DU should win a journalism award! Again the images of the shooter were posted hours before

[Lint Head]

the mayor of DC and major news outlets showed his image. They used the actual mug shot image but never reported that it was a previous mug shot. DU has often been miles ahead of the major news outlets. When something like this event happens I can sense all of the active members on DU searching the web for information. Sometimes it has been incorrect but most of the time it has been right on. I love DU!!

[LiberalLoner]

1. Thanks. Actually I was wrong to post that and did delete but

It did turn out my guess was correct. I should not have posted that guess, however, and I regret having done so.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

4. I can now see why you got fired from CNN

Responsible Journalism Flibbity-Floop!

[LiberalLoner]

7. Yup. I jumped the gun, I was just so eager to provide as much info as I could because I know

We all want to know who this guy is and why the frack he did it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

6. why? I don't understand that....You were doing investigative journalism. You never said you were

sure it was him...but using logic. The name, location age and general appearance fit the description. Using logic that told you that very few would fit all of that criteria...and your instinct was proven correct. You never outright proclaimed him to be guilty of the crime.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

8. That's just as bad.

The disclaimer that you aren't 100% certain that someone committed a crime, but your Scooby Doo level detective skills make you think that someone committed a crime....you're still putting yourself out on a ledge for libel simply by making certain jumps to conclusions.

There are professionals on the case. We don't need to have internet detectives going around potentially dragging people's name through the mud.

[VanillaRhapsody]

9. this is just a site on the Internet...its purpose is to discuss the news...

It's clearly not libel to discuss "is this the guy"....you would have to clearly state indefatigably that it WAS him to be guilty of such.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

10. It's pretty reckless behavior when you attach a name and a face to an accusation...

...even if you qualify the language as "maybe" or "perhaps".

I'm telling you now, if I shared a similar name or identification to someone accused of committing a horrible crime, and someone on some board pulled up my name and started speculating that I was the person committing said acts, I would not take to it kindly. And I'm sure neither would you.

It's classic false light defamation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_light

"False light differs from defamation primarily in being intended "to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being" rather than protect a plaintiff's reputation as is the case with the tort of defamation[1] and in being about the impression created rather than being about true or false. If a publication of information is false, then a tort of defamation might have occurred. If that communication is not technically false but is still misleading then a tort of false light might have occurred.[1]"

[VanillaRhapsody]

12. You are not understanding that this is a forum..

none of that is true in this case...a forum is not "publishing" nor was it misleading...it was discussing.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

13. Legally speaking, "publication" need not be in a newspaper, book or magazine.

When it comes to torts of defamation, all that matters is that a false or misleading piece of information is conveyed in some way to a third party.

And that can be achieved by the internet. Oh, can that ever be achieved by the internet!

[VanillaRhapsody]

14. This is a forum....you won't be using what you post here on your resume....

its not the same thing....sorry. It is a discussion forum...

[VanillaRhapsody]

15. We are not "reporting" news...we are discussing it...

and you are not a Reporter for posting here.

[VanillaRhapsody]

16. If what you suggest were true...we wouldn't be able to discuss this in our own homes without being

libel by your stretch of imagination. I don't think a judge would agree with

[Tommy_Carcetti]

20. Third party publication. That's all it takes.

If you tell a false or misleading fact about someone to another person outside of any privileged communication (i.e. attorney-client, doctor-patient, clergy, husband-wife), you could be liable for defamation.

Trust me, I know the law on this.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

18. You don't need to be a member of the news media to defame someone.

And furthermore, DU, as the host of this forum, could be left on the hook for its posters' dumbassery if they chose to use it to defame other people.

So encouraging members to randomly speculate about who may have committed a horrific crime is not admirable behavior. It's reckless and counterproductive. Even if those speculations ultimately turn out to be correct in one specific instance.

