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 25th February 2019, 11:56 PM   #2081
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,021
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
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?
Lol, but I do believe the Kentucky Supreme Court when they say, " It should be noted that although many of the allegedly defamatory statements that Welch complains of are disparaging, they are not so definite or precise as to be branded as false.   See Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 19-20, 110 S.Ct. 2695, 2705-2706, 111 L.Ed.2d 1, 18-19 (1990) (only provable false assertions of fact can provide the basis for a defamation action)."

So, the Kentucky Supreme Court does indeed seem to agree with the common definition of "defamatory." Good thing Sandmann doesn't have you for a lawyer, huh.
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 26th February 2019, 04:35 AM   #2082
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,769
Slap fight!!!!
__________________
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 26th February 2019, 07:12 AM   #2083
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Lol, but I do believe the Kentucky Supreme Court when they say, " It should be noted that although many of the allegedly defamatory statements that Welch complains of are disparaging, they are not so definite or precise as to be branded as false.   See Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 19-20, 110 S.Ct. 2695, 2705-2706, 111 L.Ed.2d 1, 18-19 (1990) (only provable false assertions of fact can provide the basis for a defamation action)."

So, the Kentucky Supreme Court does indeed seem to agree with the common definition of "defamatory." Good thing Sandmann doesn't have you for a lawyer, huh.
Hey look everyone, our google fu master just cited cases applying the New York Times v. Sullivan standard which does NOT apply to a private individual like our teenage friend like young Mister Sandmann. From your cite: The actual malice standard for defamation lawsuits brought by public officials against critics of their official conduct was announced in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964).

Hoo boy, this is turning into a next level rout, but the good news? People are learning something.

All I do is win win win,
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 26th February 2019, 08:06 AM   #2084
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 25,388
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
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."
True, as far as you state it. It also has to be an untrue statement to constitute defamation.


Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Not really clear how you managed to get that so very wrong, but so very funny!
You are indeed.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB 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 26th February 2019, 08:44 AM   #2085
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
True, as far as you state it. It also has to be an untrue statement to constitute defamation.

You are indeed.
Have you literally not been reading the posts and the cites I have been providing? Seriously? Because, got to tell you, it is really getting boring responding to people who have no earthly clue what they are talking about polluting their thread with nonsense.

Truth is an affirmative defense that must be proven by defendant, and is not an element of the claim ( 1. defamatory language 2. about the plaintiff 3. which is published and 4. which causes injury to reputation) nor

Defamatory means that which "tends so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of thecommunity or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him." Stringer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 151 SW3d 781, 793 (Ky. 2004).

Query, why did you bother to repeat the same argument that TBD has already crush murdered?

Notably, the erudite discussion points raised in my posts do not suggest for a moment that the monstrous lies against the teens were true, they are not of course.

Last edited by The Big Dog; 26th February 2019 at 08:45 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 26th February 2019, 09:16 AM   #2086
Joe Random
Master Poster
 
Joe Random's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,100
I'm sensing some growing acrimony in this thread. Let me try to help diffuse that.


Joe Random 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 26th February 2019, 09:38 AM   #2087
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,021
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Have you literally not been reading the posts and the cites I have been providing? Seriously? Because, got to tell you, it is really getting boring responding to people who have no earthly clue what they are talking about polluting their thread with nonsense.

Truth is an affirmative defense that must be proven by defendant, and is not an element of the claim ( 1. defamatory language 2. about the plaintiff 3. which is published and 4. which causes injury to reputation) nor

Defamatory means that which "tends so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of thecommunity or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him." Stringer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 151 SW3d 781, 793 (Ky. 2004).

Query, why did you bother to repeat the same argument that TBD has already crush murdered?

Notably, the erudite discussion points raised in my posts do not suggest for a moment that the monstrous lies against the teens were true, they are not of course.
Lol, you quoted and highlighted text that begins with "Defamatory language is broadly construed as ..." but you read it (or intentionally misrepresented it) as "Defamatory language is defined as ..." Bad enough, but then you proceed to use that misunderstanding as the basis for dismissing valid definitions.

Now, I am not a lawyer, but I understand that the profession requires skill in interpreting the meaning of words in context and accurately applying logic to facts -- two skills notably absent in your "expert" analyses. When caught out, you double down not only on the nonsense but on the hubris.

