Sentences with phrase «media evidence because»

And I think that criminal courts here have some of the jurisprudence I've seen demonstrates a stricter interest in the nuts and bolts of adducing social media evidence because of course there's a liberty interest at stake and making sure the evidence fits I think is a higher bar to me.

Not exact matches

The evidence was unsealed because a group of media companies, including The Associated Press, sued for access and won.

No, I wasted 5 hours listening to him rehash the same old and tired lines about why he believes and how everyone will burn in hell and how there is all this «real» scientific «evidence,» but the scientists and the media won't talk about it because they want us to turn against god.

What if media says XXXXX person is guilty of terrorist attacks and then people have the opinion he is guilty... but the courts find him innocent after evaluating the evidence... People still say that the guy is guilty because that is their opinion.

Why are their no transfer Arsenal gossip any more — Is it simply because their is no one left to make up a story about, and the media literally exhausted every potential story even though facts, evidence, realism is not a concern?

Not surprisingly, the media feeding frenzy has resulted, anecdotal evidence suggests, in a sharp drop in youth football registrations for this fall's season, with parents fearful that playing football will almost inevitably expose their kid to an unreasonable risk of injury (which, of course, is patently untrue; more than 7 million kids in the U.S. currently play football, very few of whom, statistically speaking and despite a few well - publicized cases - are likely to end up committing suicide because of the hits they sustained playing the sport, and millions upon countless millions who have played football over the past century without apparent ill effect).

Well, it has become the social media sexting app of choice because the pictures «self destruct,» leaving behind no evidence (that is, unless someone is quick enough to take a screen shot!).

Because social media and 24/7 news mean that even a short chortle can be turned by one's foes into evidence that one is making light of something?

Citing damning evidence such as «muh feelz» and «because reasons,» many in the media were quick to blame a GamerGate - led cabal for Rapp's firing, an alliance which of course includes Nazis, reverse vampires, and worst of all, gamers!

* There is too much conflicting evidence about climate change to know whether it is actually happening * Current climate change is part of a pattern that has been going on for millions of years * Climate change is just a natural fluctuation in Earth's temperatures * Even if we do experience some consequences from climate change, we will be able to cope with them * The effects of climate change are likely to be catastrophic * The evidence for climate change is unreliable * There are a lot of very different theories about climate change and little agreement about which is right * Scientists have in the past changed their results to make climate change appear worse than it is * Scientists have hidden research that shows climate change is not serious * Climate change is a scam * Social / behavioural scepticism measures * Climate change is so complicated, that there is very little politicians can do about it * There is no point in me doing anything about climate change because no - one else is * The actions of a single person doesn't make any difference in tackling climate change * People are too selfish to do anything about climate change * Not much will be done about climate change, because it is not in human nature to respond to problems that won't happen for many years * It is already too late to do anything about climate change * The media is often too alarmist about climate change * Environmentalists do their best to emphasise the worst possible effects of climate change * Climate change has now become a bit of an outdated issue * Whether it is important or not, on a day - to - day basis I am bored of hearing about climate change

The issue I have with this is that there seems to be more evidence that a luck of trust (if it exists) is because certain media outlets keep telling the public that climate scientists can't be trusted, rather than the public deciding this independently because they've become aware of advocacy by climate scientists (see Dana's Guardian article today, for example).

# 62: What has been glossed over, or completely ignored in media reports about this study is that Tim Barnett told an annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science «climate models based on air temperature are weak because most of the evidence is not even there».

In addition, the results are pragmatically important because they serve the public interest: There is ample evidence that the public is currently not being adequately informed about the risks from climate change, owing largely to flawed media coverage, to which blogs make a contribution.

The reason why the Australian public think that there is only a 58 % agreement between climate scientists is because the debate in the popular media is mostly political where anything seems to be said rather than it being a scientific debate based on evidence.

That evidence completely contradicts the wind industry lie that turbine hosts never, ever complain; a piece of propaganda cooked up by its media manipulators — including a former tobacco advertising guru — who run the story that it's only «jealous» wind farm neighbours who complain about wind turbine noise, «jealous» because they're not getting paid.

Technically he's not required to show it to Mr. Trump, but even if he did, only fake news media would say «no evidence» just because they weren't allowed to look at it.

Re: 461 AxelD says: 17 February 2010 at 6:17 PM «The evidence, whatever it says, is meaningless, because what counts is the message communicated to the general public by the media.»

What I actually said was «The evidence, whatever it says, is meaningless, because what counts is the message communicated to the general public by the media.»

@HMPARTICLE: Laying charges only when there is evidence to back them up is more responsible (and approved of by judges) than accusing somebody to satisfy the police or media and then constantly asking for adjournments because you can't support the charges.

As such, social media can be a difficult kind of evidence to use because it consists of a small snapshot of what people want others to see and hear.

To illustrate the problem with accusing judges of bias, given the term's various meanings, the article focuses on recent federal litigation over NYC police stop - and - frisk policy in which (1) the district judge found «implicit bias» in police practices based on accumulated evidence and expert analysis, (2) the Second Circuit found that the district judge engaged in disqualifying judicial bias because of her comments in a prior related lawsuit and in the media, and (3) critics accused the Second Circuit of bias in making decisions that were hard to justify on either procedural or substantive grounds.

He held that Named Person was not authoritative because it only dealt with the media's right to be present at first stage hearing and did not entail consideration of the special discretion granted by section 37 of the Canada Evidence Act.

«Not only can things appear to have changed, judges and lawyers need to be aware when dealing with social media evidence that you can't just do a screen capture of Facebook or print out of an e-mail because it can easily be changed,» she says.

Because of his interest in social media, he's also been a contributing consulting expert re the California State Bar's «Effective Introduction of Evidence in California - Chapter 54 Electronic and Social Media Evidence.&rmedia, he's also been a contributing consulting expert re the California State Bar's «Effective Introduction of Evidence in California - Chapter 54 Electronic and Social Media Evidence.&rMedia Evidence.»

Lawyers are mining social networks for evidence, the federal jury instructions have been amended in an attempt to reduce the number of mistrials across the country due to jurors» social media posts, and lawyers are even losing their jobs because of their careless social media postings.

Giving evidence today, to a UK parliamentary select committee that's investigating the use of disinformation in political campaigning, Wylie said: «The 50 million number is what the media has felt safest to report — because of the documentation that they can rely on — but my recollection is that it was substantially higher than that.

Well, it has become the social media sexting app of choice because the pictures «self destruct,» leaving behind no evidence (that is, unless someone is quick enough to take a screen shot!).

Because of the nature of this possible lack of trustworthiness, courts have struggled to define the foundations that must be laid in order to admit social media evidence.