Nope. Maliciousness is only required to be proven if the person is a public figure (see Times v Sullivan). Besides, as I mentioned, it is not so much that the person could win, but that he could sue with the attendant lawyers fees. You can argue the esoteric points forever, but it in the final analysis, you have a couple cents tied up in typing and printing "allegedly" vs $10,000 and probably much more in potential attorney's fees to win a case. No brainer in the real world.
In your fantasy world perhaps. Reality is that most "journalists" are moderately skilled folks paid to fill whitespace. They are not credentialed investigators.
I think most reasonable folks would not find a two paragraph newspaper piece sufficient to convict anyone of anything.
And to sum it up to avoid the drama you noted we use the word allegedly to distinguish that it is not an official determination.
Would you want any less for yourself?
When a journalist writes that someone "allegedly" did something - who exactly is doing the "alledging" ?
Doesn't it read that the journalist or the newpaper is saying that
*someone else* (presumably a cop, utility employee, etc) is claiming that the guy was trying to steal copper, and hence the newspaper reports that the guy was "allegedly" stealing copper?When a newspaper prints the lottery ticket numbers for the pick-6 or powerball (or what-ever) results, do they say that these are the "alledged" results?
Where does the use of "alledged" or "allegedly" end?
And aside from any legal action isn't it just common courtesy to use commonly accepted descriptions?
What if we saw the headline " "home guy" is a child molester because he was seen in a car with wet pants and a young child in the vehicle"? Should we just accept that as fact as "home guy" states any conclusion made by a "journalist" should be taken?
No, because this is a fact that is substantiated by the Lottery commission (which of course you know, but feel the need to be silly).
As I mentioned earlier, after the jury decides and the gavel goes down.
I notice you didn't speak to this point:
When a journalist writes that someone "allegedly" did something - who exactly is doing the "alledging" ?
Doesn't it read that the journalist or the newpaper is saying that
*someone else* (presumably a cop, utility employee, etc) is claiming that the guy was trying to steal copper, and hence the newspaper reports that the guy was "allegedly" stealing copper?
I didn't think you were being serious. The justice system. Allegedly in this case fits the "accused but not proven or convicted" definition." It is merely a reinforcement of innocent until proven guilty.
Not exactly sure where this fits in with your discussion about use of allegedly. As I mentioned (a couple of times) this is merely a way to avoid being sued every once in awhile. It is purely a cost (almost none) benefit (not having to pay out fees to defend a case) analysis.
In this case, the "justice system" didn't exactly get a chance to issue any such pronouncement.
The story was reported on hours after the incident happened. The Justice System would not have issued any such announcement that they were alleging that the guy was commiting burglary.
The courts were in no position (at the time of the publication of the story) to accuse the dead man of anything.
It's central to the issue.
The journalist and/or the paper take pains to use the word "alleged". In so doing, they are necessarily intimating that someone other than themselves is speculating or "alledging" that the guy was commiting theft of copper wire during his death.
To expand the discussion, what gripes me is the use of the word "suspicion" as in "Joe Blow was arrested on suspicion of burglary and is being held in the county jail."
No one can be arrested for "suspicion" of anything. Being "suspicious" is not a crime. A person can be a "suspect," but it's okay to be "suspicious."
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.