[VanillaRhapsody]

19. no you don't but you still have freedom of speech.

you will not be found guilty of libel for "discussing" on a web forum. No one proclaimed the guy guilty of the crime for goodness sakes...it was a discussion of the news...

[VanillaRhapsody]

21. You used the word "speculation" THAT is what makes it different than what you are describing...

Please see why speculation is not the same thing:

http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-law/news-media-and-law-summer-2011/opinion-defense-remains-str

[Tommy_Carcetti]

22. Again, see false light defamation.

If not you being held liable personally, DU could potentially be held liable for your actions by providing the forum for your false statements.

In this particular instance, the poster posted a picture of an individual who had the same name as the identified suspect (but whom police had not yet released any photos identifying). That poster then openly speculated that this was in fact the suspect involved in the shootings.

Thankfully for DU's sake, the person identified in the picture ultimately did turn out to be the same person identified by police as the suspect in the shooting.

However, had the poster been wrong and police identified someone who wasn't the same person in the picture posted on DU, someone would have been wrongfully associated with a horrific act. And with the magic of Google, anyone in the world could have picked it up. Potential employers, friends, family members, romantic partners, what have you.

Do you even understand the problem here and why acting like a slick Internet detective without the proper tools is reckless behavior?

[VanillaRhapsody]

23. No you cannot....that is ridiculous...

see the link above why...and THAT counts for REAL journalists...of which you or I are not. In it it clearly states that speculation is NOT the same thing...for REAL journalists...

[Tommy_Carcetti]

25. You're confusing libel defamation with false light defamation.

The cases you cited involved libel defamation. If a statement is merely a speculated opinion, it may not rise to the level of libel defamation, since what was stated was not framed as 100% certain fact.

However, libel is not the only the only type of defamation to be considered. Re-read the definition of false light, which speaks towards a person's emotional health, and not actually the reputation.

And if someone goes around throwing around wild accusations that someone might be involved in criminal activity, that most definitely could affect a person's mental and emotional well-being.

[VanillaRhapsody]

24. see here:

That’s because “[t]he culture of Internet communications, as distinct from that of print media such a [sic] newspapers and magazines, has been characterized as encouraging a freewheeling, anything-goes writing style. . . . Bulletin boards and chat rooms are often the repository of a wide range of casual, emotive, and imprecise speech, and . . . the online recipients of [offensive] statements do not necessarily attribute the same level of credence to the statements [that] they would accord to statements made in other contexts,” the court said.

In addition to those posted on Internet bulletin boards and in chat rooms, allegedly defamatory comments published on anonymous blogs or in widely distributed email messages like the one the court was considering also lack the level of credibility readers would give similar remarks made in other contexts, the court noted. - See more at: http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-law/news-media-and-law-summer-2011/opinion-defense-remains-str#sthash.sxro9sxu.dpuf

[Tommy_Carcetti]

28. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

On the one hand, you commend the poster who posted the (ultimately correct) picture of the suspect as engaging in "investigative journalism"

On the other hand, had the poster been incorrect in identifying the picture of the suspect and thus implicated some poor innocent soul as being culpable in a horrific act, then, well, it's just the internet and the poster was just stating an opinion.

You can't have it both ways.

And regardless of whether or not it would rise to the level of actionable defamation (had the picture ultimately not been correct), I would hope you would agree that rankly speculating on the internet whether a random person is in fact the perpetrator of a horrific act--before law enforcement chooses to make said information available to the public--should not be encouraged and is not productive behavior. And that it does not reflect well on this website to which both you and I belong.

[VanillaRhapsody]

29. No I am not...

that is an organization dedicated to representing media types sinc 1970...YOU or I are not...and an internet forum is not the same...Period. WE are not professionals...no one has been found guilty of defamation just for speculating in an Internet forum period...no matter what you say here...Its just not that important. understand? Courts do not find them to be the same...

that website says "A nonprofit association dedicated to providing free legal assistance to journalists since 1970 - See more at: http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-law/news-media-and-law-summer-2011/opinion-defense-remains-str#sthash.sxro9sxu.dpuf"

I think they know a little more about it than you do...

