Chira numbuh wan!

[shovelquest]

Christ Wins.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[shovelquest]

Literally Christian religion says "if you are attacked, just take it."

Anti christian people need to stop conflating the greed of man, with the religion they are fucking straight up ignoring.

At least if you're jewish, or islamic you can say, "My religion told me to do it"

[Botten]

Steve Wynn's petition to the Supreme Court to overturn the New York Times v. Sullivan decision is indeed significant. The 1964 ruling established a high bar for public figures to win defamation lawsuits, requiring them to prove "actual malice" — that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.

If the Supreme Court were to overturn this decision, it could weaken press freedoms and make it easier for public figures to sue media organizations for defamation. This could lead to a chilling effect on investigative journalism, as media outlets might become more cautious about publishing critical stories out of fear of legal repercussions.

In terms of propaganda, this change could be exploited to silence critics and control the narrative. Public figures and powerful entities could use defamation lawsuits to intimidate and deter journalists and media outlets from reporting on controversial or damaging information. This could result in a less informed public and a media landscape that is more susceptible to manipulation and misinformation.

What are your thoughts on this potential shift in press freedom?

[shovelquest]

Originally Posted by Botten [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Steve Wynn's petition to the Supreme Court to overturn the New York Times v. Sullivan decision is indeed significant. The 1964 ruling established a high bar for public figures to win defamation lawsuits, requiring them to prove "actual malice" — that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.

If the Supreme Court were to overturn this decision, it could weaken press freedoms and make it easier for public figures to sue media organizations for defamation. This could lead to a chilling effect on investigative journalism, as media outlets might become more cautious about publishing critical stories out of fear of legal repercussions.

In terms of propaganda, this change could be exploited to silence critics and control the narrative. Public figures and powerful entities could use defamation lawsuits to intimidate and deter journalists and media outlets from reporting on controversial or damaging information. This could result in a less informed public and a media landscape that is more susceptible to manipulation and misinformation.

What are your thoughts on this potential shift in press freedom?

I am totally for people being able to sue media for misinformation.

Individuals can speak however they want, but for profit corporations are not "people" and they should not have the same rights.

[NopeNopeNopeNope]

What’s worse too about DEI is that the entire premise of DEI is in itself de-motivating. It’s like saying hey the system is rigged against you but maybe we can help if we can get every company in the country to buy into DEI

Weee, that gets me stoked to try

Even if discrimination exists, it isn’t the ultimate killer of representation. The ultimate killer is a numbers game. There aren’t enough numbers trying. If we consider discrimination on a spectrum between 0-100 with 100 being “I will never hire a black person ever no matter how large the company” and 0 means “I never discriminate” let’s assume a hypothetical as half of all employers are between 20-80% discriminating or something

If 1000 people apply, and 80% are discriminated against, 200 still ge through

If 10 apply, and 80% are discriminated against, 2 get through

Discrimination sucks and can be subtle. Improving the numbers game isn’t subtle at all

[shovelquest]

DEI does not work because if a yt guy says that it prevented him from getting a job the DEI people go "GOOD!"

That is not a solution.

[Ekco]

Originally Posted by Botten [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Steve Wynn's petition to the Supreme Court to overturn the New York Times v. Sullivan decision is indeed significant.

so we'd basically have the same libel laws as Europe, the place the left is always saying is far superior to the US, up until 5 minutes ago when they also starting fighting back against gender affirming care for minors and other things.

i wonder what the polls would say is the approval / disapproval of this.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[shovelquest]

Originally Posted by Ekco [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

so we'd basically have the same liable laws as Europe.

To be fair, that's all you had to say to make me flip and say we shouldn't do it [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Irony is it'd make the other side do the same!

[Ekco]

their libel laws + our 1A and it's fine. people have sued to the shit out of tabloids and other fake news over there and won

they don't have 1A though

sucks to suck

[shovelquest]

Originally Posted by Ekco [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

their libel laws + our 1A and it's fine. people have sued to the shit out of tabloids and other fake news over there and won

they don't have 1A though

sucks to suck

Naw I agree Im just JK.

In my mental schizoid universe tough we just rescind the right for corporations or businesses to be "people" and so they dont share the same rights as we do, and you can literally fact check a news company and if they are wrong you can sue them for like incompetency.