Pro tip: when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
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 26th February 2019, 09:54 AM   #2088
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 25,388
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Have you literally not been reading the posts and the cites I have been providing? Seriously? Because, got to tell you, it is really getting boring responding to people who have no earthly clue what they are talking about polluting their thread with nonsense.

Truth is an affirmative defense that must be proven by defendant, and is not an element of the claim ( 1. defamatory language 2. about the plaintiff 3. which is published and 4. which causes injury to reputation) nor

Defamatory means that which "tends so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of thecommunity or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him." Stringer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 151 SW3d 781, 793 (Ky. 2004).
You are funny.

From that very case:

" 2. That following the discharge of the plaintiffs, the defendant, Wal Mart, by and through it's [sic] management team at the Monticello Wal Mart, and the defendant, Anthony Whitaker, made false and defamatory statements to persons other than the plaintiffs, that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the plaintiffs were involved in stealing property from Wal Mart.

3. That the statements by the defendants were false and are defamatory per se.

...


In comparison to slanderous per se oral statements, which must contain *795 defamatory language of a specific nature, the common law treats a broader class of written defamatory statements as actionable per se: "[w]hile spoken words are slanderous per se only if they impute crime, infectious disease, or unfitness to perform duties of office, or tend to disinherit him, written or printed publications, which are false "

(and others) You are wrong.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB 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 26th February 2019, 10:03 AM   #2089
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Lol, you quoted and highlighted text that begins with "Defamatory language is broadly construed as ..." but you read it (or intentionally misrepresented it) as "Defamatory language is defined as ..." Bad enough, but then you proceed to use that misunderstanding as the basis for dismissing valid definitions.

Now, I am not a lawyer, but I understand that the profession requires skill in interpreting the meaning of words in context and accurately applying logic to facts -- two skills notably absent in your "expert" analyses. When caught out, you double down not only on the nonsense but on the hubris.

Pro tip: when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
the funny parts, the really funny parts?

1. you think that there is a substantive difference between "defined" and "construed" in the context used by the Court. There ain't: Cromer v. Montgomery, Ky: Court of Appeals 2009: "We note that the Stringer Court defined 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."

2. You think TBD is digging a hole, well now there, mayhap you have a point there. Digging a hole and unearthing huge chunks of solid gold truth bombs!

OH TBD, YOU ARE SO ******* GOOD.
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 26th February 2019, 10:06 AM   #2090
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,021
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Hey look everyone, our google fu master just cited cases applying the New York Times v. Sullivan standard which does NOT apply to a private individual like our teenage friend like young Mister Sandmann. From your cite: The actual malice standard for defamation lawsuits brought by public officials against critics of their official conduct was announced in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964).

Hoo boy, this is turning into a next level rout, but the good news? People are learning something.

All I do is win win win,
Hoo boy, that's next level lame accented with next level chutzpah and spray-painted with next level hubris. The difference between suing a public figure and a private individual -- the "malice standard" -- has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that a defamation tort can only succeed if the statements are false. Both the US and Kentucky Supreme Courts have affirmed what should be obvious: a statement is not slanderous or libelous if it's true.
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 26th February 2019, 10:07 AM   #2091
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,769
But it wasn't true
__________________
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 26th February 2019, 10:08 AM   #2092
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
You are funny.

From that very case:

" 2. That following the discharge of the plaintiffs, the defendant, Wal Mart, by and through it's [sic] management team at the Monticello Wal Mart, and the defendant, Anthony Whitaker, made false and defamatory statements to persons other than the plaintiffs, that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the plaintiffs were involved in stealing property from Wal Mart.

3. That the statements by the defendants were false and are defamatory per se.

...


In comparison to slanderous per se oral statements, which must contain *795 defamatory language of a specific nature, the common law treats a broader class of written defamatory statements as actionable per se: "[w]hile spoken words are slanderous per se only if they impute crime, infectious disease, or unfitness to perform duties of office, or tend to disinherit him, written or printed publications, which are false "

(and others) You are wrong.
facepalm.

Hi! The first quotes were from the complaint and not the court's analysis. STRIKE ONE.

