BGOL Legal: Is just saying "allegedly" absolve you of ALL culpability?

playahaitian

Rising Star
Certified Pussy Poster
I have noticed in this social media age..

ESPECIALLY on YouTube clips and interviews and podcasts

that the hosts and guest believe that just saying

allegedly

protects them from any future legal action...

is this TRUE?

:idea:
 
I figured it's a way to say you didn't start the rumor or allegation, just something you heard. Seems like you could point to your source.
 
In laymen's terms.

In the eyes of the law you are only charged with a crime when you are formally cited or indicted, by prosecution, solicitor or sworn local authority of the courts. You are only guilty of a crime when found so by due process of law, and or admission of guilt.

So if you are A,B,C ect...subject of anything legal in the public, it is alleged, meaning said or known without proof.

Bottom line keep ya mouf' shut and get a lawyer on retainer.
 
https://forums.digitalspy.com/discu...-word-allegedly-you-can-say-anything-you-want

f someone has been arrested and had their name released by the police at a press conference then you can argue 'qualified privilege', so that you may repeat the allegation made by the police, provided it is a fair and accurate report of what the police said. Simply saying 'X is a dirty paedo, allegedly' may not satisfy that test.

If someone has been arrested but not had their name released by the police at a press conference then, if you repeat the allegation you are very likely to be liable for defamation even if you use the word allegedly. If you say something like 'The police have arrested X for alleged sexual offences' then you will have to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the police have reasonable grounds for suspecting that X is guilty of sexual offences.

If you can't prove that the police had reasonable grounds for suspecting X was guilty of the offence then you might argue what's called 'reynolds privilege', however one of the factors the court takes in to account in deciding whether the privilege attaches to you is whether the allegation you made was already the subject of a 'respected investigation'. So, where the police are investigating a matter, you probably can't argue reynolds privilege. If, however, you have evidence the police were being corrupt in their investigation, then the privilege would probably attach to you.​
 
Jumping Off ‘Allege’
The criminalization of a word
By Merrill Perlman[/paste:font]JUNE 15, 2009507 WORDS


It’s virtually impossible to pinpoint when the misuse of a word or phrase becomes so common that it’s no longer deemed a misuse. But if mere repetition were the main criterion, “alleged” would have lost its stigma a long time ago.

When someone is arrested or accused of a crime, journalists commonly refer to that person as the “alleged murderer,” or the “alleged thief.” That use is decried by many, some of whom say that using “alleged” to modify the word “murderer” or “thief” is no more defense against libel than using the adjective “cute” would be.

In these cases, “alleged” is synonymous with “suspected.” But “suspected” means “viewed with suspicion,” while “alleged” means “so declared, but without proof or legal conviction.” In other words, calling someone “an alleged thief” is all but saying “we know you did it.”

So there is some basis for avoiding the use of “alleged” as the noun modifying the person. (If it’s unclear that a crime occurred, it could be called an “alleged theft,” modifying the crime.)

Interestingly, few usage guides address the issue directly. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage says the usage of “alleged murderer” is an Americanism, but is unclear whether it should be avoided, though it seems to lean that way. The Associated Press stylebook implies that “alleged” should not be used with the person, but never says it explicitly. Part of its entry on “allege” reads: “Do not use alleged to describe an event that is known to have occurred, when the dispute is over who participated in it. Do not say: He attended the alleged meeting when what you mean is: He allegedly attended the meeting.” Since in practically every crime the dispute is over who participated in it, one could infer that the AP frowns on the use of “alleged” in front of “murderer” or “thief.”

The New York Times stylebook is a little clearer: “Alleged and allegedly are police-blotter jargon, best rephrased into conversational English: accused of, charged with or suspected of. If legal concerns leave no choice, apply the modifier to the offense, not the suspect: alleged theft, not alleged thief.”

The use of adverbs or verbs applied to the crime, and not to the person, will help writers avoid any legal entanglements. “She is accused of robbing the bank,” “Police allege he broke into the church,” and “She is suspected of taking a bribe” all work fine; while there’s nothing legally wrong with “He is alleged to havemurdered his mother-in-law,” it’s clunky.

As for the person, “the suspect” or “the accused” usually works quite nicely. (It’s redundant to call someone an “alleged suspect.”)

So now that you know not to use “alleged” to describe a suspect, and now that you have alternatives, we will never see “alleged murderer” again, right? Would that it worked that way. The use of “alleged murderer” is so deeply ingrained in journalistic culture, and the objections to it so imprecisely stated, that there are probably no courts of appeal left.

https://archives.cjr.org/language_corner/jumping_off_allege.php
 
Last edited:
Y'all mfkrs got all these long ass answers and shit. Imma keep it short and sweet.

@playahaitian to answer your question

"Is just saying "allegedly" absolve you of ALL culpability?"


allegedly it does

Haha
 
Last edited:
Back
Top