[Tommy_Carcetti]

36. Post 6. You claim the poster who posted the picture was "doing investigative journalism."

However, real investigative journalists don't actually publish their information until they are certain as to the facts of the situation. They don't publish their investigation as it is ongoing.

Either the poster was or was not an investigative journalist. There's no both to suit your opinion.

Frankly, I'm just spellbound that you could encourage the posting of pictures of people on the internet that might be involved in crimes without a verifiable certainty to back up your belief. Because I'm damn sure you would be upset if you found your picture somewhere online and some stranger was throwing around his or her "opinion" that you were a criminal based on his or her "investigation".

[LiberalLoner]

30. Getting posts hidden is also not productive behavior, LOL.

But you made your point and I certainly will never speculate on DU or anywhere else again.

[VanillaRhapsody]

32. You don't have to worry...it was erroneous information...

Mr Carcetti is misinformed.

[LiberalLoner]

34. Oh, thank you, not worried at all, especially now my husband is home safe and sound.

[LiberalLoner]

39. And that poster just loves to argue, so ignore might be your friend at some point if you tire of it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

42. Thanks good to know...

No matter what information I gave him he refused to believe that posting in an internet forum is not given much weight in these cases. And more so that it was speculation not stated as fact. You wouldn't get sued for Libel just by posting what the Network News was reporting and what you found on the Internet. It's just silly to think otherwise.

[LiberalLoner]

43. Thanks friend!

[Tommy_Carcetti]

52. Sending harassing IMs is certainly not productive behavior. nt

[gopiscrap]

2. I agree

[JI7]

3. standards for Major News outlets should be higher than online forums , remember what happened during

the boston bombing . i have no problem with them waiting until they have more confirmation. i'm tired of major news outlets focusing more on being the first rather than accurate reporting.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

5. 20/20 hindsight is always the best, isn't it?

However, remember back to Boston before they id'ed the Tsarnev brothers where people were picking out random people in crowd shots and swearing they were the suspects?

Or claiming that some poor kid who had gone missing (and later discovered to have committed suicide) was one of the bombers?


It's great when you're right....but when you blindly speculate that someone has committed a horrific crime with very elementary detective skills, and then you turn out to be wrong and you've just accused some innocent person of said horrific crime, then you come off looking like something of a jackass, don't you think?

[Enrique]

11. speed isn't everything

patience young grasshopper.

[Nay]

17. I was watching CNN and DU had the guy's name way before CNN did. nt

[NoOneMan]

26. At least a Pulitzer for investigative journalism concerning 3-Dimensional Chess politics

But really, no.

[VanillaRhapsody]

27. Some people just cannot understand the concept of 3-dimensional chess...

[NoOneMan]

31. Its a fictional justification to explain overtly non-conducive behavior to ones political ideology

Often, people pretend they understand the true motive of an individual they do not know, in order to explain why the individual's immediate actions are contradictory to the desired actions, thereby creating a false sense of security (and further reinforcing their love of that individual in the face of apparent disappointment).

Though, I must remark, if 3-Dimensional Political Chess did exist and was practiced, the people could really never fully trust any policy would ever ultimately be beneficial because even a liberal Democratic politician could be a cleverly disguised Koch-ian plant setting the stage for decades of disaster according to an infinitely complex plan that spanned hundreds of years. Its interesting how these chess-fans never do consider that real possibility of the cunning, ruthless, brilliant, omniscient chess player (who yes, probably doesn't really exist outside their noggins).

[VanillaRhapsody]

37. Huh? You think everything is straight forward in politics? hahahahahahahahahahaha

you think it is more like Checkers?

[NoOneMan]

45. So Obama is a Kochian plant bent on destroying American Liberalism? Oh noes!

How could we peons ever had seen it coming! Its sooooo complicated! Its 3-Dimensional Jedi-Fucking Mahjong!

