[–] 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.
[–] hungryasabear 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
Why shouldn't Rolling Stone be considered serious journalism? Their popularity may come and go, but they aren't a satirical magazine. Their demographic and content might lead more towards an "MTV crowd", but their history is of factual popular content and they're a big name.
[–] corsairio ago (edited ago)
Well if they are selling themselves as a real journalist establishment, I could side with you. But there is a very important difference in the reasoning. Libel laws are a huge infringement on first amendment rights. Contract violations through false adversitising must be illegal though.