NEW EVIDENCE PROVIDED TONIGHT (March 16, 2016) BY O'REILLY FACTOR TO SUPPORT AVERY'S ARGUMENT THAT NEWS REPORTERS ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY "CITIZEN PARTICIPANTS" WHO CAN INVOKE THE TEXAS CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ACT TO BRING A MOTION TO DISMISS. THEY TOO MUST SHOW THEY REVEALED THEIR OWN PERSONAL OPIONIONS NOT MERELY REPORTED ON OTHERS DOING THE SAME:

 

The Texas Citizen Participation Act (TCPA & Civil Practice and Remedy Code 27) is to protect Citizens Participating in public events from SLAPP suits (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). The Act provides for a Motion to Dismiss any Lawsuit that is designed to discourage Public Participation. In order to implement the Act the Defendant must prove with a preponderance of evidence that the suit was brought to prevent the exercise of the Defendant's Constitutional rights of Free Speech, Petition and/or Association. But the catch is the same Act defines Free Speech to be any communication made about a public event. This definition removes the first step for all journalists and news reporters when they have been sued as a result of publishing any article about a public event. Any other defendant in any other lawsuit must prove by other means how they were exercising their Constitutional rights of Free Speech, Petition and/or Association.

 

But a real misunderstanding about the profession of news journalism is built into this Act. All news journalists violate their own ethics if they "participate" in any event that they cover. They cannot cover and/or write an article on a protest in which they carried a sign expressing their own views. They cannot write a news article on any event that expresses their own opinion unless they notice their readers that it is their own opinion.

 

I mention this fact that newspaper reporters cannot be "citizen participants" either at the event they cover or even in the article they publish about the event unless they notice their readers that they are doing so. I put this information in Plaintiff's pleadings and in Plaintiff's Exhibit J of his Amendment #2 of his Affidavit found at Link #17 in Left Hand menu at http://PostWTC.com/avc.html

 

Avery also likens this journalistic ethical code to a reporter being in a bubble of "non-participation" at any event they cover which they must maintain at the event and in the article they publish in order to follow ethical standards of the news industry. RE: Link #18 in the Left Hand menu pages 1-5 of 19.

 

Today another perfect example was given us by Bill O'Reilly on FOX. Bill reminds Jorge Ramos that he as head of Univision Communications cannot cover Donald Trump's candidacy for President of the US after making it public that Ramos thinks he is a Racist. Bill tells Jorge that from now on he should put a banner on all their news coverage saying that Univision thinks Trump is a Racist notifying all viewers of the opinions of the corporation. Jorge Ramos has now entered the public event expressing his own Constitutional Rights of Free Speech where as before he and Univision were just news reporters covering facts about others expressing their Constitutional Rights of Free Speech. Mr. Ramos broke the Bubble of "non-participation" and if he is sued for his remarks he rightfully may invoke the provisions of the TCPA.

 

But in the Avery v Hearst case, Dylan Baddour, the news reporter never broke the Bubble of "non-participation" and cannot invoke the provisions of the TCPA.

 

Watch the O'Reilly Factor 7 minute interview of Jorge Ramos at:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4804635211001/hispanic-american-voters-and-donald-trump/

Bill complains about this journalistic rule to Jorge beginnig at 2:50.