“Reportedly”? Like it isn’t obvious? As in, it’s obvious they’re trying to eliminate their political opposition by any means and this is the first step of that?
If someone openly commits murder, you are in fact allowed to say they did it without saying “allegedly”. Otherwise there would be no free speech, it would mean you could not say anything that was not already whitelisted by the state.
But I’m talking about cases where it is plainly obvious that these people committed the murders, but they still don’t state it as a fact unless they’re convicted
So I am not a lawyer. But it can’t possibly be the case, that you are not allowed to publicly say something trivially provably true, unless you have a court’s word that it is true. That would effectively mean that there is zero free speech.
I don’t know if it’s that they’re not allowed by law or it’s media policy, but this is what they do. The guy who committed mass murder at a movie theater in 2012, for example, was referred to as an accused killer. Also, nowhere did I say they weren’t legally allowed to call these people murderers, I said that they don’t. I was responding to a comment about how the media words these things as if they aren’t obviously true.
“Reportedly”? Like it isn’t obvious? As in, it’s obvious they’re trying to eliminate their political opposition by any means and this is the first step of that?
But it’s it really the first step. Feel like they have been making plenty of steps already.
“I’m sure Kamala would have been just as bad, because something something shitlib”
– the purity ponies
It’s something like when someone openly commits murder but, until they’re convicted, they only “allegedly” did it
If someone openly commits murder, you are in fact allowed to say they did it without saying “allegedly”. Otherwise there would be no free speech, it would mean you could not say anything that was not already whitelisted by the state.
Then why does the media call mass shooters “accused killers”?
Because it is very expensive to get sued if they get it wrong.
But I’m talking about cases where it is plainly obvious that these people committed the murders, but they still don’t state it as a fact unless they’re convicted
So I am not a lawyer. But it can’t possibly be the case, that you are not allowed to publicly say something trivially provably true, unless you have a court’s word that it is true. That would effectively mean that there is zero free speech.
I don’t know if it’s that they’re not allowed by law or it’s media policy, but this is what they do. The guy who committed mass murder at a movie theater in 2012, for example, was referred to as an accused killer. Also, nowhere did I say they weren’t legally allowed to call these people murderers, I said that they don’t. I was responding to a comment about how the media words these things as if they aren’t obviously true.