CNN and Southern Poverty Law Center sued

[Guelder]

That is no shit, that's the truth

Based upon what evidence?

It's in my factbook

[Godular]

A wide variety of ungiven shits proliferate.

That is no shit, that's the truth

It is not.

[Vassenor]

Based upon what evidence?

It's in my factbook

So because you got warned then all the mods hate all conservatives.

[G-Tech Corporation]

As much as I would enjoy CNN being taken down a peg or five, objectively this suit isn't going to succeed, and if it did succeed it would set a dangerous precedent. So, despite my dislike for the network, eh, hopefully this doesn't work out.

However the SPLC can go get stuffed. They've transitioned in recent years from being a useful indicator organization to being a sniveling rag that crooks a trembling finger at anyone who disagrees with them and shouting "hate!". I doubt any consequences will touch them on account of this particular action being unlikely to hold water, but hopefully at least they get drained by legal fees.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

'Defaming entire groups' is impossible by definition, because defamation is a highly personal offence. The phrase 'group defamation' makes no sense, at least not in a legal context.

And while free speech doesn't mean consequence free speech, it does mean that a government (for example, via a court) cannot punish you for what you say. You don't have to be useful to society in order to apply for free speech. Free speech can be inherently useless. In order for it to work, it has to apply with opinions people might not agree with.

I'm not a lawyer, but yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is punishable by Court, isn't it? Defamation means damaging the good reputation of a person or a corporation. So you can theoretically have Group Defamation when you say that Alex, Bill, and Clyde belong to Shitheads United, who want to drive at high speed into groups of Black People for no reason. If you defamed a group called Shitheads United, that's fine, but if you say that everyone who voted for Trump is part of Shitheads United, and Alex, Bill, and Clyde openly said that they voted for Trump, aren't you essentially claiming that Alex, Bill, and Clyde are part of Shitheads United?

Yes, that is indeed punishable. But that is because free speech has bounds. Not the bounds you describe, though. Free speech is free, unless you use it to directly harm others, in methods set out by the law. Defamation, for example, or group insult, or indeed, yelling 'bomb' during a 4th of July parade. However, these bounds are more the exception than the rule, and the rule that free speech has to be useful infringes too much on the right to free speech. No right is without bounds, after all, but that does not mean you can place the bounds wherever one would like.

Defamation, in a legal context, means making a false statement about an identifiable person that hurts his or her reputation. For example, saying 'Alex, Bill and Clyde sacrifice babies to Satan under a full moon'. That would not be a group defamation, but three seperate defamation. However, the persons have to be identifiable. That doesn't necessarily have to be by name, but it has to refer to some individual. 'Trump supporters' is a way too broad group to be separately identifiable; there are millions of people that sentence applies to.

Even then, making such statements about political groups is protected speech. In the public debate, little is protected from free speech, because for a good public discussion, we don't need a fear to be sued to buggery. It's essential for a democratic society that people are given a wide area of operations in the public space.

[Guelder]

It's in my factbook

So because you got warned then all the mods hate all conservatives.

You didn't read that full factbook. They find this: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=422956 Not trolling, but they find this: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=422650 Trolling.

[United Muscovite Nations]

So because you got warned then all the mods hate all conservatives.

You didn't read that full factbook. They find this: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=422956 Not trolling, but they find this: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=422650 Trolling.

It's also not actionable to say that mentally handicapped children are "mutants from The Hills Have Eyes"

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

So because you got warned then all the mods hate all conservatives.

You didn't read that full factbook. They find this: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=422956 Not trolling, but they find this: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=422650 Trolling.

Because trolling is per definition aimed at users?

No, sorry, in this case: a generalisation against a criticism against one person. You're comparing apples to a Rolls Royce Merlin.

[Godular]

So because you got warned then all the mods hate all conservatives.

You didn't read that full factbook. They find this: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=422956 Not trolling, but they find this: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=422650 Trolling.

You know, they generally point you in the direction of the one stop rules shop when you get a warning. It seems rather apparent you did not take the time. You do not seem to be familiar with the concept of All-X-Are-Y.

