I'd seen people talking about it on Twitter a lot, but no direct links that I saw.
Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Thread
- Thread starter LindyAF
- Start date
That's what I thought. It fucking sucks that it didn't happen, but that's much more realistic.
King Arts
Well-known member
I’m gonna say I disagree 1st ammmendmet should not protect lies. In olden times these sorts of statements could get you changed to a duel and killed.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 that, it might fall under an honest mistake exception.
No, we really don't. The first amendment is vitally important, and allowing people to sue others into oblivion over things like this will be used by the powerful to bankrupt the less powerful. A classic example of freedom not being free.
Nope. That sadly did not happen. That's from this fake news site:
Judge Says The View's Formal Apology to Kyle Rittenhouse is "A Joke and an Insult"
His lawyers are nowhere near satisfied.patriotpartypress.com
It calls itself satire in the about us part, but there's no joke.
Bigking321
Well-known member
It's not a 1st amendment problem.
There was some Supreme Court case a long time ago that made it nearly impossible to prove defamation from news sources.
It's been thoroughly abused to the point that today's media can knowingly lie and get away with it due to the extraordinary level of proof you need to prove defamation.
That case needs to be overturned.
There was some Supreme Court case a long time ago that made it nearly impossible to prove defamation from news sources.
It's been thoroughly abused to the point that today's media can knowingly lie and get away with it due to the extraordinary level of proof you need to prove defamation.
That case needs to be overturned.
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 be suing them into oblivion.
All of the small content creators that aren't inline with the MSM would have been sued before they could have gotten big enough to fight. The way to fight the MSM is with more speech, not with regulation.
Bigking321
Well-known member
Sure, but you kind of have it backwards. The Supreme Court added regulation that effectively gave the news immunity from libel and slander.
I'm fine with them reporting whatever they want but it would be preferable if they lied and slandered that they could be held to account instead of laughing and continuing on.
... 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 usually only be used by the powerful to punish those without it, in order to maintain power.
Them being called out for lying is already being punished, by people tuning out. It's being punished by small influencers and news sources and youtubers all giving different opinions and being rewarded for it.
In fact, what you are proposing would quash the democratization of news that is currently happening, and return power to the MSM.
Bigking321
Well-known member
I had this whole thing about how legal double standards are a imposition on the citizenry but I think it would be easier to agree to disagree.
I think the media was given a level of protection well above the average citizen and they are abusing that to a unbelievable degree so that the news is basically lies and propaganda.
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 the defendant intended to lie.
So again, this isn't a media thing, this is a famous figure thing.
What constitutes a lie is determined by those in power I am surprised you have that type of faith as not everyone can be Injustice Superman.
Bigking321
Well-known member
Ironic that by being targeted and slandered by the media one becomes a famous figure.
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, take the Tara Reade case. She accused Biden of rape. If you were to just call him a rapist, that's a 50/50 libel claim, which Biden would win cause of better lawyers and having more money.
Same with "Bill Clinton is a rapist". Hard to show either way, so his lawyers would just need to sway a jury to be 51% favorable to the Clintons.
This obviously ends badly, which is why NYT v Sullivan is so important.
VictortheMonarch
Victor the Crusader
Opinion Statements can still be slander. If I called you a murderer and nearly got you arrested, you would lawfully be able to sue me and more than like, get me in trouble. Though you are right, with how popular these assholes are they're unlikely to face the music.
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 called me a murderer publicly for someone I didn't kill, then yes, that would be slander. It also might be lying to a police officer, among other things. But it's not over a matter of opinion.
If you call me a murderer after I kill someone in self defense, even to cops, you are guilty of nothing unless there are other factual lies.
So if they start saying Sandman murdered some people, then you've (hopefully) gone into facts. There's also hyperbolic language to be considered (like if you say "Sandman murdered the MSM with facts", that's not slander as it's hyperbole), so you'd have a case.
King Arts
Well-known member
If you say it is my oppinion, or I THINK that so and so is a murderer that would cover their ass under my system. But saying someone IS something takes it out of oppinion, then if it is shown to be false then it would not be protected.
Well if you have proof then it can be shown to not be a lie. Also duels would stop our current elites dead in their tracks a bunch of old hags with dry dusty cunts, or old farts who are a step away from dementia can't really win a duel to the death against anyone.
No, but they CAN hire professional duelists to eliminate the people that oppose them. 'Course...there would be no trace of that payment or link between those parties. Plausible deniability is a thing ya' know. So no, I don't support dueling. What I do support is the right hook to the face after 'he said it one more time.'
Vyor
My influence grows!
So here's the problem with the Sullivan case:
The word "malicious" is used. A malicious disregard of the facts.
Why should it matter if it's malicious, if there was a disregarding of the facts and the statement is false, it should not be thrown out in court.
This standard means I can call someone a pedophile even when there is proof they were not, in fact, a pedo I could have it thrown out of court because I was obviously not being malicious and instead just repeating what I was told.
This should not fly.
Same with calling someone a murderer that's been cleared of charges: being a murderer does in fact have a legal definition, it means you have committed the unlawful killing of another human. By this definition, Rittenhouse can not be called a murderer because he was acquitted.
But by that standard set by Sullivan V New York Times... he can't sue over it.
It's a shit precedent that needs to be taken out back and shot.
The word "malicious" is used. A malicious disregard of the facts.
Why should it matter if it's malicious, if there was a disregarding of the facts and the statement is false, it should not be thrown out in court.
This standard means I can call someone a pedophile even when there is proof they were not, in fact, a pedo I could have it thrown out of court because I was obviously not being malicious and instead just repeating what I was told.
This should not fly.
Same with calling someone a murderer that's been cleared of charges: being a murderer does in fact have a legal definition, it means you have committed the unlawful killing of another human. By this definition, Rittenhouse can not be called a murderer because he was acquitted.
But by that standard set by Sullivan V New York Times... he can't sue over it.
It's a shit precedent that needs to be taken out back and shot.
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. It means either knowingly false or with a reckless disregard for the truth.
Vyor
My influence grows!
Take a guess what Juries and a lot of judges don't actually care about.
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 how to interpret it, and the definition I gave is quite clearly written in the jury instructions.
Also, if you don't think the judge or the jury will pay attention to the law, then why the hell would a law change do anything? Stop doompilling, this is a win.