CNN and Southern Poverty Law Center sued

[Blasted Craigs]

CNN, and by Proxy of supporting CNN the Southern Poverty Law Center, are being sued by Joni Turner for for defamation for CNN labeling Trump supporters as "Nazis" and comparing them to "Rapists".
Basically, the lawsuit states that Trump Supporters have been damaged by CNN's reporting, because CNN has reported as fact that if one is a Trump supporter, one is a Nazi, White Supremacist, and recently potentially a rapist. Specifically, Michael Moore in an interview saying Trump has in fact raped America, and by supporting Trump, one was a rapist. CNN refused to deny Trump supporters were rapists, or disclaim Moor's claims.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/michael-moore-suggests-trump-supporters-are-like-accomplices-to-rape/article/2631672
Video of interview, never does CNN disagree that Trump supporters are rapists or racists, simply says the fact is "uncomfortable".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=530&v=9AXl9XAckLY
The suit alleges and claims lives have been damaged because due to CNN's reporting on Trump, by labeling Trump supporters as racists, nazis, and rapists, have damaged their lives through defamation.
Any American who identifies as a Trump supporter can sign up.
Sign up link (it's real).
https://ourtakedown.com/
So, this lawyer is serious.
Her Twitter on the issue.
https://twitter.com/joniturnerlaw

So nationstates, what say you? Think she has a chance?
What do you think the impact of this case will be if successful?
Do you agree with this lawsuit?
////////////////
1-There is a chance IMHO.
2-It will hurt CNN, but I think CNN will continue to peddle inflammatory divisive news.
3-I agree, just don't know how much impact overall it will have.

[Vassenor]

So when did CNN actually do any of those things?

[Sailence]

LOL Trump supporters are using political correctness against the advocates of it? AHAHAHAHAHA Trump supporters never fail to enlighten me in their hypocrisy.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

It's not defamation if it's not a personal assault, if American law on the subject looks anything like European law. You could then go for a group insult, but I don't think political groups are protected groups under such ordinances. So, no, this is not going to work in a million years.

[Costa Fierro]

They bring damage on themselves by being themselves. Although anything that takes money away from CNN is a good thing.

[Blasted Craigs]

So when did CNN actually do any of those things?

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/16/cnn-reporter-compares-trump-to-hitler-while-her-boss-buys-obama-photos/
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/cnn-goes-there-on-trumps-campaign-adolph-hitler-when-he-first-rose-to-power-was-elected/
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/08/16/dem-congressman-cnn-trump-presidency-replay-hitlers-rise-power/
http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/08/14/trump-condemns-racism-jpm-orig.cnn
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/liberal-activists-if-you-voted-for-trump-youre-to-blame-for-charlottesville
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/ordinary-white-supremacists/index.html
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/09/van-jones-says-the-election-is-whitelash-against-a-changing-country/

Literally a 5-10 minute search.
Really?

[Blasted Craigs]

It's not defamation if it's not a personal assault, if American law on the subject looks anything like European law. You could then go for a group insult, but I don't think political groups are protected groups under such ordinances. So, no, this is not going to work in a million years.

Except there will be the claim Trump supporters have faced the threat of violence and actual physical violence as a result of these claims.
That will be a part of the suit.
Remember the Phrase "bash a Fash?"
The claim will be that such movements are a result of said defamation.

[Blasted Craigs]

LOL Trump supporters are using political correctness against the advocates of it? AHAHAHAHAHA Trump supporters never fail to enlighten me in their hypocrisy.

Hey, better to go through the courts rather than rely on "peace through violence"
http://www.dailywire.com/news/19954/cnn-alters-headline-after-claiming-antifa-seeks-emily-zanotti

[Vassenor]

So when did CNN actually do any of those things?

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/16/cnn-reporter-compares-trump-to-hitler-while-her-boss-buys-obama-photos/
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/cnn-goes-there-on-trumps-campaign-adolph-hitler-when-he-first-rose-to-power-was-elected/
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/08/16/dem-congressman-cnn-trump-presidency-replay-hitlers-rise-power/
http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/08/14/trump-condemns-racism-jpm-orig.cnn
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/liberal-activists-if-you-voted-for-trump-youre-to-blame-for-charlottesville
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/ordinary-white-supremacists/index.html
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/09/van-jones-says-the-election-is-whitelash-against-a-changing-country/

Literally a 5-10 minute search.
Really?

