WWASP Sues Reporter

[Anonymous]

Aren't journalists protected by law from revealing their sources?

[Carey]

They might be protected by law from revealing their sources when simply reporting the news.....but I betcha once they cross over that line of reporting the news to becoming a part of it, they just might not be.

[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2004-02-04 13:25 ]

[Anonymous]

I agree, it would be interesting to know how this journalist got involved in investigating this school in the first place.  

 ::

[Anonymous]

This is the moral of the story:
"The idea that moral viewpoints acquire their importance from the groups that utter them rather than from their content is to some philosophers, a misguided attitude.  In the old days of western culture, the dominant viewpoint was the one held by some, but not all, WHITE MALES, and for most white males as well as for OTHERS that was enuf to make the viewpoint "correct".  churches and political groups occasionally take the same attitude:  The identity of the group is enuf justification for the correctness of its view.  Today, we also see this same viewpoint applied socially by certain groups:  if you are a member of an oppressed group, your viewpoint on right and wrong is valuable just b/c you are a member of that group, and if you are not, then your viewpoint is irrelevant.  THIS FORM OF RELATIVISM WHICH GRANTS THE IMPORTANCE OF A VIEWPOINT ON THE BASIS OF GENDER, RACE, AND CLASS, MAY BE AS MISPLACED AS ONE THAT DENIES THE IMPORTANCE OF CERTAIN GROUPS , JUST B/C THEY ARE WHO THEY ARE.  Such an attitude, the arguement goes, reflects the logical fallacy of the ad hominem arguement:  YOU ARE RIGHT OR WRONG B/C OF WHO YOU ARE, NOT B/C OF WHAT YOU SAY OR WHAT IS REALLY THE TRUTH.  In Jim Garrison's words from the Oliver Stone movie JFK, "I always wondered in court why it is b/c a woman is a prostitute, she has to have bad eyesight".  MEANING, B/C SOMEONE THINKS SHE IS A PROSTITUTE, WE CANNOT TRUST HER TESTIMONY.  CAN YOU THINK OF ANY OTHER SITUATIONS IN WHICH A PERSON'S IDENTITY ALONE WOULD DETERMINE WHETHER HE OR SHE WAS RIGHT OR WRONG.  teens, perhaps?
gina.

[Anonymous]

On 2004-02-04 11:12:00, Anonymous wrote:

"

On 2004-02-04 11:00:00, Anonymous wrote:


"While searching the Internet using key words Ivy Ridge Academy, I stumbled across this link which I believe may relate to an earlier discussion.  Anybody have any better luck finding any news articles about Ivy Ridge written by this particular reporter?  





http://www.helpyourteens.com/news/impor ... wasps.html"

Here is a link to a website that also came up in the search using key words "ivy ridge academy".



http://www.orwelltoday.com/teenstortured.shtml"

This story published on the orwelltoday.com website contains statements from Karen Burnett (Karen Z) and Jeanne D. who apparently is affiliated with PURE.  See Link Below.

http://helpyourteens.com/about_us.html

[Anonymous]

:tup:
"the moral of the story"
an intro to ethics

[Anonymous]

On 2004-02-04 12:53:00, Anonymous wrote:

"The article says:

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City, alleges Houlahan called Maryland-native Laura Boatright in July 2003 telling her he had investigated WWASPS for the past eight months and knew about supposed abuse involving her son at The Academy at Ivy Ridge, in Ogdensburg, N.Y.

This is where the reporter has opened himself up to a law suit.  Who told this reporter about the abuse?  Was it teens?  Was it those that witnessed the abuse?  Who ever it was, they were the ones who should have been talking to this parent, not the reporter.  

My question is, why didn't the teens tell this parent about the abuse? Why did the reporter have to tell the parent? It seems the problem here is that he is repeating hearsay. If he is a reporter ethics would say report the news, don't become a part of it.

No one has answered this question.



Has this reporter ever spoken with Amberly, Sue, or any other Trekker?  "

The reporter did not "open himself up" to a lawsuit by telling the parents.

You, I, or *anybody* has exactly the same defense in court against a libel or slander suit by a public figure as a reporter has.

To win a libel or slander suit, against joe shmoe or a reporter or God, a public figure must prove that *either* the person being sued knew what they said to be false *or* acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

Believing the "wrong" person in a he said/she said situation---which is what each and every situation with of a survivor kid's word against the school's is--is *not* "reckless disregard for the truth."

