ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags defamation cases , lawsuits , media criticism , Nathan Phillips , Nick Sandmann , protest incidents , racism charges

Reply
Old 24th February 2019, 06:42 PM   #2041
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,462
Originally Posted by Hungry81 View Post
Its quite simple. Phillips is a proven liar. Phillips got up in Nicks face and lied about what happened. Phillips is as bad as smollett. Both should be criticised. Both tried to use MAGA to promote their own agenda and potentially destroy the lives of innocent people. Both have done more damage to their own purported cause than if they had done nothing. Both had the means and opportunity to do something positive about these issues, but instead chose to betray their alleged causes in the name of self interest and promotion. Why defend lying self promoting extreemists?
Not a valid parallel. Apparently you're as blinkered as Nathan Phillips, wanting to see a nice neat political scenario where none exists.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2019, 06:45 PM   #2042
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,284
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Look at the videos. The kids are certainly being disrespectful, perhaps based on bias or racism, but perhaps just being bravery-comes-in-crowds morons who think they're being edgy. But Phillips' poor people-reading skills and innate bias caused him to misread the situation and to assume Small Group of Black Brothers + Large Group of White Kids = Blacks being oppressed and possible violent attack imminent.
What makes you think he misread the situation?

I don't mean that the situation was how he described it. I mean what makes you think he was being honest about his assessment of it?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2019, 06:58 PM   #2043
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,462
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
What makes you think he misread the situation?

I don't mean that the situation was how he described it. I mean what makes you think he was being honest about his assessment of it?
Because the alternatives simply seem much too Right-Wing-Straw-Man improbable. Or Left-Wing-Straw-Man improbable.

Right Wing: He is an evil Trump-hating commie socialist who targeted the kids because they hate our freedom and will do anything to bring down His Majesty God King Trump.

Left Wing: No, he saw clearly what was happening. The oppressors in their oppressing hats were denying humble black brothers their right to free speech so he decided to take down The Man for the betterment of mankind.

Which should we subscribe to?
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2019, 07:08 PM   #2044
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 8,508
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
You're relying on Phillips' account and it does not bear up to the videos available. He did not try to pass, he went right up to them and got in the kid's face. There was no reason to let him pass. Look at their location, there's nothing above them on the steps that he needs or wants to get to.

Look at the videos. The kids are certainly being disrespectful, perhaps based on bias or racism, but perhaps just being bravery-comes-in-crowds morons who think they're being edgy. But Phillips' poor people-reading skills and innate bias caused him to misread the situation and to assume Small Group of Black Brothers + Large Group of White Kids = Blacks being oppressed and possible violent attack imminent.

He was wrong. Like the maroon fundie who went to bring the words of Jeebus to the isolated islanders, he was filled with his own religious euphoria and was going to magically bring peace to the mall. The b.s. rhetoric pouring out of his mouth after the event plays well in various groups (tree huggers, new agers, Native American rights groups, Kevin Costner's house, etc....) but was pure nonsense. Nathan's a professional activist and his erroneous assumptions were based on that worldview.
I don't think this has been stressed enough regarding his POV. Phillips was also a leader in the Dakota pipeline mess IIRC? Have a hammer, looks like nails and whatnot.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2019, 07:12 PM   #2045
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,284
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Because the alternatives simply seem much too Right-Wing-Straw-Man improbable.
Smollet's fraud was far more implausible. This one is far, far less outlandish.

Quote:
Which should we subscribe to?
Video evidence proves his statements are false. So the real choice is between thinking he's a clueless idiot with no perception, or he's lying. I'm not sure why the conclusion that he's lying is really far fetched. People lie all the time, about all sorts of stuff, even when it's not sensible to do so. And keep in mind, the exonerating video evidence didn't come from the kids, it came (unintentionally) from the Black Hebrew Isrealites. Absent that, Phillips might still be in control of the narrative.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2019, 07:14 PM   #2046
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,487
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
There is no possible chance in hell these lawyers are doing this on anything other a contingency.
No doubt.

However, there's one thing I have no experience or knowledge about. Suppose Nick Sandmann decides to drop the suit? When a lawyer is on contingency, and the plaintiff backs out, who pays the lawyer? My guess is that the plaintiff owes the lawyer/law firm "reasonable and customary" fees. (In my opinion, in the American legal system, those two terms have very little overlap when describing legal fees, but I digress.) So, there's no way in heck Sandmann will have second thoughts. He can't afford them.

