I didn't just quote Sullivan, I also quoted the public figure part, which wasn't from Sullivan, (Sullivan was just public officials), but later case law that expanded on it and broadened it to public figures.
Seriously? You're going to
keep harping on the irrelevant part while ignoring the bit that contradicts your falsehoods? She's not a public figure so it doesn't apply, which presumably is why you keep pretending that's the main part since you can actually argue against it. She is in the public eye and there's precedent that launching a lawsuit for defamation automatically means you count as putting yourself in the public eye,
that's the part you keep ignoring since you have no way of countering it. Quit harping on public figure, she's not one.
And again, the argument you use here doesn't apply. I was talking about bike girls case against the man who recorded her and posted it (if that's the same person, I figure I also have to add). This would be most closely matched to the case against Cosby, not Cosby's lawyer. And at least some of the defamation cases vs Cosby, I might add, got settled, so she presumably got money.
I never claimed the bike woman had a case against the many people and news companies who posted after the fact. At best, she'll get a nuisance payment from a news organization, just like Sandmann did. But from the person who recorded her and posted (if, again, it's the same person)? Totally different story, especially if she loses her job (as that's a financial loss directly incurred because of the lie).
Oh
of course you have no idea of the facts on the ground you're arguing about. I gotta quit my bad habit of assuming people I debate are coming from a position of knowledge rather than spamming their ideology. You don't even know who recorded and posted it or the circumstances of said posting, but you think you can still have a useful opinion on how a defamation lawsuit would go?
The original post was by Ben Crump, a lawyer representing the five black guys in the video. I suppose you don't know who he is either. He happens to be one of the biggest names in the legal industry, the go-to guy for police brutality, civil rights, and racism cases. He represented the families of Daunte Wright, Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, and is currently the rep for Malcolm X's family in a lawsuit against the CIA. He knows more about how civil trials work than all of us put together.
Now the guy might have practical immunity to lawsuits based on being too poor to be worth suing, but it is possible, which is what I was talking about.
No, the guy has practical immunity due to defamation laws. He's rich as Croesus but still doesn't have to worry.
And? That's completely irrelevant to my point. You've used a general statistic to talk about a specific individual problem. It's like saying a shooting is unjustified because only a small percentage of shootings are justified.
No, I'm laying more groundwork by showing how
everybody has the same problem she would. Most importantly, the fact that a staggering 2/3rds of litigants are more angry at the justice system than the person who slandered them by the end of the case is a clear indicator of how illogical and ridiculous the legal system is on this specific issue.
Wow, libertarians clearly never knew that laws and the judiciary were biased in favor of the politically connected. Thanks for enlightening us all. We've definitely never complained about cronyism in the past.
Well granted, I presumed you were actually in possession of at least the barest facts in this case so the fact that the original poster of the video being a highly connected, extremely wealthy lawyer who knows how to work the system would make this point highly relevant.
As is it's still highly relevant at least to your mindset, you simply presumed lawsuits had a fair chance of success due to ideology and then didn't bother to look at the facts on the ground, going off how you think the law
should work instead of how it
does. It'd be nice if this made you reflect on how your biases are affecting your thinking, as this, along with not doing any research and your tendency to play wordgames instead of facing facts, are really standing in the way of you ever making any quality arguments.
nypost.com