Seeing a lot of stuff about Trump himself, but not a whole lot of "calling Trump supporters Nazis and Rapists".

[Blasted Craigs]

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/16/cnn-reporter-compares-trump-to-hitler-while-her-boss-buys-obama-photos/
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/cnn-goes-there-on-trumps-campaign-adolph-hitler-when-he-first-rose-to-power-was-elected/
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/08/16/dem-congressman-cnn-trump-presidency-replay-hitlers-rise-power/
http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/08/14/trump-condemns-racism-jpm-orig.cnn
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/liberal-activists-if-you-voted-for-trump-youre-to-blame-for-charlottesville
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/ordinary-white-supremacists/index.html
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/09/van-jones-says-the-election-is-whitelash-against-a-changing-country/

Literally a 5-10 minute search.
Really?

Seeing a lot of stuff about Trump himself, but not a whole lot of "calling Trump supporters Nazis and Rapists".

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/ordinary-white-supremacists/index.html
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/09/van-jones-says-the-election-is-whitelash-against-a-changing-country/
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/liberal-activists-if-you-voted-for-trump-youre-to-blame-for-charlottesville
These three in particular refer to supporters as "racists" and "white Supremacists".
The Whitelashing article in particular claims that the only reason Trump was elected was due to his supporters being "racist"
The Michael Moore interview in the OP, Moore called Trump supporters, ALL Trump supporters, racists and rapists, and the interviewers only response was that that was an uncomfortable comparison, not once saying this does not reflect all Trump supporters.

[Blasted Craigs]

Seeing a lot of stuff about Trump himself, but not a whole lot of "calling Trump supporters Nazis and Rapists".

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/ordinary-white-supremacists/index.html
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/09/van-jones-says-the-election-is-whitelash-against-a-changing-country/
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/liberal-activists-if-you-voted-for-trump-youre-to-blame-for-charlottesville
These three in particular refer to supporters as "racists" and "white Supremacists".
The Whitelashing article in particular claims that the only reason Trump was elected was due to his supporters being "racist"
The Michael Moore interview in the OP, Moore called Trump supporters, ALL Trump supporters, racists and rapists, and the interviewers only response was that that was an uncomfortable comparison, not once saying this does not reflect all Trump supporters.

From one of CNN's Articles
''You have to have millions of people who are willing to be bystanders, who push aside evidence of racism, Islamophobia or sexism. You can't have one without the other,'' Naison says.
"We are a country with a few million passionate white supremacists -- and tens of millions of white supremacists by default," he says.
They then list the 4 types of racist Trump supporters.
Type 1-The 'down-low' segregationists
Type 2-Those who say 'yes, but...'
Type 3-Those who choose chaos
And finally, type 4-Those who look the other way
From CNN's own article.

[Vassenor]

Seeing a lot of stuff about Trump himself, but not a whole lot of "calling Trump supporters Nazis and Rapists".

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/ordinary-white-supremacists/index.html
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/09/van-jones-says-the-election-is-whitelash-against-a-changing-country/
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/liberal-activists-if-you-voted-for-trump-youre-to-blame-for-charlottesville
These three in particular refer to supporters as "racists" and "white Supremacists".
The Whitelashing article in particular claims that the only reason Trump was elected was due to his supporters being "racist"
The Michael Moore interview in the OP, Moore called Trump supporters, ALL Trump supporters, racists and rapists, and the interviewers only response was that that was an uncomfortable comparison, not once saying this does not reflect all Trump supporters.

So a blog with a pretty heavy right-wing bias, one commentator and an article that talks about tacit acceptance rather than outright support.