But, what happens if the defendants offer to settle out of court. They give Sandmann a "small" settlement, but the lawyers have to get paid, or he can't take the settlement, so the out of court offer once again has to include "reasonable and customary" legal fees to cover all the work done up to that point.

In that case, it behooves the law firm to do as much legal work as possible, including suing people against whom they have no case.

The above is entirely speculative, of course, because I have no knowledge of the way these kinds of lawsuits really play out, except that they are often settled out of court, and that lawyers become rich, or richer, depending on the exact circumstances.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2019, 07:24 PM   #2047
The Shrike
Philosopher
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
A video is embedded above
Thanks, TBD. No, I literally had not seen this video until just now. It's heavily edited and agenda-driven too, but I do agree that this expanded view is far less damning for Sandmann. I retain my scorn for the chaperones who let this get so out of control, but I concede to the thread that Sandmann's behavior does not appear to be unusually hostile or disrespectful to Phillips in the context of events that day.
The Shrike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2019, 07:34 PM   #2048
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
What makes you think he misread the situation?

I don't mean that the situation was how he described it. I mean what makes you think he was being honest about his assessment of it?
He did not read anything. His little moron pal who told the kids to move back to Europe told him that the actual hate group needed protecting (despite actively spewing racist hate against Indians all day long).

We are not talking about a group of deep thinkers here.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2019, 08:04 PM   #2049
Regnad Kcin
Philosopher
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 9,449
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
...We are not talking about a group of deep thinkers here.
Trump supporters? Republicans? LSD trippers?
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2019, 08:34 PM   #2050
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin View Post
Trump supporters? Republicans? LSD trippers?
Ohhhh, the old I know you are but what am I....

Yummy.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2019, 11:17 PM   #2051
rockinkt
Graduate Poster
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,372
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
Thanks, TBD. No, I literally had not seen this video until just now. It's heavily edited and agenda-driven too, but I do agree that this expanded view is far less damning for Sandmann. I retain my scorn for the chaperones who let this get so out of control, but I concede to the thread that Sandmann's behavior does not appear to be unusually hostile or disrespectful to Phillips in the context of events that day.

For a while I thought you were trying to out drum Meldrum's "Don't bother me with evidence - my mind is made up" routine.

How about your claim that I was buying into a false narrative that Phillips lied about being a Vietnam Vet?
Does seeing him recite an obviously fabricated story about returning from Vietnam and being spit on by a "girl" who called him a "baby-killer" and then bragging about beating up her boyfriend change your mind about his integrity at all?
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle

"I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt
rockinkt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 01:54 AM   #2052
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,462
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Ohhhh, the old I know you are but what am I....

Yummy.
Talk about your irony. Is your "I'm rubber and you're glue" routine an improvement. They're both heard hanging out at the third grade playground.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 04:30 AM   #2053
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,772
Yes but.........
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 07:07 AM   #2054
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Talk about your irony. Is your "I'm rubber and you're glue" routine an improvement. They're both heard hanging out at the third grade playground.
Wait, you basically just restated what I said to someone else. Next time, just type "no, you!" save us all a ton of time....
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 08:09 AM   #2055
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,284
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
You're relying on Phillips' account and it does not bear up to the videos available. He did not try to pass, he went right up to them and got in the kid's face. There was no reason to let him pass. Look at their location, there's nothing above them on the steps that he needs or wants to get to.

Look at the videos. The kids are certainly being disrespectful, perhaps based on bias or racism, but perhaps just being bravery-comes-in-crowds morons who think they're being edgy. But Phillips' poor people-reading skills and innate bias caused him to misread the situation and to assume Small Group of Black Brothers + Large Group of White Kids = Blacks being oppressed and possible violent attack imminent.

He was wrong. Like the maroon fundie who went to bring the words of Jeebus to the isolated islanders, he was filled with his own religious euphoria and was going to magically bring peace to the mall. The b.s. rhetoric pouring out of his mouth after the event plays well in various groups (tree huggers, new agers, Native American rights groups, Kevin Costner's house, etc....) but was pure nonsense. Nathan's a professional activist and his erroneous assumptions were based on that worldview.
Yep, I see that as a rather precise description of the incident, based on the videos published.