Second, in the second quote the court is discussing slander PER SE which is completely different than common law defamation and which the teen has not alleged in his complaint! STRIKE 2 STRIKE 3!

Serious question, why are you typing words that you do not understand in this thread?
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 26th February 2019, 10:12 AM   #2093
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Hoo boy, that's next level lame accented with next level chutzpah and spray-painted with next level hubris. The difference between suing a public figure and a private individual -- the "malice standard" -- has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that a defamation tort can only succeed if the statements are false. Both the US and Kentucky Supreme Courts have affirmed what should be obvious: a statement is not slanderous or libelous if it's true.
yet curiously, you cite the actual malice standard and not the common law standard.... golly folks, wonder why.

In common law, as I have explained, the elements do not require the plaintiff to show falsity.

Under the actual malice standard for public figures they plaintiffs do.

Good to see you dropped the hilarious definition argument, tho, because hilarious.
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 26th February 2019, 10:51 AM   #2094
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,282
Wrestling with pigs ....

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 26th February 2019, 10:54 AM   #2095
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 25,388
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Wrestling with pigs ....

Hans
Yeah, you're right. Slow day in these parts, cold and wet.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB 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 26th February 2019, 10:57 AM   #2096
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,021
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
yet curiously, you cite the actual malice standard and not the common law standard.... golly folks, wonder why.

In common law, as I have explained , the elements do not require the plaintiff to show falsity.

Under the actual malice standard for public figures they plaintiffs do.

Good to see you dropped the hilarious definition argument, tho, because hilarious.
Don't be so modest; you are the one who had made the "definition argument" hilarious, and no, I haven't dropped it. I'll keep rubbing your nose in it for as long as you keep pretending to know what you're talking about. The law and common sense agree: You can't sue anyone for defamation unless the asserted facts are false. If your "definition" were correct, Kentucky would have no newspapers left.
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 26th February 2019, 11:05 AM   #2097
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Wrestling with pigs ....

Hans
I know, I know, but it just infuriates me that people who clearly have no idea what they are talking about actively conspire to make people less knowledgeable. As such, last one:

Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Yeah, you're right. Slow day in these parts, cold and wet.
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Don't be so modest; you are the one who had made the "definition argument" hilarious, and no, I haven't dropped it. I'll keep rubbing your nose in it for as long as you keep pretending to know what you're talking about. The law and common sense agree: You can't sue anyone for defamation unless the asserted facts are false. If your "definition" were correct, Kentucky would have no newspapers left.
It is not my definition, it is the Kentucky Supreme Court's, you don't understand what the word "construe' means, and truth remains a defense that can be raised by the defendant who therefore has the burden of proving it.
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 26th February 2019, 12:24 PM   #2098
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,021
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
But it wasn't true
The legal question will be, what wasn't true? This discussion isn't entirely irrelevant to the Sandmann case: To serve as a basis for a defamation tort, a statement has to be a falsifiable assertion of fact, not an opinion or, to some extent at least, point-of-view or justifiable perception that can't be falsified. To me, that means the Sandmann case is narrower than most people seem to be assuming, but I'm not going to predict how it will turn out. I do think there appears to be a case that the WP did not do due diligence in investigating any statements that are deemed defamatory, but I haven't seen the WP's defense yet.
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 26th February 2019, 01:44 PM   #2099
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,021
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I know, I know, but it just infuriates me that people who clearly have no idea what they are talking about actively conspire to make people less knowledgeable. As such, last one:


It is not my definition, it is the Kentucky Supreme Court's, you don't understand what the word "construe' means, and truth remains a defense that can be raised by the defendant who therefore has the burden of proving it.
Statutes "define" the law; Supreme Courts "construe" the law; and you "misconstrue" quotes taken out of context and call it law.

Here's one Kentucky statute that applies to the Sandmann case:
Quote:
411.051 Libel actions against newspaper, magazine, or periodical --Demand for and publication of correction --Effect.

(1)In any action for damages for the publication of a defamatory statement in a newspaper, magazine, or periodical, the defendant shall beliable for actual damages sustained by plaintiff. The defendant may plead the publication of a correction in mitigation of damages. Punitive damages may be recovered only if the plaintiff shall allege and prove publication with legal malice and that the newspaper, magazine, or periodical failed to make conspicuous and timely publication of a correction after receiving a sufficient demand for correction.