[Blasted Craigs]

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/ordinary-white-supremacists/index.html
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/09/van-jones-says-the-election-is-whitelash-against-a-changing-country/
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/liberal-activists-if-you-voted-for-trump-youre-to-blame-for-charlottesville
These three in particular refer to supporters as "racists" and "white Supremacists".
The Whitelashing article in particular claims that the only reason Trump was elected was due to his supporters being "racist"
The Michael Moore interview in the OP, Moore called Trump supporters, ALL Trump supporters, racists and rapists, and the interviewers only response was that that was an uncomfortable comparison, not once saying this does not reflect all Trump supporters.

So a blog with a pretty heavy right-wing bias, one commentator and an article that talks about tacit acceptance rather than outright support.

Nice attempt to derail, the "right leaning site" referenced a CNN article. Soooo....your point is to imply it is fake news, even though they quoted CNN?
To be frank, I hate this divisive reporting on both sides. I hated it when they blamed Obama for everything from cancer to slow WIFI signals nearly as much, and when they portrayed Obama supporters as "reverse racists".
He was our duly elected President, and while in office, should have been respected as such.
Same goes for our current President IMHO. And to claim that supporters of either are degenerates or lowlifes is divisive, and should be discouraged IMHO.
But, this trend to defame a President and his/her supporters has been especially harsh this Presidency.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-harvard-study-cnn-nbc-trump-coverage-93-percent-negative/article/2623641
Byron York: Harvard study: CNN, NBC Trump coverage 93 percent negative
Overall, coverage was 80 % negative.
The numbers for previous presidents: Barack Obama, 41 percent negative, 59 percent positive; George W. Bush, 57 percent negative, 43 percent positive; and Bill Clinton, 60 percent negative, 40 percent positive.
Again, this overall negative reporting has resulted in actions like "bash a Fash" and the like, which is divisive and should not be accepted by any civilized society.
Hell, I would go so far as to call it hate speech IMHO.

[Blasted Craigs]

will be leaving, but will check in later. Feel free to discuss fellow Nationstaters!
(In other words, this is to let people know I am not ignoring you, just will not be on til later)

[Vassenor]

So a blog with a pretty heavy right-wing bias, one commentator and an article that talks about tacit acceptance rather than outright support.

Nice attempt to derail, the "right leaning site" referenced a CNN article. Soooo....your point is to imply it is fake news, even though they quoted CNN?
To be frank, I hate this divisive reporting on both sides. I hated it when they blamed Obama for everything from cancer to slow WIFI signals nearly as much, and when they portrayed Obama supporters as "reverse racists".
He was our duly elected President, and while in office, should have been respected as such.
Same goes for our current President IMHO. And to claim that supporters of either are degenerates or lowlifes is divisive, and should be discouraged IMHO.
But, this trend to defame a President and his/her supporters has been especially harsh this Presidency.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-harvard-study-cnn-nbc-trump-coverage-93-percent-negative/article/2623641
Byron York: Harvard study: CNN, NBC Trump coverage 93 percent negative
Overall, coverage was 80 % negative.
The numbers for previous presidents: Barack Obama, 41 percent negative, 59 percent positive; George W. Bush, 57 percent negative, 43 percent positive; and Bill Clinton, 60 percent negative, 40 percent positive.
Again, this overall negative reporting has resulted in actions like "bash a Fash" and the like, which is divisive and should not be accepted by any civilized society.
Hell, I would go so far as to call it hate speech IMHO.

Now is that negative coverage actually the result of bias, or just because he keeps doing stupid shit?

I know Trump likes to call anything that doesn't dance to his tune fake news, but that doesn't make it true.

[Blasted Craigs]

Nice attempt to derail, the "right leaning site" referenced a CNN article. Soooo....your point is to imply it is fake news, even though they quoted CNN?
To be frank, I hate this divisive reporting on both sides. I hated it when they blamed Obama for everything from cancer to slow WIFI signals nearly as much, and when they portrayed Obama supporters as "reverse racists".
He was our duly elected President, and while in office, should have been respected as such.
Same goes for our current President IMHO. And to claim that supporters of either are degenerates or lowlifes is divisive, and should be discouraged IMHO.
But, this trend to defame a President and his/her supporters has been especially harsh this Presidency.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-harvard-study-cnn-nbc-trump-coverage-93-percent-negative/article/2623641
Byron York: Harvard study: CNN, NBC Trump coverage 93 percent negative
Overall, coverage was 80 % negative.
The numbers for previous presidents: Barack Obama, 41 percent negative, 59 percent positive; George W. Bush, 57 percent negative, 43 percent positive; and Bill Clinton, 60 percent negative, 40 percent positive.
Again, this overall negative reporting has resulted in actions like "bash a Fash" and the like, which is divisive and should not be accepted by any civilized society.
Hell, I would go so far as to call it hate speech IMHO.