All in all basically a non-incident. I mean, if you show up at a public place chanting slogans, expect some confrontation.

What I find disturbing is all the rage that has erupted from this non-violent incident that anyone involved could just have walked away from, had they chosen to do so.

Who are these idiots who must post death threats whenever something they don't like happens? Even here, in this thread, the abuse, name-calling, and general vitriol exceeds what seemed to happen that day.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 08:41 AM   #2056
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Yep, I see that as a rather precise description of the incident, based on the videos published.

All in all basically a non-incident. I mean, if you show up at a public place chanting slogans, expect some confrontation.

What I find disturbing is all the rage that has erupted from this non-violent incident that anyone involved could just have walked away from, had they chosen to do so.

Who are these idiots who must post death threats whenever something they don't like happens? Even here, in this thread, the abuse, name-calling, and general vitriol exceeds what seemed to happen that day.

Hans
Not sure who you think showed up chanting slogans. the teens were waiting on the stairs for their buses.

They unfortunately were waiting in earshot of a literal hate group who poured abuse on all.

Nathan and his race grifters confronted the teens, and not the literal hate group.

The teens, the actual victims were vilified, doxxed and threatened as the direct result of Nathan's and his groups spectacular lies about what happened and the simpering media's repeating of his obviously false story.

It isn't just what happened that day, it is agenda driven hucksters, spittle soaked anti-Trump leftists and a gullible media have done since then.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 09:01 AM   #2057
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,021
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Not sure who you think showed up chanting slogans. the teens were waiting on the stairs for their buses.

They unfortunately were waiting in earshot of a literal hate group who poured abuse on all.

Nathan and his race grifters confronted the teens, and not the literal hate group.

The teens, the actual victims were vilified, doxxed and threatened as the direct result of Nathan's and his groups spectacular lies about what happened and the simpering media's repeating of his obviously false story.

It isn't just what happened that day, it is agenda driven hucksters, spittle soaked anti-Trump leftists and a gullible media have done since then.
So, why isn't Sandmann suing Phillips and whoever posted the original video instead of the WP? All they did was describe that video and quote Phillips' account of what happened. I don't think Sandmann really has a defamation case, anyway, since that story has been corrected many times and Sandmann is now a right-wing hero. If most people assumed something about the boys because they were wearing MAGA caps, I lay that on Trump himself, not anything in the WP stories.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 09:23 AM   #2058
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,284
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
So, why isn't Sandmann suing Phillips and whoever posted the original video instead of the WP?
What makes you think he's not going to sue Phillips? Lin Wood, the attorney, has stated that they will. The order of filing isn't dictated by the importance of the claim.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 09:34 AM   #2059
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,021
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
What makes you think he's not going to sue Phillips? Lin Wood, the attorney, has stated that they will. The order of filing isn't dictated by the importance of the claim.
Oh, I can guess what'$ driving the order of filing$, but the first thing a defamation suit has to establish is that false statements were made, and my point was Wood has to start there, then explain why he's suing the WP for reporting Phillips' version of the story.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 09:41 AM   #2060
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Oh, I can guess what'$ driving the order of filing$, but the first thing a defamation suit has to establish is that false statements were made, and my point was Wood has to start there, then explain why he's suing the WP for reporting Phillips' version of the story.
actually, the plaintiff does not have to prove it was false, and claiming that one was simply repeating defamatory things other people were saying is not a proper defense (and that was not what WaPo did in any event)
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 09:54 AM   #2061
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,284
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Oh, I can guess what'$ driving the order of filing$, but the first thing a defamation suit has to establish is that false statements were made, and my point was Wood has to start there, then explain why he's suing the WP for reporting Phillips' version of the story.
WP didn't simply state that Phillips said these things. It reported that the things Phillips said actually happened.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 09:57 AM   #2062
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,021
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
actually, the plaintiff does not have to prove it was false, and claiming that one was simply repeating defamatory things other people were saying is not a proper defense (and that was not what WaPo did in any event)
Well, since you can't sue someone for damages caused by the truth, under what circumstances are you claiming that the plaintiff does not have to prove it was false?

