More on Galaxy Gaming

Galaxy's CEO Letter I wonder why media hated him, in particular the Vegas Inc.

More facts need to come out on what is really going on with Galaxy/Saucier & California. It sounds like Galaxy/Saucier will get a chance to respond and present their rebuttals to CA and other state regulators that decide to do subsequent due diligence.

I do have to agree with Saucier's letter on one point.....the media often sensationalizes the facts to get you to read what they write. And it is easy in brief article to lay out "facts" that don't really matter.

Case in point on one of the Saucier articles where it said that he (or Galaxy Gaming of CA, LLC) received as much as $2,000 per month in revenue/licensing fees from tribal casino operators without a state license.......I don't think you need to be licensed with the State of CA if you collect less than $25,000 per year annually from any one tribe......so you don't need a license to do what the article says happened......yet the writer presented those facts as if it was a big "no-no" not to have been licensed with the CA.

The truth in all of this will come out and I am sure there is something behind why CA decided to rule that Galaxy Gaming of CA, LLC and/or Saucier himself were unsuitable. This may or may not affect Galaxy Corporate and/or Saucier in his role as CEO. Time will tell and more facts will dictate the end result.

But in the meantime, the media will continue to do what it does to sell their wares.

In regards to his response to the use of the word allegedly;

Quote:
“He also allegedly inked licensing deals with several California Indian tribal casinos — collecting as much as $2,000 a month from each in licensing fees — without state approval.”

By including the word “allegedly,” irresponsible reporting can advance almost anything, no matter how divergent from the facts the allegation is.
End Quote

I wonder what would happen if a person were able to prove that the author KNEW that what they were writing was false at the time they wrote that, even with the word allegedly included. I would hope libel law would rule that using the word allegedly does not absolve the writer from libel for writing what they knew to be false information.
The second part about the "without state approval" would seem to be much stickier. It could just be sloppy writing that is conveying one message when that was not the writer's intent, but one would hope a professional writer would not have that problem. Therefore, the ambiguity could be determined to have been done on purpose, thus leading to false conclusions by the reader.

Quote: RaleighCraps

I wonder what would happen if a person were able to prove that the author KNEW that what they were writing was false at the time they wrote that, even with the word allegedly included. I would hope libel law would rule that using the word allegedly does not absolve the writer from libel for writing what they knew to be false information.

Nope the allegedly protects, it can't be libel if its allegedly

Quote: McDemon

Nope the allegedly protects, it can't be libel if its allegedly

Not true. If I publish an article with blatantly false information the 'allegedly' does not offer full protection, if any. As an example.
"Congressman XXXXX was allegedly having sex with young boys after allegedly embezzling state funds. He allegedly funneled those funds through Al Qaeda, while allegedly planning to blow up the football stadium." If there is absolutely no evidence to support those allegations, I would say the statements are 'libelous'.

It does protect when someone has been accused of a crime but not convicted.

We have a few lawyers on this forum. I'd like them to chime in.

Quote: SOOPOO

Not true. If I publish an article with blatantly false information the 'allegedly' does not offer full protection, if any. As an example.
"Congressman XXXXX was allegedly having sex with young boys after allegedly embezzling state funds. He allegedly funneled those funds through Al Qaeda, while allegedly planning to blow up the football stadium." If there is absolutely no evidence to support those allegations, I would say the statements are 'libelous'.

It does protect when someone has been accused of a crime but not convicted.

We have a few lawyers on this forum. I'd like them to chime in.

Yes but the example
you give is so ridiculous a story that a reader could not believe it to be true, which is where the damage to reputation is. I would be surprised if a conviction could be secured for liable on that statement.

If a respected established newspaper or media outlet published a story and used the phrase allegedly "Politician rapes school girl" I am not sure that would be a prosecution but I am not a lawyer and I know US Law is different from UK.

Quote: RaleighCraps

Quote:
“He also allegedly inked licensing deals with several California Indian tribal casinos — collecting as much as $2,000 a month from each in licensing fees — without state approval.”

That is allegedly below the threshold for mandatory approval. Those deals were allegedly structured specifically to avoid the need for approval. Investigative reporting is allegedly a dying art.

Quote: Paradigm

I do have to agree with Saucier's letter on one point.....the media often sensationalizes the facts to get you to read what they write.

Often? I'm sorry, often? Always isn't often. It's always.

Take the Asiana crash. The pilot handling the actual landing was portrayed as inexpereinced for having only a few hours in the type he was flying. This ignores the fact that 1) he had lots and lots of hours in other airplane types and 2) pilots have to acquire expereince somehow; otherwise new planes would be unfliable because no one has any expereince flying them.

90% of the things you post here make no sense. First of all, what you said has nothing to do with the media sensationalizing things. The fact that the pilot had very little experience with that type of aircraft was a both a fact and a factor in the crash, as well as the trainer not helping or taking over when it was obvious there was a problem. The pilot was not just "portrayed" as being inexperienced with that type of aircraft, he was. That is not the media sensationalizing things.

ZCore13

Being a writer, here is my interpretation of "allegedly".