Now is that negative coverage actually the result of bias, or just because he keeps doing stupid shit?

I know Trump likes to call anything that doesn't dance to his tune as fake news, but that doesn't make it true.

Saw this before I left, But to answer quickly...
Even the study admitted this is partially due to events surrounding the Presidency, but that it ...let me quote the article.
That said, the coverage of some news organizations was so negative, according to the Harvard study, that it seems hard to argue that the coverage was anywhere near a neutral presentation of facts. Assessing the tone of news coverage, the Harvard researchers found that CNN's Trump coverage was 93 percent negative, and seven percent positive. The researchers found the same numbers for NBC.

Be back later!

[Vassenor]

Now is that negative coverage actually the result of bias, or just because he keeps doing stupid shit?

I know Trump likes to call anything that doesn't dance to his tune as fake news, but that doesn't make it true.

Saw this before I left, But to answer quickly...
Even the study admitted this is partially due to events surrounding the Presidency, but that it ...let me quote the article.
That said, the coverage of some news organizations was so negative, according to the Harvard study, that it seems hard to argue that the coverage was anywhere near a neutral presentation of facts. Assessing the tone of news coverage, the Harvard researchers found that CNN's Trump coverage was 93 percent negative, and seven percent positive. The researchers found the same numbers for NBC.

Be back later!

Even though in the paragraph above that the article does state that a large number of negative things happened. But no, it must be bias, because it fits the "CNN Is Evil Fake News" narrative. Since apparently CBS' 91% negative coverage isn't bad.

[Albrenia]

I guess it's easier to say "CNN is being meaaaan" for Trump than to admit 90% of the stuff he does is shitty.

As for racists supporting Trump, they obviously do. Not all Trump supporters are racist, nor even most of them, but doubtlessly some are.

[Azurius]

So... Let me get that straight: Trump supporters are all about blaming immigrants and other people they don´t like in the news all the time, and they are not beyond fakenews and using sensational media as everyone should know.

But as soon as this fork is turned around, the big crying of the Trump supporters unfolds... Wow... Really? How much of a hypocrite can one be? Also whatever happened to "freedom of press" these Trump supporters were crying all along as the fork was turned the other side? And now suddenly freedom of press is bad? Wow xD

Do I need to say anything else to that...? I guess not.

[Vassenor]

I guess it's easier to say "CNN is being meaaaan" for Trump than to admit 90% of the stuff he does is shitty.

As for racists supporting Trump, they obviously do. Not all Trump supporters are racist, nor even most of them, but doubtlessly some are.

But since every third sentence out of a given CNN anchor's mouth isn't all #notalltrumpsupporters that means they think that every single one is a racist rapist.

[Trotskylvania]

Now is that negative coverage actually the result of bias, or just because he keeps doing stupid shit?

I know Trump likes to call anything that doesn't dance to his tune as fake news, but that doesn't make it true.

Saw this before I left, But to answer quickly...
Even the study admitted this is partially due to events surrounding the Presidency, but that it ...let me quote the article.
That said, the coverage of some news organizations was so negative, according to the Harvard study, that it seems hard to argue that the coverage was anywhere near a neutral presentation of facts. Assessing the tone of news coverage, the Harvard researchers found that CNN's Trump coverage was 93 percent negative, and seven percent positive. The researchers found the same numbers for NBC.

Be back later!

There is no such thing as a neutral presentation of facts.

Facts are stubborn things. They demand certain conclusions. Stories do not necessarily have two sides.

I'm not going to be coy here. There's really no point mincing words about this: you don't like what the media reports on Trump, and you want them to be punished for it. This pretense about neutrality is a crock of bullshit. You want the media to lie and disseminate falsehood in support of your guy.