[Shofercia]

I'm not a lawyer, but yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is punishable by Court, isn't it? Defamation means damaging the good reputation of a person or a corporation. So you can theoretically have Group Defamation when you say that Alex, Bill, and Clyde belong to Shitheads United, who want to drive at high speed into groups of Black People for no reason. If you defamed a group called Shitheads United, that's fine, but if you say that everyone who voted for Trump is part of Shitheads United, and Alex, Bill, and Clyde openly said that they voted for Trump, aren't you essentially claiming that Alex, Bill, and Clyde are part of Shitheads United?

It is often quoted, but it is very hard in the US to prove that such speech warrants punishment. Merely shouting fire isn't enough, and it wouldn't be shouting fire that results in punishment, but the results of shouting fire. If people were injured or killed in a stampede to try and get out of the theater, then that would likely result in punishment. But merely shouting 'fire', and no one getting up to leave, and the theater ignoring it, would be different.

Of course - but if you have those who are able to clearly show damages, solely as a result of the guy yelling "FIRE", isn't the guy yelling "FIRE" in trouble?

[Torsiedelle]

I would fucking LOOOOOOVE to see CNN and the SPLC get fucked in the ass proper, as much as I hate the two groups. Understandably though, as satisfying as it would be, the precedent set (as already mentioned) isn't worth it. There are other ways to get at them without essentially open the "of fuck" gates for more cases like this to be used by both sides.

[Herskerstad]

Doubt it will stick on CNN.

The SPLC however might be in deep trouble for some of their defamatory labelling as proving damages over their (sometimes ridiculous) labels is not going to be a hard case to make.

[Proctopeo]

Doubt it will stick on CNN.

The SPLC however might be in deep trouble for some of their defamatory labelling as proving damages over their (sometimes ridiculous) labels is not going to be a hard case to make.

They once revealed a man's medical and financial situation for posting about men's rights activism on a blog.
I think it's still up, too.

[Shofercia]

I'm not a lawyer, but yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is punishable by Court, isn't it? Defamation means damaging the good reputation of a person or a corporation. So you can theoretically have Group Defamation when you say that Alex, Bill, and Clyde belong to Shitheads United, who want to drive at high speed into groups of Black People for no reason. If you defamed a group called Shitheads United, that's fine, but if you say that everyone who voted for Trump is part of Shitheads United, and Alex, Bill, and Clyde openly said that they voted for Trump, aren't you essentially claiming that Alex, Bill, and Clyde are part of Shitheads United?

Yes, that is indeed punishable. But that is because free speech has bounds. Not the bounds you describe, though. Free speech is free, unless you use it to directly harm others, in methods set out by the law. Defamation, for example, or group insult, or indeed, yelling 'bomb' during a 4th of July parade. However, these bounds are more the exception than the rule, and the rule that free speech has to be useful infringes too much on the right to free speech. No right is without bounds, after all, but that does not mean you can place the bounds wherever one would like.

Defamation, in a legal context, means making a false statement about an identifiable person that hurts his or her reputation. For example, saying 'Alex, Bill and Clyde sacrifice babies to Satan under a full moon'. That would not be a group defamation, but three seperate defamation. However, the persons have to be identifiable. That doesn't necessarily have to be by name, but it has to refer to some individual. 'Trump supporters' is a way too broad group to be separately identifiable; there are millions of people that sentence applies to.

Even then, making such statements about political groups is protected speech. In the public debate, little is protected from free speech, because for a good public discussion, we don't need a fear to be sued to buggery. It's essential for a democratic society that people are given a wide area of operations in the public space.

So anyone can say that "everyone who voted for Trump should be hung, drawn, and quartered" and that would be perfectly fine?

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Yes, that is indeed punishable. But that is because free speech has bounds. Not the bounds you describe, though. Free speech is free, unless you use it to directly harm others, in methods set out by the law. Defamation, for example, or group insult, or indeed, yelling 'bomb' during a 4th of July parade. However, these bounds are more the exception than the rule, and the rule that free speech has to be useful infringes too much on the right to free speech. No right is without bounds, after all, but that does not mean you can place the bounds wherever one would like.

Defamation, in a legal context, means making a false statement about an identifiable person that hurts his or her reputation. For example, saying 'Alex, Bill and Clyde sacrifice babies to Satan under a full moon'. That would not be a group defamation, but three seperate defamation. However, the persons have to be identifiable. That doesn't necessarily have to be by name, but it has to refer to some individual. 'Trump supporters' is a way too broad group to be separately identifiable; there are millions of people that sentence applies to.

