Yes. You can't call someone a murderer unless they've actually been convicted of it.
Advertisement
by The Two Jerseys » Tue Nov 30, 2021 10:12 am
by Gravlen » Tue Nov 30, 2021 10:20 am
by Galloism » Tue Nov 30, 2021 10:41 am
Gravlen wrote:The Two Jerseys wrote:Yes. You can't call someone a murderer unless they've actually been convicted of it.
You absolutely can.
George W. Bush is a murderer. Obama is a murderer as well. Neither have been convicted of murder, but I'm free to call them murderers after they've murdered innocent people by the drone-loads. Why, calling the murderers "murderers" is protected speech under the first amendment, even.
Even Kyle Rittenhouse is a murderer. Without any remorse, he murdered the prosecution's case against him. Oh look, a way of calling him a murderer without him actually having been convicted of murder. This is also an example of protected speech.
I could say that in my view it's clear that he's a murderer, who managed to be aquitted due to the poor job of the prosecution. That's me stating my opinion, which is also protected speech. (To be clear, that's not my opinion, merely an example).
In short, you're simply wrong.
by Greater Cesnica » Tue Nov 30, 2021 10:45 am
Galloism wrote:Gravlen wrote:You absolutely can.
George W. Bush is a murderer. Obama is a murderer as well. Neither have been convicted of murder, but I'm free to call them murderers after they've murdered innocent people by the drone-loads. Why, calling the murderers "murderers" is protected speech under the first amendment, even.
Even Kyle Rittenhouse is a murderer. Without any remorse, he murdered the prosecution's case against him. Oh look, a way of calling him a murderer without him actually having been convicted of murder. This is also an example of protected speech.
I could say that in my view it's clear that he's a murderer, who managed to be aquitted due to the poor job of the prosecution. That's me stating my opinion, which is also protected speech. (To be clear, that's not my opinion, merely an example).
In short, you're simply wrong.
Here's a question - does Rittenhouse's mother have a good libel case against the people saying "His mother drove him across state lines with an assault weapon and dropped him off in the middle of a riot" crowd? She wouldn't seem to be the same level of public figure as Rittenhouse himself is, and is entirely provably innocent of any of the accusations made.
Sic Semper Tyrannis.
WA Discord Server
Authorship Dispatch
WA Ambassador: Slick McCooley
Firearm Rights are Human Rights
privacytools.io - Use these tools to safeguard your online activities, freedoms, and safety
My IFAK and Booboo Kit Starter Guide!
novemberstars#8888 on Discord
San Lumen wrote:You are ridiculous.George Orwell wrote:“That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”
by Salus Maior » Tue Nov 30, 2021 10:46 am
Gravlen wrote:The Two Jerseys wrote:Yes. You can't call someone a murderer unless they've actually been convicted of it.
You absolutely can.
George W. Bush is a murderer. Obama is a murderer as well. Neither have been convicted of murder, but I'm free to call them murderers after they've murdered innocent people by the drone-loads. Why, calling the murderers "murderers" is protected speech under the first amendment, even.
Even Kyle Rittenhouse is a murderer. Without any remorse, he murdered the prosecution's case against him. Oh look, a way of calling him a murderer without him actually having been convicted of murder. This is also an example of protected speech.
I could say that in my view it's clear that he's a murderer, who managed to be aquitted due to the poor job of the prosecution. That's me stating my opinion, which is also protected speech. (To be clear, that's not my opinion, merely an example).
In short, you're simply wrong.
by Greater Cesnica » Tue Nov 30, 2021 10:46 am
Salus Maior wrote:Gravlen wrote:You absolutely can.
George W. Bush is a murderer. Obama is a murderer as well. Neither have been convicted of murder, but I'm free to call them murderers after they've murdered innocent people by the drone-loads. Why, calling the murderers "murderers" is protected speech under the first amendment, even.
Even Kyle Rittenhouse is a murderer. Without any remorse, he murdered the prosecution's case against him. Oh look, a way of calling him a murderer without him actually having been convicted of murder. This is also an example of protected speech.
I could say that in my view it's clear that he's a murderer, who managed to be aquitted due to the poor job of the prosecution. That's me stating my opinion, which is also protected speech. (To be clear, that's not my opinion, merely an example).
In short, you're simply wrong.