Trump is a liar, a charlatan, a fraud, a bad businessman, a serial adulterer, a reactionary dullard, and above all a vain, petty little man. He's governed for seven disastrous months constantly backtracking, shooting from the hip, and generally abetting lawlessness and dysfunction at every turn, because quite possibly there's never been a man simultaneously as incompetent and petty as him to occupy the office of the president.

There is no way to have positive news coverage of this human garbage fire.

Now, back to the topic at hand: your chearleading of an idiotic lawsuit.

Defamation requires, above all else, a demonstration of injury, The respondent must have made wilful, malicious, false defamatory claims about a person, that defamation has caused a tangible injury to that person. Defamation suits are not a remedy against hurt feelings, they are a remedy someone's defamation causing lost business, job, respect, or other forms of injury.

And of course, it has to be false, and knowingly so as well. And well, if someone chooses, willfully, to associate and support the political ambitions of someone who cozies up with Neo-Nazis, and boldly brags about sexual assault in candid interviews, then guess what buddy: then implicitly you are supporting the very same actions. There we go with those stubborn facts again...

[Cetacea]

Because this is a law suit in Trump America I wouldn't categorically say it has absolutely no chance in hell to getting through

depending on where and when the case is put I give it 4 to 1 odds

[USS Monitor]

That's not defamation.

First of all, Michael Moore is responsible for his own views. They are being presented as his personal views, not an official stance of CNN.

Secondly, he says most Trump supporters are racist, and when questioned on it, he says not all. That means a couple things: It means I don't need to smash Michael Moore with a banhammer if he ever brings this stuff on NS. It also means that if you're an individual Trump supporter, there is no way you can prove that Moore's comments were directed at you. Maybe he's talking about all those other Trump supporters, but not you.

Third, the rape thing is clearly metaphorical. It's an analogy for Trump's crappy leadership, not a literal accusation of rape.

And finally, unlike your OP, the host never calls any of it a "fact." He says it's an "uncomfortable comparison," while not taking a definite position on whether it's accurate or not.

Trump dishes out plenty of smack talk, and his supporters expect people to just accept it as "free speech," but as soon as anyone says anything negative about them, a lot of them lose their shit like it's a fucking crime against humanity. It's ridiculous.

[Albrenia]

Mostly because Trump is the thinnest skinned person I've ever seen. He has such a tremendous amount of power in the world, and yet he still regularly goes on twitter rampages because someone said something bad about him.

[Telconi]

CNN, and by Proxy of supporting CNN the Southern Poverty Law Center, are being sued by Joni Turner for for defamation for CNN labeling Trump supporters as "Nazis" and comparing them to "Rapists".
Basically, the lawsuit states that Trump Supporters have been damaged by CNN's reporting, because CNN has reported as fact that if one is a Trump supporter, one is a Nazi, White Supremacist, and recently potentially a rapist. Specifically, Michael Moore in an interview saying Trump has in fact raped America, and by supporting Trump, one was a rapist. CNN refused to deny Trump supporters were rapists, or disclaim Moor's claims.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/michael-moore-suggests-trump-supporters-are-like-accomplices-to-rape/article/2631672
Video of interview, never does CNN disagree that Trump supporters are rapists or racists, simply says the fact is "uncomfortable".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=530&v=9AXl9XAckLY
The suit alleges and claims lives have been damaged because due to CNN's reporting on Trump, by labeling Trump supporters as racists, nazis, and rapists, have damaged their lives through defamation.
Any American who identifies as a Trump supporter can sign up.
Sign up link (it's real).
https://ourtakedown.com/
So, this lawyer is serious.
Her Twitter on the issue.
https://twitter.com/joniturnerlaw

So nationstates, what say you? Think she has a chance?
What do you think the impact of this case will be if successful?
Do you agree with this lawsuit?
////////////////
1-There is a chance IMHO.
2-It will hurt CNN, but I think CNN will continue to peddle inflammatory divisive news.
3-I agree, just don't know how much impact overall it will have.

Maybe these people shouldn't watch CNN if their panties are that easily bunched.