I read the initial WP reports, and I see them describing a video that was already viral and quoting Phillips' account of what happened. What else are you claiming they did?
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 10:02 AM   #2063
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,284
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Not sure who you think showed up chanting slogans. the teens were waiting on the stairs for their buses.
They did show up, they did chant slogans.

Quote:
They unfortunately were waiting in earshot of a literal hate group who poured abuse on all.
Which they could have ignored.

Quote:
Nathan and his race grifters confronted the teens, and not the literal hate group.
That much seems to be clear. Although the hate group were also targeting his group.

Quote:
The teens, the actual victims were vilified, doxxed and threatened as the direct result of Nathan's and his groups spectacular lies about what happened and the simpering media's repeating of his obviously false story.
That is exactly what I find troubling. Everybody seems bent on getting as much out of a non-incident as they can. (Although I fail to see how the teens were victims, during the incident.)

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 10:04 AM   #2064
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Well, since you can't sue someone for damages caused by the truth, under what circumstances are you claiming that the plaintiff does not have to prove it was false?

I read the initial WP reports, and I see them describing a video that was already viral and quoting Phillips' account of what happened. What else are you claiming they did?
Truth is an affirmative defense, in other words the defense must prove it was true, not the plaintiff's burden to prove it was false.

Reporting on misleadingly edited video is not a defense.

As far as a taste of their libel, take a gander at paragraph 51:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rnio82555v...laint.pdf?dl=0
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 10:07 AM   #2065
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
They did show up, they did chant slogans.
Ah, I get it, you watched a misleadingly edited video and made up your mind.

Cool cool, well we can all enjoy your after the fact monday morning quarterbacking about what they "should" have done.

cool.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 10:14 AM   #2066
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,284
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Ah, I get it, you watched a misleadingly edited video and made up your mind.
No. I watched the one you posted. They were chanting something. I admit it might not have been a slogan. They were there, thus they must have shown up, unless they were magically beamed there.

I have no idea what they should have done, if anything. After all, nothing really important happened on that day. The problems started afterwards.

hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 10:22 AM   #2067
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,021
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Truth is an affirmative defense, in other words the defense must prove it was true, not the plaintiff's burden to prove it was false.

Reporting on misleadingly edited video is not a defense.

As far as a taste of their libel, take a gander at paragraph 51:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rnio82555v...laint.pdf?dl=0
Huh, thanks professor; I was being mislead by legal sites like this:

Quote:
What Does the Victim Need to Prove to Establish Defamation?

The law of defamation varies from state to state, but there are some generally accepted rules. If you believe you are have been "defamed," to prove it you usually have to show there's been a statement that is all of the following:

- published
- false
- injurious
- unprivileged
And you dodged my question with one of your "go fish" games. What are you claiming the WP did other than describe the video and quote Phillips' account?
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 10:30 AM   #2068
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,453
statements of opinion versus fact

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Oh, I can guess what'$ driving the order of filing$, but the first thing a defamation suit has to establish is that false statements were made, and my point was Wood has to start there, then explain why he's suing the WP for reporting Phillips' version of the story.
Robby Soave has given what I think is a decent summary from a non-lawyers perspective at Reason. "But here's the problem: Phillips' statements, as quoted in The Post, are mostly of the opinion variety, and statements of opinion cannot be deemed libelous. They are not statements of fact." However, Mr. Soave (who also covered the Rolling Stone/UVa incident) does think that one thing that Mr. Phillips said could be taken as a statement of fact. Upthread is a link to an article (from the American Conservative?) that also considers the Post's initial coverage.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 25th February 2019 at 11:14 AM.
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 10:36 AM   #2069
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Huh, thanks professor; I was being mislead by legal sites like this:

And you dodged my question with one of your "go fish" games. What are you claiming the WP did other than describe the video and quote Phillips' account?
Yeah, you were misled by that ******* garbage site. Say, I got an idea, why don't we look at an actual legal site that contains an actual summary of the actual law of the actual state that actually states what the law is (and that TBD already explained):

http://kycourtreport.com/causes-of-a...a-pub-1122012/

And folks, gaze at the objection to a pin point cite to the actual paragraph of the actual complaint with a link that explains IN DETAIL what the WAPO did wrong.

TBD: look at paragraph 51 in this link.
Response: making me click a link a read a numbered paragraph is TEH FISHING!

