Wild Feed
A catch-all world journalism community for news, reports, blogs, editorials, and whatever.
-
Be cool to each other. Instance rules apply.
-
All posts should link to a *current, *good quality blog, article, editorial, listicle, research paper, or something that can be considered "journalism."
-
Post title should be the article headline.
-
No misinformation or bigotry.
-
For paywalled media, please provide an archived link in the text body of the post.
-
Commenters who don't read the posted article may receive temporary bans. This is a community for informed discussion.
-
This instance has no rules against calls to violence, please don't report general wishes for violence. I will moderate direct implications of violence (i.e. I will shoot x person in the head) at my discretion.
Tag if needed:
[NSFW] and [Content Warning - x] — At your discretion.
[D/M/Y] — If the publication is older than a month. You can just tag the year if the article is more than a year old.
[Month and/or year] — For old but relevant articles. Use your best judgement.
[Conspiracy Tuesday] — Conspiracy theories/occult themes/cryptids/pseudoscience. On Tuesdays.
[E-mail required] — If an e-mail is needed to sign in.
[Archive link in post] — For paywalls and account sign-ins, link the main article in the URL, paste the archive link in the text body.
*Current means the article contains the most up to date publically available information on the subject, within reason. Older publications are welcome as long as they include a date tag.
*Good quality means the source has a good reputation for accurate journalism with a reasonably clean fact checking record.
Check out !Independent_Media@lemmy.today for independent news from around the world or !indy_news_canada@sh.itjust.works for Canadian independent publications.
All communities were created with the goal of increasing media literacy and media pluralism.
Sources posted here include:
https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/
apnews.com/
https://www.theguardian.com/international
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/us
Icon image by z0r0z on pixabay, depicting a silhouette of a world map on a paint-splattered background.
Banner image by Lucentius on pixabay, depicting crumpled newpapers.
view the rest of the comments
No.
You were focused on the juror and now that it's an indefensible position to side with you're saying that wasn't the case.
The system did exactly what it's designed to do, it doesn't need defending.
The juror should not have been a juror, according to the system, and you haven't acknowledged that.
You clearly haven't been paying attention. The entire argument I'm making is you can't force a juror to come to a particular verdict. If you could, you no longer have an impartial jury.
Did he break his oath? Yes. That's a separate issue. A juror must be free to come to any conclusion of their own mind, or else it isn't a fair trial, full stop.
I've said all I mean to say. Go ahead and have the last word or twist my meaning if it makes you feel better.