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes neither you nor I know what the fuck it is

[VanillaRhapsody]

47. WTF are you smoking?

When did I ever refer to him as a Kochian plant?

[NoOneMan]

49. Do you not understand the multidimensional Chess game?

Maybe you're stuck in 3 dimensions when we are working in 4. Or only the things you pretend about are true? Bad things can't be possible right?

It's pretty sad you know. I'm starting to think nth-dimensional chess worldview is just some type of strange psychosis.

[VanillaRhapsody]

51. So sad when folks lose their minds politically....just very very sad indeed.

[alcibiades_mystery]

40. Not to mention the pending indictment of Karl Rove

[NoOneMan]

46. Are you referring to the sealed indictment (thruth out/Jason Leopold)?

That was interesting.

[Glassunion]

33. No.

No it should not.

[DesMoinesDem]

35. DU should get an award for taking information from twitter or somewhere else and posting it here?

Why? That happens on thousands of forums. Not to mention the many times that DU members have gotten it wrong, e.g. Ryan Lanza. Of course the internet is going to post the information faster than major news outlets. Internet forums and blogs and twitterers don't have a reputation to protect. If they get it wrong they just say oh well and move on. Major media can't do that.

[VanillaRhapsody]

38. Uh it wasn't wrong Lanza WAS using his brother's ID...

and this didn't come from the "Twitterverse" this came straight off the television. The poster did the same thing I did and looked him up. There is no law against that...or even speculating in an internet forum. Everything posted in one is to be taken with a grain of salt...even the courts know that.

[DesMoinesDem]

41. Yes it was wrong. It was reported here and in the media that Ryan was the shooter.

Ryan Lanza didn't shoot anyone. His ID on the shooter didn't make him the shooter and it is wrong to claim he was the shooter.

[VanillaRhapsody]

44. WE are just chatting in an Internet forum. This is not the same thing....we are discussing the news.

that is all. No different than if we were all sitting at a restaurant and discussing the news of the day. His brother USED his ID. I think Ryan had more grievance with his brother regarding that than a conversation on a anonymous web forum. Speculation is not the same thing as stating something as fact.

[DesMoinesDem]

48. Your arguments aren't even addressing my points at all. Why don't you go argue with the

person you were using these arguments on before because they aren't even relevant to my post. I never claimed this site was anything more than an internet forum. In fact, I said the mainstream media has a reputation to protect and the internet doesn't. I'm pretty sure you didn't even read my post.

[VanillaRhapsody]

53. It wasn't "wrong" it was a mistake....because the shooter intentionally misidentified himself

there was a direct conversation in this thread about whether or not it constituted "libel"....I thought you were commenting on that.

[DesMoinesDem]

54. Yes it was wrong.

You can tell about what I was commenting about by reading my comment and seeing who I was reply to. Pretty simple.

[VanillaRhapsody]

55. I did....

[DesMoinesDem]

56. Obviously you didn't...

[VanillaRhapsody]

57. Obviously, you don't know that...

[DesMoinesDem]

58. Sure thing buddy. Shouldn't you be somewhere defending the NSA and arguing for war?

[VanillaRhapsody]

60. Shouldn't you be looking for a book of matches for your next Hair on Fire ODS breakdown?

I agreed with the President on Chemical Weapons....what is your problem?

[X_Digger]

50. No. DU is a firehose, spewing anything and everything.

The fact that a nugget of truth gets exposed via DU (or usually, from someone else) amid all the chaos is not cause for celebration.

The 999 posts with wrong information get conveniently forgotten when crowing the 1 that got it right.

That's not how "journalism" is supposed to work.

Sadly, viewing the frequent wild hares that the regular media chases, it's not as uncommon as it should be.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

59. Google searches and browsing Facebook pages no more make one an "investigative journalist"....

....than playing catch in the backyard makes one a professional baseball player.