1) If someone makes an accusation that appears to have at least a little merit, then "allegedly" may be properly used. A safe writer will attribute this allegation "police say" "The gaming board says" etc.

2) If some unverifiable blog or forum post makes an outrageous accusation and you cannot at least verify that the user would be knowledgeable then it would not be a responsible use of "allegedly".

A writer must have a good faith belief that what they have published is correct. It does not have to actually be correct if the sources used to draw the conclusion were reliable but wrong.

It does not stop people from filing harassing lawsuits that attempt to silence the truth though.

Quote: Pokeraddict

Being a writer, here is my interpretation of "allegedly".

1) If someone makes an accusation that appears to have at least a little merit, then "allegedly" may be properly used. A safe writer will attribute this allegation "police say" "The gaming board says" etc.

2) If some unverifiable blog or forum post makes an outrageous accusation and you cannot at least verify that the user would be knowledgeable then it would not be a responsible use of "allegedly".

A writer must have a good faith belief that what they have published is correct. It does not have to actually be correct if the sources used to draw the conclusion were reliable but wrong.

It does not stop people from filing harassing lawsuits that attempt to silence the truth though.

So how do you feel about this situation, where Galaxy "allegedly" took actions which - it turns out - are not improper, yet the reporter has created the strong impression that an infraction has occurred?

Quote: rdw4potus

So how do you feel about this situation, where Galaxy "allegedly" took actions which - it turns out - are not improper, yet the reporter has created the strong impression that an infraction has occurred?

Poor journalism though it is, I suspect it doesn't amount to an actionable claim

The one thing people get confused about when watching or reading the news is that TV News, Newspapers and Magazines are a business, not a service. They exist to sell product, not to serve the general public for the good of the people. If they don't sell themselves, they go broke. That is where (for them) the line to cross becomes blurry. The more sensationalized they can make the headline, the better chance they have that someone will want to watch it or read about it.

ZCore13

Quote: McDemon

Poor journalism though it is, I suspect it doesn't amount to an actionable claim

I do not want to speculate about whether a defamation claim could be made here but it is important to note that a writer and/or publication must have willfully disregarded the truth with the intent to damage a reputation to have committed libel/defamation.

Quote: Zcore13

They exist to sell product, not to serve the general public for the good of the people.

The major networks are given free access to broadcast spectrum specifically and only because they are supposed to serve the general public by providing free access to timely and accurate news information.

Quote: rdw4potus

The major networks are given free access to broadcast spectrum specifically and only because they are supposed to serve the general public by providing free access to timely and accurate news information.

Socialist claptrap, if you'll pardont he expression.

Without a working transmitter, all the "public airwaves" are is so much empty air. This notion of licensing them is ridiculous.

Just the same, there's a reason why the traditional media is failing. Sensationalism is just one aspect of it.

Quote: Nareed

Socialist claptrap, if you'll pardont he expression.

Without a working transmitter, all the "public airwaves" are is so much empty air. This notion of licensing them is ridiculous.

Just the same, there's a reason why the traditional media is failing. Sensationalism is just one aspect of it.

Which President gave the bandwidth away? Socialism indeed! Nevertheless, that's the setup:-)

Quote: SOOPOO

Not true. If I publish an article with blatantly false information the 'allegedly' does not offer full protection, if any. As an example.
"Congressman XXXXX was allegedly having sex with young boys after allegedly embezzling state funds. He allegedly funneled those funds through Al Qaeda, while allegedly planning to blow up the football stadium." If there is absolutely no evidence to support those allegations, I would say the statements are 'libelous'.

It does protect when someone has been accused of a crime but not convicted.

We have a few lawyers on this forum. I'd like them to chime in.

Tough to say. A pure definition of libel is tough to pin down, as it varies from state to state and there is also First Amendment protection.

But I would feel pretty confident is saying that adding "allegedly" to the statement will not insulate you from a libel suit. Far from it.

Quote: Zcore13

90% of the things you post here make no sense. First of all, what you said has nothing to do with the media sensationalizing things. The fact that the pilot had very little experience with that type of aircraft was a both a fact and a factor in the crash, as well as the trainer not helping or taking over when it was obvious there was a problem. The pilot was not just "portrayed" as being inexperienced with that type of aircraft, he was. That is not the media sensationalizing things.

ZCore13

Zcore has this particular situation exactly right, FWIW. No sensationalism needed; it was appalling. The other human factor that will likely (IMHO) be cited in the full NTSB report will be the Korean culture, which is the most anti-CRM (cockpit resource management aka teamwork) known.

Standards, with improvements on simulators, and given the cost of JetA (cheaper, actually than other types of avgas, but used in the thousands of gallons/flight), have changed to where a pilot can and often does become ATP certified and report for duty as a first officer on a scheduled flight with passengers before he's ever flown the airplane. Ever. And type ratings for B757 in 5 different configs, B767 in 3 different configs, and B777, can be given for the entire group with experience on only one, despite 3 decades of changes and upgrades to instrumentation, configuration, and other critical elements. So the NTSB will be examining all of the cockpit crew's certifications and flying hours VERY carefully.