T Nation

The Covington Catholic Rorschach Test


#181

curious what the asterisk is for…


#182

It is to signify it replaces the line it’s quoting.


#183

So the perpetrators of libel/slander/defamation have no culpability or liability in crimes they incite? Ever?

Depending on the venue you must prove that libel/slander/defamation was done with malicious intent, and that it caused harm. Death threats and other abuse from wackadoodles… as a direct result of the defamation would absolutely constitute “harm”.

Given some of the comments from the lefty journalists and talking heads it will be hard for them to get out of the “malicious intent” part as well.


#184

If you can prove they intentionally spread false information ala Infowars? Sure they’re culpable for slander/libel. Even Alex Jones isn’t responsible for his mouth breathing birthers sending death threats to Sandy Hook parents.

Did said media send the death threats? Here I was thinking it was people.

Alex Jones isn’t being charged for the repeated doxxing and death threats of school shooting parents. Not sure why you’d think a far far less extreme example for be charged for it


#185

Way more important is the first comment on the linked infowars website.

"Many people say Hitler tried to protect his country from the Bolshevik }ews. He knew about what they had done in the Soviet Union during the Holodomor. The Bolshevik }ews mass murdered tens of millions of Eastern European Christians. The Bolshevik govt was 85% }ewish despite }ews being less than 1% of the general population. Research a }ewish man named Genrikh Yagoda. He was head of the NKVD and personally oversaw the brutal Soviet gulags that genocided millions.

Ask yourself why they don’t teach about the Holodomor in history class, but we get holocaust propaganda shoved down our throats 24/7.

Fast-forward to today, }ewish Bolsheviks own and control every major institution in our country. }ews control everything; our media, Hollywood, academia, foreign policy, etc. }ews are the ones stoking anti-white hatred and division in the media. }ews are the ones publishing articles that celebrate ending the white race. }ews are the ones opening our borders to the 3rd-world masses."

Alex Jones can burn in hell.


#186

Haven’t you heard? Only “the left” does these types of things.


#187

Yeah that’s kinda what it seems like.

I remember significantly less outrage when a guy went online to tell his MILLIONS of viewers that the govt faked a school shooting to take yer guns.


#188

“Charged for” and “sued over” are way different. The burden of proof for harm in civil courts is way lower.

Alex Jones was sued and the judge let the suit stand when he requested dismissal. It’s still ongoing and may end up going to higher courts if he appeals the decision.


#189

Well duh. Jones personally doxxed the guy. Did that happen with this case? Genuinely asking, to my knowledge it absolutely has not.

Edit: in any event, these 2 cases are comparable in the way peewee football and the NFL are comparable


#190

You’re right. Who has more viewers and power to shape public opinion? CNN/NYT/CBS etc… or Info Wars?


#191

Is that somehow wrote into the law? You can spread worse lies and it’s fine as long as your viewership is below X number?

Given the number of actual death threats and effort gone into stalking the Sandy Hook parents, I can’t think of a measurable stat that doesn’t lean Infowars on this question.


#192

If you’re trying to show that a lie/defamation cause “harm” in a civil court. Then the amount of people who viewed, read or consumed the lie would absolutely be relevant. Defamation specifically concerns damage to “reputation”. So if 10s of millions of people believe a lie about you, it is more harmful (and should get you a larger settlement/award).

It doesn’t help that a bunch of late night comics talked about how “punchable” the boy was and how they are all racist pricks.


#193

Which makes sense in the realm of defamation/slander/libel. Doesn’t seem to touch on

Doesn’t seem ANY of what you’re saying could be tied back to being held responsible for follow up crimes committed by OTHER PEOPLE after the fact


#194

Well I know BLM got sued for inciting violence in police shootings in Louisiana, that was dismissed because BLM is a movement and not an organization.

Trump was sued for inciting violence at a campaign rally, that was dismissed.

A rap group was sued for inciting violence and that lawsuit is still ongoing.

That would seem to cover the ‘being responsible for inciting the actions of others’ part. The suits happen rarely and maybe some will be upheld or struck down. I’ll argue that the threats and abuse the boys were subjected to in this case because of the malicious reporting will have weight in any award.

Then there’s the Rolling Stone case where two members of a frat won $1.65M. Case hinged on whether the article identified them personally and the damages hinge on what that did to their reputation.

  1. Elias, IV, Hadford and Folwer v. Rolling Stone Case 16-2465 ( United States)

The ongoing dispute caused by the 2014 Rolling Stone article “A Rape on Campus” and subsequent podcast, which alleged that a student was raped by members of the University of Phi Kappa Psi, came to a head this year. The case concerns three members of the fraternity who brought defamation lawsuits against the magazine, separate from the previous cases bought by the fraternity itself and an associate dean of the University.

In September 2017 the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversedthe District Courts’ dismissal of the case regarding Plaintiff’s Elias and Fowler, holding that information provided in the article was sufficient to identify them personally.

Shortly after the ruling the case was settled in the sum of $1.65m, drawing coverage from the NYT.

Here’s a case where the number of people seeing the libel had an affect on the award:

  1. Gill v Anagnost, Crews and Grenier ( United States)

A libel action brought in the New Hampshire state court concerning the posting of defamatory statements on a billboard by mortgage broker Michael Gill. The billboard was owned by Gill’s company, Mortgage Specialists Inc, and publicised statements accusing the claimants of criminal acts.

In finding for the claimants a jury awarded a total of $247m in damages to the three businessmen. The cases was noted as being the highest award of damages in a defamation case in New Hampshire, the jury took into account the placement of the billboard next to a public highway and the extremely serious nature of the allegations which were made.


#195

Ofc it was. Laws don’t apply to rich people. Duh.

So even in the case where a RIOT happens we don’t see a judge ruling against them? Just hasn’t dismissed it? That’s supposed to bolster your case in a scenario where the only thing was online internet threats?

Not to me it wouldn’t.

Sure, if there’s a lawsuit I’m sure they’ll point to it. It’s not that it can’t be taken into consideration irt libel/slander (the effect of libel/slander is typically the lynchpin of the whole case), they just can’t hold the media responsible for the crimes the viewers commit.

Either that or the people that sued Infowars, the media source who makes this story look like they reported on the wrong flavor or girl scout cookies, are really really bad at this.


#196
  1. Lawsuits take fucking forever. Judges are always granting 60 days for this and 90 days for that and court dates aren’t available.

  2. I was just trying to find lawsuits where people were being held responsible for the behaviour of others.

  3. The infowars case isn’t even over yet is it? No awards yet?


#197

That’s being held responsible to you?

Party A ‘incites’ crime
Party B commits crime (criminal record crime)
Party A pays slightly higher fine than they would have otherwise

Good point. We don’t even know if something that blatant and heinous (objectively absurdly worse) will find them responsible for the actions of others in a monetary sense.

To my knowledge, Alex Jones stands to see 0 days in jail on behalf of the crimes his people commit


#198

How I feel about this thread right now:
image


#199

It’s responsibility/culpability >0. That’s all I’ve been talking about. I never meant to imply Don Lemon was going to jail.

America has some strong protections against these type of suits and criminal slander laws (and that’s good 99% of the time). In other countries sure. If you quote a limerick on Twitter in England you get a call from the police. Make a pug salute, you’re screwed.


#200

Well then I’m happy to come to agreement with you. If nothing other than lawyer fees, these types of things have a nonzero amount of responsibility to the media.

For whatever that’s worth lol