Even then, making such statements about political groups is protected speech. In the public debate, little is protected from free speech, because for a good public discussion, we don't need a fear to be sued to buggery. It's essential for a democratic society that people are given a wide area of operations in the public space.

So anyone can say that "everyone who voted for Trump should be hung, drawn, and quartered" and that would be perfectly fine?

No, that would not be fine. That would be inciting violence, which is wholly different from defamation. As a lawyer, I'm trying to show that 'defamation' is not the right action to take here. Defamation is a precisely defined action in law, and it should only be used in cases where it applies. Even your last example is not defamation. Which is not to say that it isn't wrong. Saying a thief isn't a murderer does not mean I agree with the thievery.

[Herskerstad]

Doubt it will stick on CNN.

The SPLC however might be in deep trouble for some of their defamatory labelling as proving damages over their (sometimes ridiculous) labels is not going to be a hard case to make.

They once revealed a man's medical and financial situation for posting about men's rights activism on a blog.
I think it's still up, too.

I'd not be surprised. Though it must be said that the SPLC got some incredible lawyers so it's not as if they will be caught off guard if the right charges are dropped against them so it's going to be a melee whichever way. Though it has to be the right charges. Important names put on a hitlist mixed in with actual extremists from which it has to be given evidence have caused financial or other harm in a direct fashion which is venturing deep into defamation/libel territory.

Reason why it will be a melee is that it will be very easy to prove damages from such official statements, but given calling someone extremist is subjective then it won't necessarily be counted as untrue. Though reckless use of research can be thrown in with malicious intent which does come under laws of important and popular figures. It all very much depends who makes which specific claims rather than some nebulous group claim.

[The Grande Republic 0f Arcadia]

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

and your going by sweeping over generalizations

[Shofercia]

So anyone can say that "everyone who voted for Trump should be hung, drawn, and quartered" and that would be perfectly fine?

No, that would not be fine. That would be inciting violence, which is wholly different from defamation. As a lawyer, I'm trying to show that 'defamation' is not the right action to take here. Defamation is a precisely defined action in law, and it should only be used in cases where it applies. Even your last example is not defamation. Which is not to say that it isn't wrong. Saying a thief isn't a murderer does not mean I agree with the thievery.

Oh, I see. So you're saying that it's inciting violence against a group, but not defaming them. Fair enough, that makes sense to me.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

No, that would not be fine. That would be inciting violence, which is wholly different from defamation. As a lawyer, I'm trying to show that 'defamation' is not the right action to take here. Defamation is a precisely defined action in law, and it should only be used in cases where it applies. Even your last example is not defamation. Which is not to say that it isn't wrong. Saying a thief isn't a murderer does not mean I agree with the thievery.

Oh, I see. So you're saying that it's inciting violence against a group, but not defaming them. Fair enough, that makes sense to me.

Well, I'm not saying that CNN engaged in inciting violence. I'm just saying your example is one of inciting violence.

[Soyouso]

https://youtu.be/tDcAuKnISMQ
Me right now^
CNN had it coming, with their biased shit. They really had it coming. I honestly find this diabolically pleasing because of the sheer irony of this situation..

[The Black Forrest]

Because you violated the sites rules.

Well, i never saw a liberal getting warned for trolling

You aren't looking hard enough. I have been red flagged a couple times.

Trust the ancients. We have seen many things.......

[The Black Forrest]

https://youtu.be/tDcAuKnISMQ
Me right now^
CNN had it coming, with their biased shit. They really had it coming. I honestly find this diabolically pleasing because of the sheer irony of this situation..

Biased shit? Ok. I am curious as to what you think is not or little biased?

[Blasted Craigs]

Well, i never saw a liberal getting warned for trolling

You aren't looking hard enough. I have been red flagged a couple times.

Trust the ancients. We have seen many things.......

Yes...there was a time flags were thrown with abandon, to the delight of many and to the wails of torment to those afflicted....

[Vassenor]

https://youtu.be/tDcAuKnISMQ
Me right now^
CNN had it coming, with their biased shit. They really had it coming. I honestly find this diabolically pleasing because of the sheer irony of this situation..