Additionally, truth is an absolute defense against a libel or slander accusation---which means the reporter can haul everything he's got into court to prove what he said was true, and WWASPS can't keep him from doing so.

Basically, if he has *one* kid who was there and says, "I saw it"---he can tell his newspaper, the kid's parents, or the Pope and in the eyes of the law it makes not a damned bit of difference---he'll win the suit---and it won't make a damned bit of difference how many times WWASPS says the kid's a liar, either.

[Anonymous]

This isn't about a kid that said he was being abused.  It's about a reporter that is/was looking for attention.  Sounds like he had a bleeding heart and thought he was helping in an odd sort of way.  I agree with those that asked why this kid didn't tell his parents.  He had plenty of opportunity as they can write anything they want to their parents.  The parents can ask to speak to their child anytime, too, even if the kid hasn't "earned" the phone call.  

I'm happy to see that wwasp is finally doing something about the negative publicity.  Even if they don't WIN the case, it may, at least, be a way to stop one reporter from printing heresay and pissing off parents that know their kid isn't being abused.

[Froderik]

Piss off you WWASP supporting piece of shit. You know you're a fucking liar.

[Cayo Hueso]

On 2004-02-04 19:12:00, Anonymous wrote:

"This isn't about a kid that said he was being abused.  It's about a reporter that is/was looking for attention.  Sounds like he had a bleeding heart and thought he was helping in an odd sort of way.  I agree with those that asked why this kid didn't tell his parents.  He had plenty of opportunity as they can write anything they want to their parents.  The parents can ask to speak to their child anytime, too, even if the kid hasn't "earned" the phone call.  



I'm happy to see that wwasp is finally doing something about the negative publicity.  Even if they don't WIN the case, it may, at least, be a way to stop one reporter from printing heresay and pissing off parents that know their kid isn't being abused.



 "

Sure, just like my parents KNEW I wasn't being abused.  :roll:  I'm happy to see that WWASP is fighting this too....it will shed more light on those assholes and the fucking damage they're doing.

Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
--Edward Everett

[Anonymous]

On 2004-02-04 19:12:00, Anonymous wrote:

"This isn't about a kid that said he was being abused.  It's about a reporter that is/was looking for attention.  Sounds like he had a bleeding heart and thought he was helping in an odd sort of way.  I agree with those that asked why this kid didn't tell his parents.  He had plenty of opportunity as they can write anything they want to their parents.  The parents can ask to speak to their child anytime, too, even if the kid hasn't "earned" the phone call.  



I'm happy to see that wwasp is finally doing something about the negative publicity.  Even if they don't WIN the case, it may, at least, be a way to stop one reporter from printing heresay and pissing off parents that know their kid isn't being abused.



 "

In other words, you're admitting this is a slap suit.

Slap suits don't typically work against reporters.  They tend to piss off the media and inspire future feeding frenzies.

WWASPS is likely to lose this case because one of the things they will have to prove is that what the reporter said was false.

The reporter doesn't have to prove it's true---WWASPS as the plaintif has to prove it false.

(I just looked that up, see the following article on defamation for the particulars.)

http://www.modrall.com/articles/article_12.html

Now, if WWASPS can *prove* what the reporter said was false, then they *can* go after him for listening only to sources that hate WWASPS.

But they have to prove it was false *first*.

And I seriously doubt they can do that.  It's a high burden of proof.

If I'm alone in a room with a guy and later come out and accuse him of raping me, he can't successfully sue me for defamation pretty much unless he can prove to the jury that he doesn't have a dick.

It's real hard to prove a negative.

[Anonymous]

It's hard to prove a negative.  No, I disagree.  It's not hard to prove a negative.  Lie detectors have a way of proving negatives.

[Anonymous]

On 2004-02-04 19:56:00, Anonymous wrote:

"It's hard to prove a negative.  No, I disagree.  It's not hard to prove a negative.  Lie detectors have a way of proving negatives."

It's hard to prove a negative to the satisfaction of the Courts.  Lie detector results are inadmissable.  Did you really not know that?  Hello?

[Anonymous]

I agree with Anon except I wonder if WWASPS knows (or discovered) something about this guy that compelled them to file suit?  It just doesn't seem logical that they would take on UPI without good cause.  Second, what about the direct-action lawsuit and the current litigation involving PURE?  Why would they want to over extend themselves?  Doesn't make sense, IMHO.

[Anonymous]

Is the complaint online yet on PACER?