Search results for query: *

I'll take Antifa over grooming gangs any day and twice on sunday. See, if you want your place safe from gangs, just buy an AR. He might countersue, which means much less added cost for the lawsuit, as they happen simultaneously.

In the UK, Rittenhouse would have been given at least 5 years for possession, if not straight up murder charges. Or he wouldn't have had the gun and died.

Um, they do? They literally have to. I don't think you get how this works. If the judge doesn't care, it gets appealed and overturned. The Judge, along with the two opposing lawyers, is also in charge of the jury instructions, which lay out clear as day to the jury what the relevant law is and...

No, that's not how anything works. There are factual questions like "did X cause Y's death?" Then there are subjective questions: "what make a killing murder?" That's an opinion. Also, just claiming X is Y can easily be an opinion. Legal malice doesn't mean what a normal person calls malice...

No, they can't. Looking at your example: See, calling someone a murderer has two parts, one factual and one opinion. The factual part is 'did they kill someone?' The opinion part is 'is that killing murder', which depends, among other things, on the statement maker's personal morals. So if you...

Being the initial cause of being famous doesn't work as an exception. But the MSM wasn't the initial cause for Rittenhouse or Sandman. Rittenhouse killed people: instant public figure. Sandman became famous because of twitter users. Media just reported on it after it became news. Basically...

It hasn't been. The case, NYT v Sullivan, didn't give special protection to the media, or any defendant. What it did was create an extra hurdle for certain plaintiffs (namely public figures). If you are famous, or even suddenly become famous, it gets much harder to sue as you have to show that...

... It's not a regulation. It doesn't impose additional requirements on citizenry. What you are proposing will not cause them to be held to account though. Yes, it would be nice if we had a magical oracle who could punish people for doing stupid stuff, but we don't. We have a system, that will...

It doesn't protect lies. It does protect opinion, which is what these statements are. No, it shouldn't be. Free Speech is ever under assualt, currently from the left. We don't need to attack it from the right also. These protections allow people to say controversial things without the powers...

That's what I thought. It fucking sucks that it didn't happen, but that's much more realistic.

Sustained campaign doesn't matter. There's honestly little they can say that would rise to defamation. Yeah, I didn't expect that would be the source you got it from. My bet is that you got it from someone who read this (or a similar story) then thought it was true, and published it. Can you...

This does dodge the opinion stuff, but the problem is getting to defamation/damages from that. You'd have to convince both a jury and a judge that being seen as killing black people is harmful to a reputation in a way that killing white people isn't, and put a monetary amount on that. On top of...

Hate to be the one to say this, but they aren't going to get more than go away settlements. They got 0 chance in a trial. Things like "White Supremicist" are opinion statements. Calling Rittenhouse a murderer? Also legally opinion.

That's not what an imminent threat means though. If a school shooter is walking down the hall between classrooms and you shoot him in the back, you are fine. Imminence is more about someone saying "When I come back with my gun", etc. But if the guy already has his gun out, I'd say that's an...

First, it's reasonable belief that a person is a threat, because this is self defense. Second, he had just heard gun shots, then saw a person a guy get shot by a guy with an AR-15, that's a very reasonable belief. It's not just some random guy, it's the guy who was just shot someone after...

If Rittenhouse had just fallen, that would be fine. If a reasonable person in Grosskreutz shoes believed that Rittenhouse was a mass shooter at the time, his actions become entirely reasonable and self defense. In his mind, he is trying to neutralize a threat to all. Provocation doesn't matter...

Given he thought it was a mass shooter, that's not an issue under defense of others. His non-lethal response basically ensures what he was doing was self defense. You can't really dodge the opinion standard here. People have a right to have wrong opinions. Without such a right, speech will...

Yes. This isn't Rosenbaum I'm talking about, this is Grosskreutz. Grosskreutz and Rittenhouse both had valid self defense claims against each other. False surrender isn't a crime outside of war for a reason: a criminal doesn't act like a soldier, and easily might not honor a surrender. Now...

All of which is part of free speech. Like a very important part even, that's political speech. Him pointing it was actually also self defense. He wasn't the initial aggressor, and on top of that, only used non-lethal force (as he didn't fire it). Possession is another matter, but I don't want...

Sadly, the falsity of there statements is a matter of opinion though, and if we start punishing opinion, we are fucked. It's a cost of a true free speech society: people say stupid fucking things.