Let's see some actual examples of this bias.

[Blasted Craigs]

https://youtu.be/tDcAuKnISMQ
Me right now^
CNN had it coming, with their biased shit. They really had it coming. I honestly find this diabolically pleasing because of the sheer irony of this situation..

Let's see some actual examples of this bias.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/8/mainstream-media-maligned-10-examples-blatant-bias/
1. CNN asks the Democratic National Committee about what questions to ask Mr. Trump in an interview.
2. John Podesta says “dump all those emails.” Washington Post immediately looks to interpret comments positively.
3. CNBC’s John Harwood.

One of the early WikiLeaks emails shows Mr. Harwood advising Mr. Podesta, and then gloating over the question he asked Mr. Trump, running “a comic book version of a presidential campaign,” during the Republican primary debate he moderated.

Mr. Harwood titled the email “I imagine…” and continued the sentence in the body of the email, writing, “…that Obama feels some (sad) vindication at this demonstration of his years-long point about the opposition party veering off the rails.”

He added: “I certainly am feeling that way with respect to how I questioned Trump at our debate.”

Then, in a separate email, Mr. Harwood asks Mr. Podesta which questions he should ask then GOP primary candidate Jeb Bush.

The email from Sept. 21, 2015 had the subject line, “what should I ask Jeb…”

In the body of the email, Mr. Harwood wrote, “…in Speakeasy interview tomorrow?”

On Sept. 25, Mr. Harwood had a 10-question interview with Mr. Bush.

4. Donna Brazile leaks CNN debate questions to Mrs. Clinton.
5. Politico’s Glenn Thrush is a hack — and he knows it.

Politico’s chief political correspondent Glenn Thrush told Mr. Podesta that he was a “hack” for sending an entire section of an article pertaining to Mr. Podesta for approval before publication. Knowing that this is a journalistic no-no, Mr. Thrush then asked Mr. Podesta to “Please don’t share or tell anyone I did this.”

He then seeks Mr. Podesta’s approval to: “Tell me if I f–ed up anything.”

Mr. Podesta signs-off on Mr. Thursh’s copy saying “no problems here.”

Is Mr. Thrush embarrassed? Nope. Not at all.

“My goal in emailing Podesta: TO GET HIM TO CONFIRM STUFF I HAD FROM LESSER SOURCES. It worked. Nobody controls my stories but me. Troll on!” Mr. Thrush wrote on Twitter after the emails were released.

The only problem? A fact-check shouldn’t include anything but the facts. The entire text from the story itself? Not so much.

6. New York Times’ Mark Leibovich requests quote approval from Clinton campaign.
7. Washington Post writer asks DNC for Anti-Trump opposition research.
8. The embrace of “false equivalency.”

Many news outlets this cycle, took the opinion that Mr. Trump was a threat to our Republic, and comparing him on the same plane as Mrs. Clinton would be to do the public a disservice — they basically argued their bias against him was really just fair coverage.

In August, The New York Times media columnist argued the premise: “If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?”

He concluded reporters couldn’t cover him fairly — that they had to take a stance against his unprecedented and serious threat to the Republic: “It would also be an abdication of political journalism’s most solemn duty: to ferret out what the candidates will be like in the most powerful office in the world.”

CNN’s Brian Stelter has argued the same; Vox’s editor in chief Ezra Klein said this year’s political debate is between one who is “normal” and “abnormal.”

9. Media blackout on WikiLeaks.
10. Journalists go unhinged on Twitter.

This is something I’ve observed all election cycle — political reporters issuing their grievances and snark about Mr. Trump on Twitter and leaving all sense of objectivity behind. Paul Farhi, the media reporter at The Washington Post, tracked reporters’ Twitter feeds for a week and came back with the same conclusion.

“News reporters are supposed to keep the opinions out of the stories they write and air. Twitter, it seems, is another realm entirely,” he wrote in late October, calling out the biases of reporters at The New York Times and Politico.

As Jim VandeHei, Politico’s co-founder and former chief executive, told Mr. Farhi: “To me, sticking to facts and smart, fact-based analysis is the safe, smart place to be. But snark seems to be winning — decisively.”