Progressive groups urge TV networks to tape-delay GOP convention

The Hill ^ | 08 25 2020 | J. Edward Moreno

[yesthatjallen]

Progressive groups are urging TV networks to delay airing parts of the GOP convention until they are able to fact-check the claims made by speakers.

“The best way to combat the spread of disinformation is to stop it at its source. By putting the Republican National Convention on a one-minute time delay, your network will be able to actively correct disinformation in real time, and prevent the American people from being lied to on your airwaves,” read the letter dated Monday, signed by nine progressive groups, including an EMILY’s List PAC and Color of Change PAC. “The future of our country, our people and our democracy is at stake.”

Several major networks pulled away from speakers during the first night of the convention to fact-check claims made by speakers. CNN and MSNBC cut away from Patricia and Mark McCloskey, the couple that went viral after pointing guns at Black Lives Matter protestors outside their house in St. Louis.

The networks clarified a claim the couple made about Democrats wanting to abolish the suburbs by ending single-family home zoning.

CNN and the New York Times have running fact-checking pages on their digital platforms.

"I think it's important for objective journalists to note how wildly imbalanced the dishonesty is between the current parties. This one half-night of Republican programming so far has been exponentially more dishonest than the entire four nights of the Democratic convention," CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale tweeted.

SNIP

[Deplorable American1776]

I thought it was the smell of freshly shampooed hair... 😋

[Dark Knight]

Actually they have not. A frisk is for officer safety, they have the right to be safe in their interactions with citizens. If, after a legal contact with a citizen, they need to frisk the citizens for weapons from an articulable suspicion that their safety may be in jeopardy, they can frisk a citizen for weapons only. If pursuant to the frisk, contraband is found...

A search does not have those constraints but must have a legal precedent, such as an arrest, airport etc.

I doubt the supremes have ruled on this yet. It does not help conflating searches and frisks. I don’t think I’ve missed a ruling on frisks, yet. I doubt the supremes would rule against officer safety with a reasonable officer standard and that is why the NYC decision to not pursue it was surprising as the officers got hamstrung doing a legal act probably, and why Lester Holt was tremendously wrong on the constitutionality.

Personally I believe the problem does not pend on the frisk, but the initiation of contact, not on some balance of who is frisked and not actual interaction between officers and citizens which would give officers directions on how to interact appropriately with citizens.

Bottom line, Lester Holt was wrong, both in butting in with incorrect information and as a moderator helping one side, as opposed to being a neutral moderator.

DK

[Boogieman]

Sure, officers might have a right to frisk someone for their safety, if they are forced to interact with them, for example, in the course of a traffic stop. It’s an entirely different matter if the police are initiating contact with someone randomly on the street for no discernable purpose. They have no right to frisk anyone at that point, since they have no actual need to interact with them and put their “safety at risk”. The simple fact is, if the police do not have a legal right to detain you, then they cannot have a legal right to frisk you either.

“If pursuant to the frisk, contraband is found...”

Then it’s inadmissable in court, since the search was not proper, having no probable cause, and no warrant.

“It does not help conflating searches and frisks.”

They are the same thing legally, so conflating them is only proper.

“I don’t think I’ve missed a ruling on frisks, yet.”

Well, try Terry V. Ohio. In that case, the Supreme Court clearly ruled that a “frisk” is the same as a “search” as regards the 4th Amendment, and they ruled that a policeman stopping anyone from leaving is the same as a “seizure” under the 4th Amendment, and all the normal 4th Amendment restrictions to searches on a domicile still apply to searches of persons. The ruling essentially says that a “stop & frisk” is only legal if the police have probable cause, or there is some exigent circumstance, like believing your life is in danger and needing to search for weapons.