Well, I'd say that prosecution committed suicide rather than be murdered.
Sic Semper Tyrannis.
WA Discord Server
Authorship Dispatch
WA Ambassador: Slick McCooley
Firearm Rights are Human Rights
privacytools.io - Use these tools to safeguard your online activities, freedoms, and safety
My IFAK and Booboo Kit Starter Guide!
novemberstars#8888 on Discord
San Lumen wrote:You are ridiculous.George Orwell wrote:“That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”
by Gravlen » Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:03 am
Galloism wrote:Gravlen wrote:You absolutely can.
George W. Bush is a murderer. Obama is a murderer as well. Neither have been convicted of murder, but I'm free to call them murderers after they've murdered innocent people by the drone-loads. Why, calling the murderers "murderers" is protected speech under the first amendment, even.
Even Kyle Rittenhouse is a murderer. Without any remorse, he murdered the prosecution's case against him. Oh look, a way of calling him a murderer without him actually having been convicted of murder. This is also an example of protected speech.
I could say that in my view it's clear that he's a murderer, who managed to be aquitted due to the poor job of the prosecution. That's me stating my opinion, which is also protected speech. (To be clear, that's not my opinion, merely an example).
In short, you're simply wrong.
Here's a question - does Rittenhouse's mother have a good libel case against the people saying "His mother drove him across state lines with an assault weapon and dropped him off in the middle of a riot" crowd? She wouldn't seem to be the same level of public figure as Rittenhouse himself is, and is entirely provably innocent of any of the accusations made.
by Galloism » Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:12 am
Gravlen wrote:Galloism wrote:Here's a question - does Rittenhouse's mother have a good libel case against the people saying "His mother drove him across state lines with an assault weapon and dropped him off in the middle of a riot" crowd? She wouldn't seem to be the same level of public figure as Rittenhouse himself is, and is entirely provably innocent of any of the accusations made.
More information is required, so it depends.
When and how was the statement made? Who made it / published it? How does she think the statement harmed her reputation? What kind of actual damages has the defamatory statement caused her?
ABC's Joy Behar made two false assertions on Nov. 11, saying Rittenhouse "goes across state lines with an AR-15, with his mother." His mother did not drive him to Wisconsin, an assertion also incorrectly made by CNN's Bakari Sellers. Behar corrected the remark about his mother a few minutes later but not about the rifle.
by Gravlen » Tue Nov 30, 2021 12:23 pm
Galloism wrote:Gravlen wrote:More information is required, so it depends.
When and how was the statement made? Who made it / published it? How does she think the statement harmed her reputation? What kind of actual damages has the defamatory statement caused her?
It was on The View.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/false-med ... tate-linesABC's Joy Behar made two false assertions on Nov. 11, saying Rittenhouse "goes across state lines with an AR-15, with his mother." His mother did not drive him to Wisconsin, an assertion also incorrectly made by CNN's Bakari Sellers. Behar corrected the remark about his mother a few minutes later but not about the rifle.
Galloism wrote:I can't necessarily read her mind (and she's made no statements regarding it), but reasonable hypothesis that the statements harmed her reputation by suggesting she's the type of mother who would drop her son off, armed, at a riot,
Galloism wrote:and actual damages could be inability or difficulty in finding employment after said smears.
by Galloism » Tue Nov 30, 2021 12:26 pm
Gravlen wrote:
Well, the statement made by Behar on The View was corrected. Such a correction, made just "a few minutes later", will protect her from any liability. The principle is that everyone can make mistakes, and as long as she issues a frank and full retraction / correction within a timely fashion, it should not be held against the speaker.Galloism wrote:I can't necessarily read her mind (and she's made no statements regarding it), but reasonable hypothesis that the statements harmed her reputation by suggesting she's the type of mother who would drop her son off, armed, at a riot,
At this point, the facts presented would not support such a claim. Saying Rittenhouse "goes across state lines with an AR-15, with his mother", does not include anything about dropping him off at a riot. You would have to read into the statement things that aren't there in order to come to that conclusion. Unlike, for example, this post on instagram.
So we're left with the question of how accusing Wendy Rittenhouse of driving him to Wisconsin with his AR-15, which is a legal act, has harmed her reputation. (Though again, thanks to the immediate correction, we don't actually have to answer this.)Galloism wrote:and actual damages could be inability or difficulty in finding employment after said smears.