Hoo Nelly, I have no idea why I bother spoon feeding people who just want to complain

Last edited by The Big Dog; 25th February 2019 at 10:41 AM.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 10:36 AM   #2070
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,453
a curious triangle

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
That much seems to be clear. Although the hate group were also targeting his group.

That is exactly what I find troubling. Everybody seems bent on getting as much out of a non-incident as they can. (Although I fail to see how the teens were victims, during the incident.)

Hans
At least one member of Mr. Phillips' group also targeted the teens in that the Native American told one of Mr. Sandmann's classmates in effect to go back to Europe. In that particular encounter the student came across as both more reasonable and more civil.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 11:03 AM   #2071
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,284
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
At least one member of Mr. Phillips' group also targeted the teens in that the Native American told one of Mr. Sandmann's classmates in effect to go back to Europe. In that particular encounter the student came across as both more reasonable and more civil.
Yes, well. Terrible atrocities were committed against native Americans. But to think that history can be turned back is ... pathetic.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 12:28 PM   #2072
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,021
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Yeah, you were misled by that ******* garbage site. Say, I got an idea, why don't we look at an actual legal site that contains an actual summary of the actual law of the actual state that actually states what the law is (and that TBD already explained):

http://kycourtreport.com/causes-of-a...a-pub-1122012/

And folks, gaze at the objection to a pin point cite to the actual paragraph of the actual complaint with a link that explains IN DETAIL what the WAPO did wrong.

TBD: look at paragraph 51 in this link.
Response: making me click a link a read a numbered paragraph is TEH FISHING!

Hoo Nelly, I have no idea why I bother spoon feeding people who just want to complain
But I did look at paragraph 51, which is why I asked again what you are claiming that the WP did other than describe the viral video and quote Phillips' account. You have a very annoying habit of saying that links support your claims when they really don't.

The first paragraph in your new link says a defamation claim must establish "defamatory language" which by definition is false. Farther down, it says "a claim of defamation may be defeated by establishing the truth of the matter asserted." I'm pretty sure the WP won't offer such an "affirmative defense" that Phillips' account was actually true, and I'm pretty sure Wood will in fact attempt to prove it wasn't -- because he has to -- but this is a red herring anyway. The point is, as far as I can tell, the "defamatory language" was by Phillips and reported, as attributed quotes, by the WP.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 12:45 PM   #2073
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
But I did look at paragraph 51, which is why I asked again what you are claiming that the WP did other than describe the viral video and quote Phillips' account. You have a very annoying habit of saying that links support your claims when they really don't.

The first paragraph in your new link says a defamation claim must establish "defamatory language" which by definition is false. Farther down, it says "a claim of defamation may be defeated by establishing the truth of the matter asserted." I'm pretty sure the WP won't offer such an "affirmative defense" that Phillips' account was actually true, and I'm pretty sure Wood will in fact attempt to prove it wasn't -- because he has to -- but this is a red herring anyway. The point is, as far as I can tell, the "defamatory language" was by Phillips and reported, as attributed quotes, by the WP.
Your first paragraph is, ironically, a lie.

You second paragraph is literally amazing. You claim: "'defamatory language'" which by definition is false." Huh, i wonder what the basis is for that claim?

Say folks, who wants to take a gander at the link The Big Dog actually provided:

"Words are defamatory when the words tend “to (1) bring a person into public hatred, contempt or ridicule; (2) cause him to be shunned or avoided; or, (3) injure him in his business or occupation.” McCall v. Courier-Journal and Louisville Times Co., 623 S.W.2d 882, 884 (Ky. 1981)." GOLLY! It does not use the word false at all!

Your claims are not just wrong, they are actively conspiring to make people reading them less knowledgeable.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 01:06 PM   #2074
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,487
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Your first paragraph is, ironically, a lie.

You second paragraph is literally amazing. You claim: "'defamatory language'" which by definition is false." Huh, i wonder what the basis is for that claim?

Say folks, who wants to take a gander at the link The Big Dog actually provided:

"Words are defamatory when the words tend “to (1) bring a person into public hatred, contempt or ridicule; (2) cause him to be shunned or avoided; or, (3) injure him in his business or occupation.” McCall v. Courier-Journal and Louisville Times Co., 623 S.W.2d 882, 884 (Ky. 1981)." GOLLY! It does not use the word false at all!

