Kyle Rittenhouse goes to trial

[The Two Jerseys]

You'd think that college students would be smart enough to know what "libel" is...

Is that libel?

Yes. You can't call someone a murderer unless they've actually been convicted of it.

[Gravlen]

Is that libel?

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.

[Galloism]

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.

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.

[Greater Cesnica]

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.

I'd say she does have a good case.

[Salus Maior]

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.

Well, I'd say that prosecution committed suicide rather than be murdered.

[Greater Cesnica]

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.

Grosskreutz committed friendly fire with his testimony.

[Gravlen]

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.

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?

[Galloism]

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?

It was on The View.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/false-med ... tate-lines

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.

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, and actual damages could be inability or difficulty in finding employment after said smears.

[Gravlen]

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-lines

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.

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.

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.)

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.

[Galloism]

It was on The View.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/false-med ... tate-lines

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.

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.)

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.

Fair enough.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Is that libel?

"I resent that. Slander is spoken. In print, it's libel."

Lol. I was just thinking of that scene.

[Kalaron]

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.

[Grinning Dragon]

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.

LOL cnn, commie news network, it was a joke back in the day it premiered and still is. One can also the same with mslsd.

Also to note the nephew of george floyd, cortez rice has been arrested for jury intimidation of the kyle trial.

[The Alma Mater]

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.

[Vassenor]

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.

And what are we defining as "inflamatory" today?

[Esalia]

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.

If you get people outraged with inflammatory headlines, they're more likely to click on your articles and thus you'll make more money.

And if you present the Rittenhouse situation as an unambiguous case of an armed racist with murderous intentions crossing state lines to go to a BLM protest, where he murdered three protestors and got let off by a system rigged in his favour because he's white (with the aid of a Trumpist judge that was unfair to the prosecution), well, that's gonna make for some really inflammatory headlines.

It doesn't matter how true any elements of this is. All that matters it that it will net you more clicks and more money, and at the end of the day most news outlets only really care about the money.

[Fahran]

And what are we defining as "inflamatory" today?

Dishonest and intended to rile people up about an injustice that never actually occurred. So the actual definition.

And I genuinely do not understand why.

I think you do. I'm just not sure you want to acknowledge it.

[Ifreann]

If 'flammable' and 'inflammable' both mean the same thing, does 'flammatory' mean the same thing as 'inflammatory'?

[The Two Jerseys]

If 'flammable' and 'inflammable' both mean the same thing, does 'flammatory' mean the same thing as 'inflammatory'?

Sounds reasonable to me.

[Fartsniffage]

If 'flammable' and 'inflammable' both mean the same thing, does 'flammatory' mean the same thing as 'inflammatory'?

Not to be confused with "flannatory" which, while an understandable urge, is still technically assault.

[Salus Maior]

If 'flammable' and 'inflammable' both mean the same thing, does 'flammatory' mean the same thing as 'inflammatory'?

Well, flammable is to flaming as inflammable is to inflaming...So, would the latter be a stronger form of flaming?

[Fahran]

If 'flammable' and 'inflammable' both mean the same thing, does 'flammatory' mean the same thing as 'inflammatory'?

Well, flammable is to flaming as inflammable is to inflaming...So, would the latter be a stronger form of flaming?

All of these feel very against NSG's rules.

[Ifreann]

Well, flammable is to flaming as inflammable is to inflaming...So, would the latter be a stronger form of flaming?

All of these feel very against NSG's rules.

Many features of the English language are essentially crimes.

[Salus Maior]

All of these feel very against NSG's rules.

Many features of the English language are essentially crimes.

Yes, we should return to Welsh. ;P

[Fahran]

Many features of the English language are essentially crimes.

Yes, we should return to Welsh. ;P

Ydw. Fe ddylen ni siarad yr hen iaith.