chinawildman said:
Yes that is exactly my point. That in the internet age, due process can no longer protect someone from public defamation due to the speed at which information travels IS a problem.
Public criticism isn't "defamation". It's criticism. There's no need to insulate public figures from criticism.
I don't think there are too many more facts to hear. We already know what the kid said, for example.
These are different days in which we live in. I would like to preface this by saying that I personally feel Peterson IS responsible for the marks on the child, and that what I'm to talk about is mostly a policy argument.
Journalism as it exists now consists of tweets and the blogosphere, amateur journalists who rush to be first on the scene. The veracity of the information seems secondary to its "juiciness". Irresponsible journalism combined with the viral nature of the internet means that inaccurate or false information is often consumed and accepted as truths within hours. Journalistic responsibility is nowhere near what it was 20 years ago, and compounding this, inaccurate or misinformation also spreads like wildfire.
Our measuring stick for validity is often the number of outlets which publish the information. The more egregious or shocking the info, the faster it goes viral, and consequently the more "true" it feels. This perpetuates a cycle where the extremity of the publicized information has a direct effect on its perceived veracity. This would not be such a problem if every human being could consume information with some measure of critical analysis. Unfortunately that is not the case and some people simply believe what we want to believe.
Suppose for a second that during the discovery process of legal proceedings we find out that the leaked photos in the Peterson case turn out to be photos of another child, or that they were taken after the child was horseplaying with a sibling (yes, obviously this is a stretch and merely hypothetical). Will people be on this forum absolving Peterson with the same fervor which we use to crucify him? Highly doubtful, and there will likely remain a contingent of people who will continue to think that Peterson is a child abuser. (See how many people still believe that Obama is a Muslim) We enjoy watching our heroes fail, and we also love to be right.
It is doubtful that libel or slander laws will change anytime soon to address defamation as a result of irresponsible journalism. As such I personally believe in, as well as advocate, responsible consumption. Again this is all just a diatribe based on what I believe to be principle, and likely has little bearing on AP's fate.