(2)A "sufficient demand for correction" is a demand for correction which is in writing; which is signedby the plaintiff or his duly-authorized attorney or agent; which specifies the statement or statements claimed to be false and defamatory, states wherein they are false, and sets forth the facts; and which is delivered to the defendant prior to the commencement of the action.

(3)A "correction" is either: (a)The publication of an acknowledgment that the statement or statements specified as false and defamatory in the plaintiff's demand for correction are erroneous; or(b)The publication, in a fair and impartial manner as a matter of law, of the plaintiff's statement of the facts (as set forth in his demand for correction) or a fair summary thereof, exclusive of any portions thereof which are defamatory of another, obscene, or otherwise improper for publication.If the demand for correction has specified two (2) or more statements as false and defamatory, the correction may deal with some of such statements pursuant to (a) above and with other of such statements pursuant to (b) above.

(4)A "conspicuous publication" in a newspaper is a publication which is printed in substantially as conspicuous a manner as the statement or statements specified as false and defamatory in the demand for correction.(5)A "timely publication" in a daily newspaper is a publication within ten (10) business days after the day on which a sufficient demand for correction is received by the defendant. A "timely publication" in a newspaper, magazine, or periodical other than a daily newspaper is a publication in or prior to the next regular issue which is published not less than ten (10) business days after the day on which a sufficient demand for correction is received by the defendant.

Effective:July 15, 1996History:Amended 1996 Ky. Acts ch. 202, sec. 3, effective July 15, 1996.
--Created 1964 Ky. Acts ch. 66, sec. 1.
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 26th February 2019, 02:04 PM   #2100
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
rolls eyes, why do I bother correcting google fu law students?

Nick is suing for common law defamation (look up the "definition" of that, 'k?)

he is also seeking punitive damages, and there is a statute in Kentucky that states that in order to be awarded punitive damages, there are additional hoops one must jump through.

Oh well, I had to explain basic concepts and rebut silly lies again.

Deep sigh.
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 26th February 2019, 02:33 PM   #2101
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 25,388
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
... truth remains a defense that can be raised by the defendant who therefore has the burden of proving it.
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
... he is also seeking punitive damages, and there is a statute in Kentucky that states that in order to be awarded punitive damages, there are additional hoops one must jump through.
Dodge noted. And?

If the defence can show that the allegation made was true then there is no libel/slander; no defamation.

Why can't you get it through your skull?

If an accusation is true then there is no offence.

Shall I say it again? Repeat the point that many here have made but you can't seem to understand? 'k

If an accusation is true then there is no offence.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB 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 26th February 2019, 03:15 PM   #2102
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Dodge noted. And?

If the defence can show that the allegation made was true then there is no libel/slander; no defamation.

Why can't you get it through your skull?

If an accusation is true then there is no offence.

Shall I say it again? Repeat the point that many here have made but you can't seem to understand? 'k

If an accusation is true then there is no offence.
Hi Glenn. It is always glorious when people come into a discussion about 3/4 of the way through and make no effort whatsoever to review the previous discussion, but rather just come in based on their complete lack of knowledge and start spewing things that the Big Dog has already covered in detail.

To orient you, TBD has explained that in a common law claim for defamation, there is no element of falsity, rather it is an affirmative defense that must be pled and proven by the defense. Our erstwhile correspondent is trying to claim otherwise, and is failing repeatedly.

But now we have a new contender making the same specious claims that i have already discussed in detail.

Do yourself a favor, read more, type less. savvy?
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 26th February 2019, 03:48 PM   #2103
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 25,388
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
.. in a common law claim for defamation, there is no element of falsity, rather it is an affirmative defense that must be pled and proven by the defense.
Which is what I just said. If the defence shows that the allegedly defamatory statement was actually true then there is no offence. Showing that it was true means that the prosecution's case fails.

Which part of that do you not (still) understand?
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB 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 26th February 2019, 04:20 PM   #2104
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,021
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
rolls eyes, why do I bother correcting google fu law students?

Nick is suing for common law defamation (look up the "definition" of that, 'k?)

he is also seeking punitive damages, and there is a statute in Kentucky that states that in order to be awarded punitive damages, there are additional hoops one must jump through.

