the i dont care about politics anymore thread

[Elizondo]

Attachment 16283
Attachment 16282

[unsunghero]

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

I thought you had to prove they knew it was false also.

Hmm that I don’t know. That would make it harder to win

[Whale biologist]

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

Hmm that I don’t know. That would make it harder to win

Google says I'm wrong, unless Kyle is a public person(???).

History of Defamation and the First Amendment

In the landmark 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan, the U.S. Supreme Court held that certain defamatory statements were protected by the First Amendment. The case involved a newspaper article that said unflattering things about a public figure, a politician. The Court pointed to "a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open." The Court acknowledged that in public discussions -- especially about public figures like politicians -- mistakes can be made. If those mistakes are "honestly made," the Court said, they should be protected from defamation actions. The court made a rule that public officials could sue for statements made about their public conduct only if the statements were made with "actual malice."

"Actual malice" means that the person who made the statement knew it wasn't true, or didn't care whether it was true or not and was reckless with the truth -- for example, when someone has doubts about the truth of a statement but does not bother to check further before publishing it.

Later cases have built upon the New York Times rule, so that now the law balances the rules of defamation law with the interests of the First Amendment. The result is that whether defamation is actionable depends on what was said, who it was about, and whether it was a subject of public interest and thus protected by the First Amendment.

Private people who are defamed have more protection than public figures -- freedom of speech isn't as important when the statements don't involve an issue of public interest. A private person who is defamed can prevail without having to prove that the defamer acted with actual malice.

[unsunghero]

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

Google says I'm wrong, unless Kyle is a public person(???).

He may be now, but he wasn't at the time of the event when some of the claims were made. If the rule was with malice only, that would definitely exclude the President since he did the ad way back before a lot of the details came out in the trial

[Smoofers]

How about that guy who ran over 45 elderly women and girls in Wisconsin?

[Knowledge]

Libtard crocodile tears sleepy hair-sniffing joe as their leader and kneepads Kamala.

[Horza]

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

Sorry colonizer, white supremacy is the expansion of the united states into the west. Has nothing to do with nazi'sm. That's Arian nation stuff.

Proud Boys aren't white supremacists because they aren't German?

[Jibartik]

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

Proud Boys aren't white supremacists because they aren't German?

Yea correct, they are white supremist because they like america.

[Knowledge]

labeled racist for loving your country, what a sham.

[Jibartik]

Wearing a cowboy hat is white supremacy unless you're appropriating that culture for a music video.