Hey folks - as a member of the DawgNation community, please remember to abide by simple rules of civil engagement with other members:
- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)
- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans
- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum
- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.
- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)
- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans
- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum
- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.
Comments
Thanks for adding another point for why a libel suit has not been filed yet.
I guess all this worked for Cox
You're clicking on this website. Which they own. So yeah they are getting you coming and going.
@Michael_Scarn mentioned it but here's the link and worth watching to the end. Glad to see someone try to objectively assess what's going on. Sounds like Josh is in your court @ForestryDawg
Also, got a chuckle out of 'the biggest rivalry in the SEC may be between the AJC and Georgia'
He said on his baseball coach thread he is a minor, so not engaging him is probably the best response.
Amen!!!
Alan Judd has his own retort to whether they "believed what they were reporting was true":
Actually, not pretty good. As I said, the media is well-protected by various doctrines and privileges. Fox was sued by a corporation. Individual lawsuits are typically only filed or won by people with a lot of money against rag mags.
Just as with the alleged victim in the Jarrett case, lots of complaining but no crime. The AJC printed some things that weren't completely accurate but by withholding key elements, they were disingenuous. Nothing there for a successful lawsuit.
It just isn't easy to sue the media, no matter what you think.
My guess is that because the legal age of consent in GA is 16. Would he have been charged as an adult? Absolutely. Therefore, the authorities have no overwhelming reason to withhold his name.
Brooks Austin was a little less "measured" in his comments.
It just isn't easy to sue the media, no matter what you think.
Rupert Murdoch might disagree.
There are protection in place sure and the bar is high. But if the AJC knowingly reported something that was false trust me there is a lawyer out there who would take the case pro bono or take on initial expenses in the hopes of a big payday.
Most ambulance chasers work this way. They pay everything up front hoping they get a big settlement to recoup costs and make a huge profit.
There isn't though because the AJC didn't do that ala Fox News
This.
“The AJC printed some things that weren't completely accurate but by withholding key elements, they were disingenuous.”
They didn’t print lies, they just withheld all the contrary information that proves innocence.
If prosecutors do this, it’s a Brady violation.
I see the Skip quicksand is still alive and well. Kudos to you all for trying to change his mind once it’s been set.
Or possibly charged with Statutory rape of a minor .....?
Well 16 is the age of consent so I get why they didn't charge her with that. Not that they would have if it wasn't. Gargantuan double standard.
Still have not answered my question......
Its okay if you don't want to answer.....but it really seems like you are simply taking a stand without having read the ajc article and/or refused to acknowledge the very cogent arguments standing against your take...
The Jake Rowe article, unlike the ajc article, does not state an opinion as to the incident, but simply reports the TOTAL messages of the interaction (not cut and pasted) between Jarrett and his accuser as well as the ENTIRE discussion by the police....
if you read it at all and compared it to what Alan Judd wrote, it is fairly easy to see which author has an agenda and which does not.....
Die on this hill if you must....but freedom of the press should mean an unbiased reporting of the news ...... the most important part of the news--that Jarrett WAS NOT charged after the investigation was barely mentioned in the ajc article.....
should be enough to invoke anyone's doubt as to the investigative prowess of this reporter...... or the motive behind the article....