Snort! Funniest thing I read all day!
There is a difference in this context. Not in all contexts but in this context there is a significant enough difference to use African American instead of black.
Where? It says no such thing.
Lets’ not.
Ok, thanks for confirming that you just want to be an argumentative prick.
I guess I’m just past the point in my life and education where I believe any one person really solely “invented” any one thing out of thin air unless it’s very, very specifically presented in a compelling manner that he or she did. So when I see a list like this, I don’t think, ZOMG!!! NOT TRUE!@@~!1111
Paraphrasing here:
1)You claimed the NYT check their ads prior to publishing.
2)I showed proof from a SCOTUS decision which showed they don’t.
3)Then you claimed that the NEW NYT editors would not do such a thing.
How about the motor? African Americans have, for all their achievements, not had anything to do with either the internal combustion engine or the electric motor. The Snopes article notes that one Joseph Gambol supposedly invented the “Super Charge System for Internal Combustion Engines”, but the authors were unable to verify this.
Even if Mr. Gambol did invent the supercharger, that would hardly make him responsible in any way for “the motor”.
ETA: Why would the NYT editors check their ads prior to publishing? It’s no skin off their nose if they publish misleading advertisements, as long as they’re clearly labeled as ads.
Right. Your failure to show what you say it says and show where my claim is wrong makes me the argumentative prick. I’d call you one back but you’re not presenting an argument. You’re just calling those that disagree with the claims of an ad racist and other names, moving goalposts and skipping right over relevant posts. Others will decide for themselves what you’ve confirmed.
stpauler, I don’t even think your article says that.
BRB, going to take out a full page swastika ad in the NY Times. I doubt they’ll check it.
That’s true. The sigh wasn’t really needed.
Show me what post I skipped or where I moved the goal posts? I apologized for implying you were being racist but you don’t want to hear it, you just want to whine.
Rnatb, “motor” can mean a lot of things. Maybe before assigning malice or lies one of us should email the UNCF and ask them to clarify what they meant? Or would getting the full story take the wind out of everyone’s outrage sails?
What other things can it mean?
That’s what I was going to say. There are a bunch of things on that list that predate the U.S. of A. I have no doubt that blacks have invented (or contributed to the invention of) many things–probably most of the things on that list–but a lot of them were definitely, absolutely, not made by African-Americans.
The editors aren’t supposed to look at the ads. Journalistic ethics require a “wall” between the editorial and advertising departments.
Here’s the full decision then
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
Respondent, an elected official in Montgomery, Alabama, brought suit in a state court alleging that he had been libeled by an advertisement in corporate petitioner’s newspaper, the text of which appeared over the names of the four individual petitioners and many others. The advertisement included statements, some of which were false, about police action allegedly directed against students who participated in a civil rights demonstration and against a leader of the civil rights movement; respondent claimed the statements referred to him because his duties included supervision of the police department. The trial judge instructed the jury that such statements were “libelous per se,” legal injury being implied without proof of actual damages, and that, for the purpose of compensatory damages, malice was presumed, so that such damages could be awarded against petitioners if the statements were found to have been published by them and to have related to respondent. As to punitive damages, the judge instructed that mere negligence was not evidence of actual malice, and would not justify an award of punitive damages; he refused to instruct that actual intent to harm or recklessness had to be found before punitive damages could be awarded, or that a verdict for respondent should differentiate between compensatory and punitive damages. The jury found for respondent, and the State Supreme Court affirmed.
Held: A State cannot, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves “actual malice” – that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. Pp. 265-292.
(a) Application by state courts of a rule of law, whether statutory or not, to award a judgment in a civil action, is “state action” under the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 265.
(b) Expression does not lose constitutional protection to which it would otherwise be entitled because it appears in the form of a paid advertisement. Pp. 265-266. [p255]
(c) Factual error, content defamatory of official reputation, or both, are insufficient to warrant an award of damages for false statements unless “actual malice” – knowledge that statements are false or in reckless disregard of the truth – is alleged and proved. Pp. 279-283.
(d) State court judgment entered upon a general verdict which does not differentiate between punitive damages, as to which, under state law, actual malice must be proved, and general damages, as to which it is “presumed,” precludes any determination as to the basis of the verdict, and requires reversal, where presumption of malice is inconsistent with federal constitutional requirements. P. 284.
(e) The evidence was constitutionally insufficient to support the judgment for respondent, since it failed to support a finding that the statements were made with actual malice or that they related to respondent. Pp. 285-292
There aren’t ad editors? Sorry, someone is going to accuse me of “moving goal posts” but I guess I just used the wrong term. When I said editors I meant some sort of oversight.
Do you want to know?
Did I just ask?
How would I know? Why don’t you email the UNCF?
Because I don’t care what their definition of motor is if they aren’t using a standard one.
You might as well say, “African Americans own more elephants than any minority group,” and when called on it, say, “by elephants, we mean cats.”
How do you know what definition they’re using?