Fox Continues To Target Children

Quite possibly. On all of the links I have clicked on in a Google search the basic language remains the same:

A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. “Reckless” conduct is conduct that exhibits a culpable disregard of foreseeable consequences to others from the act or omission involved. The accused need not intentionally cause a resulting harm or know that his conduct is substantially certain to cause that result. The ultimate question is whether, under all the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was of that heedless nature that made it actually or imminently dangerous to the rights or safety of others.

That seems like Fox News, Michelle Malkin and Co. to me.

They’d bettr hope that nothing happens to anyone in this family. I’d like to think that this is as low as they could sink but, that would be pure fiction. My question continues to be in all of this – what exactly does the FCC do? They’re clearly not waiting for someone to die because Doctor Tiller already has! Fucking Idiots!

That’s better!

Even if he knew the questioners ahead of time, why no outrage from the right about how you had to sign a loyalty oath to even be allowed near Bush?

>>>And based on my cursory knowledge of criminal law, couldn’t this be considered reckless endangerment?Huzzah! The perfect time for the law school nerd to jump in and type more than anybody cares to know! (though I assure you that my knowledge on this is only marginally less cursory than yours). But based on my understanding – yes…yes it could. A court would never go for it though, because it’s difficult to prove that something like this is actually causing a risk of physical injury (or, for first degree reckless endangerment, a substantial risk of physical injury). Unless, of course, something were to actually happen (God forbid)….then it’s a completely different case.Faux is also coming dangerously close to running afoul of the Constitutional standards for slander/libel with their outrageous claims that this girl is somehow part of some conspiracy, or is in cahoots with administration officials, or what have you…especially since this little girl can hardly be considered a “public figure.” But hell, even if a conservative court tried to twist the situation and say that she became a public figure when she knowingly asked her question in front of a national TV audience, the standard would still be whether or not the statements made about her were 1) Intentionally false, or 2) made with reckless disregard for whether they were true or not.Jesus…I hope someone tells their family to call the fucking ACLU on this one.

Oops…I should read the other comments first. Chris beat me to it. Like he said though, the main issue would be proving that Fox actually created a substantial danger. Difficult to do unless somebody gets hurt first. Second degree (misdemeanor) reckless endangerment would have a higher chance of success b/c you remove the word “substantial,” but you still have to establish very clearly that a danger was created.

If Sarah Palin can whine about keeping her family out of the media glare, and all the wingnutosphere agree, WTF is the difference here? Oh, that’s right republicans have no idea what responsibility and reason are!

The absolute LAST thing I would want to do if I was this girl’s father is press charges and call further attention to it. I’d be IRATE at Malkin Fox News right now but if I decided to make my daughter a public enemy of these bloodsucking scum, I know they’d fight back and demonize her even more, thus putting her in even greater danger.You know this is a strategy–make everyone afraid to ask a sympathetic question lest they become a target of the right. I just hope this blows over very quickly for the girl’s sake.

based on my cursory knowledge of criminal law, couldn’t this be considered reckless endangerment?

There’s rather a stark difference between identifying a questioner in a public forum by name and hometown (something that is generally accepted practice when publishers Letters to the Editor) and, say, balancing a barrel of wrenches on the teetering edge of windowsill ten stories above the sidewalk.In such matters, it becomes a question for the imaginary Reasonable Man: Could it have been reasonably foreseen that some harm could occur. It’s that old debate as to what is reasonable / reckless / foreseeable / unforeseeable.I don’t care for the argument that the question hinges on whether or not something actually happens.Balancing that barrel of wrenches is reckless whether it falls or not, as is discharging a firearm within the city limits whether the round hits anyone or not. I would hate to see the criminal law in such matters turn on whether or not someone actually got hurt. It is, I submit, quote properly a matter restricted to the potential harm and its foreseeability.In the present circumstances, arguing that identifying the kid is reckless opens up a can of worms – very wriggly, nasty worms – in which almost ANY critique of an identified person could be found criminal charges.I think Fox are despicable sons of whores born in the 7th circle of hell…but I wouldn’t want to twist the criminal process to that degree to rebuke them. (I’m all for beating them with sticks with nails in them…offering a defense of justification and trusting in jury nullification).Just need to be sure to have Cesca and Stranahan on the panel. Hung jury / mistrial guaranteed.