you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (4 children)

Then why does the media call mass shooters "accused killers"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    Because it is very expensive to get sued if they get it wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

    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.

  • source
  • parent