It could be taken as a bit of a snarky answer, but I really don't mean this flippantly: If she's able to prove that she has a good case (i.e. actual damages), then she has a good case
Presently, it's a bit too hypothetical.
by Gun Manufacturers » Tue Nov 30, 2021 5:32 pm
Natapoc wrote:...You should post more in here so I don't seem like the extremist...
Auraelius wrote:If you take the the TITANIC, and remove the letters T, T, and one of the I's, and add the letters C,O,S,P,R, and Y you get CONSPIRACY. oOooOooooOOOooooOOOOOOoooooooo
Maineiacs wrote:Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll sit in a boat and get drunk all day.
Luw wrote:Politics is like having two handfuls of shit - one that smells bad and one that looks bad - and having to decide which one to put in your mouth.
by Kalaron » Sat Dec 04, 2021 8:30 am
by Grinning Dragon » Sat Dec 04, 2021 8:36 am
Kalaron wrote:Sorta interesting thing, I've gotten way further in getting my mom to question CNN and the other neoliberal media with the Rittenhouse case than I have with other stuff. Like, she has a weird way of idolizing the people those Networks bring in, where she'll argue with me on something (even if I have proof) because the "experts already talked about it".
Anyhow, I've been combing Twitter, finding statements by those same experts and talking heads, and showing her their reaction to him walking to showcase how inflammatory they can get.
by The Alma Mater » Sat Dec 04, 2021 9:59 am
Kalaron wrote:Sorta interesting thing, I've gotten way further in getting my mom to question CNN and the other neoliberal media with the Rittenhouse case than I have with other stuff. Like, she has a weird way of idolizing the people those Networks bring in, where she'll argue with me on something (even if I have proof) because the "experts already talked about it".
Anyhow, I've been combing Twitter, finding statements by those same experts and talking heads, and showing her their reaction to him walking to showcase how inflammatory they can get.
by Vassenor » Sat Dec 04, 2021 10:03 am
Kalaron wrote:Sorta interesting thing, I've gotten way further in getting my mom to question CNN and the other neoliberal media with the Rittenhouse case than I have with other stuff. Like, she has a weird way of idolizing the people those Networks bring in, where she'll argue with me on something (even if I have proof) because the "experts already talked about it".
Anyhow, I've been combing Twitter, finding statements by those same experts and talking heads, and showing her their reaction to him walking to showcase how inflammatory they can get.
by Esalia » Sat Dec 04, 2021 10:41 am
The Alma Mater wrote:Kalaron wrote:Sorta interesting thing, I've gotten way further in getting my mom to question CNN and the other neoliberal media with the Rittenhouse case than I have with other stuff. Like, she has a weird way of idolizing the people those Networks bring in, where she'll argue with me on something (even if I have proof) because the "experts already talked about it".
Anyhow, I've been combing Twitter, finding statements by those same experts and talking heads, and showing her their reaction to him walking to showcase how inflammatory they can get.
Understandable - their reporting of this case was insanely bad. Down at the level ofregular reporting by Fox or OANN.
And I genuinely do not understand why.
by Fahran » Sat Dec 04, 2021 10:52 am
Vassenor wrote:And what are we defining as "inflamatory" today?
The Alma Mater wrote:And I genuinely do not understand why.
by Ifreann » Sat Dec 04, 2021 10:55 am
by The Two Jerseys » Sat Dec 04, 2021 11:08 am
Ifreann wrote:If 'flammable' and 'inflammable' both mean the same thing, does 'flammatory' mean the same thing as 'inflammatory'?
by Fartsniffage » Sat Dec 04, 2021 11:13 am
Ifreann wrote:If 'flammable' and 'inflammable' both mean the same thing, does 'flammatory' mean the same thing as 'inflammatory'?
by Salus Maior » Sat Dec 04, 2021 11:23 am
Ifreann wrote:If 'flammable' and 'inflammable' both mean the same thing, does 'flammatory' mean the same thing as 'inflammatory'?
by Salus Maior » Sat Dec 04, 2021 11:44 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ariddia, Infected Mushroom, Juristonia, Lemueria, Liberal Malaysia, Stellar Colonies, The Xenopolis Confederation, Valrifall
Advertisement