[–] corsairio 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
I'm sure these are valid limitations of freedom of speech just like spying on everyone's metadata is a valid violation of the fourth amendment. Just because the government set up laws to empower the establishment doesn't mean thay are constitutional.
[–] hungryasabear 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
I don't think anyone would be happy with their name/reputation being widely dragged through the mud in a major publication under false claims/lies. It violates the Presumption of Innocence, which is a everyone's right.
[–] corsairio ago (edited ago)
I would make allowances when an organization claiming journalistic integrity fools its consumers because it amounts to a contract violation through false advertising, but like I said earlier, the Rolling Stone shouldn't be taken as serious journalism.
The presumption of innocence is not sacrificed by allowing libel to go unpunished, because no one is assuming the courts are not going to assume the accused is guilty. There is a problem of this sort, but it occurs in universities where feminists are empowered in the way that the accused is assumed guilty until proven innocent. It doesn't occur everywhere, though.