Your claims are not just wrong, they are actively conspiring to make people reading them less knowledgeable.
From the same link:

Quote:
Significantly, a claim of defamation may be defeated by establishing the truth of the matter asserted. If so, the party has an absolute defense to the claim of defamation. Smith v. Martin, 331 S.W.3d 637, 640 (Ky. App. 2011). Still, “the defendant has the burden of proving truth as an affirmative defense or ‘justification’ by a preponderance of the evidence.” Significantly, a claim of defamation may be defeated by establishing the truth of the matter asserted. If so, the party has an absolute defense to the claim of defamation. Smith v. Martin, 331 S.W.3d 637, 640 (Ky. App. 2011). Still, “the defendant has the burden of proving truth as an affirmative defense or ‘justification’ by a preponderance of the evidence.”

So, now we could proceed to the very, very interesting (not!) question of whether "truth" is part of a definition of defamatory, or merely of libelous, or legally actionable, or.....whatever. Personally, I can't see what the point would be. It was pretty clear what WilliamSeger was saying, which is that if the published statements are true, they are not defamatory in the legal sense, i.e. they could not be used as a cause of action in a defamation suit.

Note, however, that TBD is absolutely correct that it is the defendant who must prove that the statement is true in order to use truth as a defense, at least in the jurisdiction above.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 01:10 PM   #2075
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
So, now we could proceed to the very, very interesting (not!) question of whether "truth" is part of a definition of defamatory, or merely of libelous, or legally actionable, or.....whatever. Personally, I can't see what the point would be. It was pretty clear what WilliamSeger was saying, which is that if the published statements are true, they are not defamatory in the legal sense, i.e. they could not be used as a cause of action in a defamation suit.

Note, however, that TBD is absolutely correct that it is the defendant who must prove that the statement is true in order to use truth as a defense, at least in the jurisdiction above.
No, one need not "proceed" to that question, I have shown it is not.

It would be ludicrous to say that the plaintiff must prove it is not true, while the defendant must prove it is true to prove his defense.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 02:02 PM   #2076
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,453
Did Covington Catholic lose its way?

"'CovCath has become less diverse, more elite, and more expensive — even as the surrounding community has become more economically and ethnically diverse,' organizer Matthew Lehman wrote in the petition [at Change.org]. . . . 'You would need to be willfully ignorant to maintain that CovCath administration has not allowed certain elitist and exclusive tendencies to take root in the school. It is abundantly clear that CovCath has lost its way.'" The original WaPo article has some things which are not grounds for libel but are foolish. In this example, they don't even have much to do with the incident itself. There was an article at the American Conservative which castigated several sets of adults for their actions ("Covington Catholic and the Absolute Failure of Adults"), and this article has one or two gems that would fit right into that piece.

"The Catholic Diocese of Covington condemned the students. Former Vanity Fair contributor Kurt Eichenwald said the kids involved should all be denied work 'in perpetuity.' He also shared close ups of every student’s face to his Twitter account so they could be identified. A Vulture writer said he wished the students would die. A GQ writer called for them to be doxxed." TheWrap. This article has a variety of opinions on the chances that Mr. Sandmann will prevail; however, I am as interested in how well media outlets covered the incident, and how they view their performance in retrospect.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 25th February 2019 at 02:18 PM.
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 02:41 PM   #2077
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,021
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Your first paragraph is, ironically, a lie.

You second paragraph is literally amazing. You claim: "'defamatory language'" which by definition is false." Huh, i wonder what the basis is for that claim?

Say folks, who wants to take a gander at the link The Big Dog actually provided:

"Words are defamatory when the words tend “to (1) bring a person into public hatred, contempt or ridicule; (2) cause him to be shunned or avoided; or, (3) injure him in his business or occupation.” McCall v. Courier-Journal and Louisville Times Co., 623 S.W.2d 882, 884 (Ky. 1981)." GOLLY! It does not use the word false at all!

Your claims are not just wrong, they are actively conspiring to make people reading them less knowledgeable.
I don't know why you want to keep digging that hole (actually I do, but whatever), but your quote is not the "definition" of "defamatory language"; it's a cite to a clarification of when a false statement is considered to be defamatory. According to Kentucky Defamation: Laws and Standards...

