaintiff's were wrongfully terminated........and then that decision was reversed on appeal........And you say ceasespin WAS ORIGINALLY FABRICATING AN ANTI-FOX STORY THAT HAS NO BASIS IN FACT WHATSOEVER. That really wasn't the point.
Seems to me that most people would find it at least interesting that FOX took the position that under the 1st Amendment they could, in fact, lie and distort "news" or use basically "entertainment" as the basis of their "news channel" and they WON that case............I can certainly understand why that finding would be perceived to be "anti-FOX" because of the defense they used. Can you even image the uproar which would have come from FOX "News" had CBS, NBC, or ABC gone to court and used that defense! OMG!
Was that finding by the 2nd DCA ever appealed to any higher court?
Maybe I missed it?
Here's the link. Please be so kind as to point out where Fox claimed it had the right to lie on the air.
Was this on Rachel Maddow?Isn't she just a leftist version of Sean Hannity?Besides all this anti Fox News stuff on all the other media outlets including print media is just pathetic.It just proves that they are businesses and not altruistic endeavors as they would have you believe and it is just more obvious when they are losing market share to a relatively new company.
Apparently the case had enough "merit" to get into court........so the FACTS had to be decided by a jury. FOX worked hard to prove that they could, in fact, lie or whatever they wanted regarding the "truthfulness" of their broadcasts and they would not be breaking the law.
I went to the trouble of finding the court's decision that ceaseSpin.org didn't provide for some reason so that we could all discuss the facts involved. The reason their was a court case to begin with is the couple wanted to air a story they couldn't back up with facts. They spent a lot of time and WTVT's money to put togther an irresponsible, unverifiable news piece that more professional reporters would have abandoned when it became clear the proof wasn't there to back up their claims. Instead of taking their lumps and likely a negative review, they lashed out at the station that was simply trying to report news in a responsible fashion. They were effectively canned when the station declined renewing their contracts. They sued the station because the station had a lot of money. The only thing that survived the fist court's decision was the FL whistle blower statute that was wrongly applied because no codified FCC "rule", that FL law required, existed. It was the appeals court that evaluated the law to see if a whistle blower statute applied. It didn't, so the original decision was reversed. How does that become Fox suing for the right to lie?
Here's the link again. Maybe you could read it this time before parroting ceaseSPIN.org's baseless lies and distortions.
Fox argued in the appeal that it could lie and distort because of it's 1st Amendment rights........and Fox won! That's how it "Fox's right to lie" became legal. Fox was NOT sued for the right to lie. Fox was sued because for wrongful termination. In the appeal of the case BY FOX, FOX argued that distorting/lying was their 1st Amendment right. The Florida 2nd DCA AGREED WITH FOX......and stated on the last page of the ruling that the FCC's position on distortion was POLICY and not a law or regulation, etc., which was the basis for FOX winning the APPEAL.
You do a really good job of twisting these things! You may be an attorney......prosecutor maybe? LOL
Please be so kind as to show me the appellate documents FILED BY FOX. Those should give all of us a more complete understanding of exactly what FOX's argument and basis for appeal was.......
Akre did NOT appeal. It was FOX that filed the appeal. So what did FOX say in their papers?
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.