Quote:
Kentucky defines defamation as causing harm to the reputation of a person or business, by communicating to a third party, via words that are false and meant to humiliate, degrade, or incite contempt or hatred.
I'm not going to waste more time copying other quotes, but in fact I can't find any dictionary, legal or otherwise, that doesn't define defamation as making false statements, i.e. slander and libel, both or which are also specifically defined as false statements. If Phillips says something happened and other evidence says it didn't, then Wood needs to present that evidence to claim defamation. But of course, it doesn't matter in this case -- you're just looking for any bone to chew.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 03:04 PM   #2078
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
I don't know why you want to keep digging that hole (actually I do, but whatever), but your quote is not the "definition" of "defamatory language"; it's a cite to a clarification of when a false statement is considered to be defamatory. According to Kentucky Defamation: Laws and Standards...

I'm not going to waste more time copying other quotes, but in fact I can't find any dictionary, legal or otherwise, that doesn't define defamation as making false statements, i.e. slander and libel, both or which are also specifically defined as false statements. If Phillips says something happened and other evidence says it didn't, then Wood needs to present that evidence to claim defamation. But of course, it doesn't matter in this case -- you're just looking for any bone to chew.
folks! Hi, quick warning, slap on your sunglasses before you go to "Kelly Warner Law," it makes a geocities website look positively sober and professional.

Anyway, here is TBD citing actual Kentucky case law like a god damn sucker, when I could have gone on the internet and got a cite from a bunch of lawyers in Arizona that had the top google entry for "definition of libel in kentucky." THAT is hilarious.

Kentucky Supreme Court:

Quote:
"Defamation by writing and by contemporary means analogous to writing... is libel. Defamation communicated orally is slander."[34] Generally-speaking, however, the "gist" of both torts is "the injury to the reputation of a person in public esteem"[35] and thus prima facie cases for both torts require proof of:

1. defamatory language

2. about the plaintiff

3. which is published and

4. which causes injury to reputation.[36]

The first three elements of the prima facie case are relatively easy to comprehend. "Defamatory language" is broadly construed as language that "tends so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him."[
Stringer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 151 S.W.3d 781 (Ky. 2005).

anyone see the word "false" in there? No, well then I am sure our correspondent will be along directly with terrible wrong information from random internet searches.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 05:33 PM   #2079
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,021
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
folks! Hi, quick warning, slap on your sunglasses before you go to "Kelly Warner Law," it makes a geocities website look positively sober and professional.

Anyway, here is TBD citing actual Kentucky case law like a god damn sucker, when I could have gone on the internet and got a cite from a bunch of lawyers in Arizona that had the top google entry for "definition of libel in kentucky." THAT is hilarious.

Kentucky Supreme Court:



Stringer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 151 S.W.3d 781 (Ky. 2005).

anyone see the word "false" in there? No, well then I am sure our correspondent will be along directly with terrible wrong information from random internet searches.
Lol, dog, I do see the phrase "defamatory language" as the first requirement, so you're asserting that your "definition" of "defamatory language" says that the first requirement is that it's defamatory language!? I would say the law in Kentucky is rather confusing if that were the case, but in fact it's your confusion, apparently in failing to distinguish between "defamation" and "defamatory language." Here is another Libel, Slander & Defamation Attorney in Louisville, Kentucky that will perhaps explain this:
Quote:
Defamation has a very specific legal definition. The elements of defamation are:

1 A false and defamatory statement of fact
2. Regarding the plaintiff
3. Which is published to a third party and
4. Results in injury to the plaintiff.

The law does not guard against just any publication, but only publications that are false and actually cause harm.
No matter how you try to spin it, it isn't defamation unless it's false, which is simply to say you can't sue for damages caused by the truth.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 06:51 PM   #2080
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Lol, dog, I do see the phrase "defamatory language" as the first requirement, so you're asserting that your "definition" of "defamatory language" says that the first requirement is that it's defamatory language!?
SO!

No, I am saying that The Kentucky Supreme Court defines:

"Defamatory language" as: language that "tends so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him."

Not really clear how you managed to get that so very wrong, but so very funny!

Now, who should we believe... the Kentucky Supreme Court or WS's sole practitioner who was delivered to us via google fu?
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:35 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.