Oh well, I had to explain basic concepts and rebut silly lies again.

Deep sigh.
Maybe those deep sighs should be into a paper bag. I doubt anyone expected you to admit you were wrong, but you could at least stop digging.

I can't find any such "common law" definition that's different from the one that you insist is wrong, and neither can you. Everything I've read -- other than the yapping you post here -- says you can't claim defamation without at least claiming that some statement of fact is false. If there's a dispute about the facts, as with any tort, the judge or jury must decide based on the "preponderance of the evidence." That's because if it isn't false, you can't be awarded damages. Seems like a pretty basic concept to me.
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 26th February 2019, 05:02 PM   #2105
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,486
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Have you literally not been reading the posts and the cites I have been providing? Seriously? Because, got to tell you, it is really getting boring responding to people who have no earthly clue what they are talking about polluting their thread with nonsense.
It's boring for you? How do you suppose the rest of us feel?


Oh, by the way, technically, you are correct. A statement does not have to be false in order to be defamatory. Therefore, a defamatory statement is not, by definition, false. It's just that in order to be the basis for a libel suit, it must be a false statement.

The bigger question is, "Who cares?"


Personally, I get into the nitpicky details of law on these discussion boards, but this is too nitpicky for me, or, really, for anyone.


Even the whole "burden of proof" problem is only marginally interesting. It simply means that if the plaintiff asserts that a defamatory statement is also false, the defendant can avoid losing the suit by presenting evidence that it is true. If, on the other hand, the plaintiff were to acknowledge that the defamatory statement is actually true, his case would be thrown out immediately. So, in the context of a libel case, the plaintiff must allege that the statements are 1. Defamatory and 2. False. Does it matter that condition number 2 is not subsumed by condition number 1? No.

He has to prove condition 1. Technically, he doesn't have to prove condition 2, but suppose the defense were to insist that the statements were true. Now, if they want to win the suit each side has to convince the jury, or judge, that their side is correct, but this is a civil suit, so there's no "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Basically, the plaintiff will have to convince the jury that the statements are very likely false, otherwise they will find in favor of the defense. So, does it really matter where the "burden of proof" falls? The only situation where it might would be in a case of passing on rumors that can't be verified. In that case, the plaintiff says, "Those were defamatory, and false." The defense says, "Well, I think they might be true." In that case, the judge would instruct the jury that in order to use the "truth" defense, it is not enough to assert that the statements are true, they must show, by preponderance of evidence, that the statements are true.

And all this explains why in the lawsuit filing, the plaintiff's law team says repeatedly that the statements are false. Even though, technically, it's up to the defense to assert the truth of the statements, it just doesn't make any sense for the plaintiff to say that the statements are defamatory, unless he also alleges that they were false.


In other words,,,,,,,,,, boring. Pat yourself on the back a few more times for being technically correct.


And let all who read these presents know that I, Meadmaker, do declare that, in my rarely humble opinion, The Big Dog got it right.


What are you going to do with the prize money?
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 26th February 2019, 05:02 PM   #2106
The Shrike
Philosopher
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,030
Originally Posted by rockinkt View Post
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.
No, but studying Meldrum I'd've learned from a true master.

Originally Posted by rockinkt View Post
How about your claim that I was buying into a false narrative that Phillips lied about being a Vietnam Vet?
That video indeed does include a clip that sounds like Phillips is making that claim. I had not seen that clip previously. It sounds damning for Phillips, but I'm not sure what we really know.

Originally Posted by rockinkt View Post
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?
First, no it would not necessarily change my mind about his integrity. Whether he did or did not lie about his military background would have no particular bearing on the material facts regarding his interaction with the Covington kids.

(See also: Why are we suddenly concerned about truth and integrity?)

In fact, however, it is not clear precisely if, about what, and/or why Phillips might have misrepresented his military background. For example, it's entirely plausible that Phillips could have been in an altercation with some dude whose girlfriend had spit on him and called him a baby killer. If you looked like a Vietnam Vet in the mid-1970s, there were plenty of hippies around ready to wind you up. The part that would be obviously fabricated from this anecdote would be a specific claim from Phillips that he returned from Vietnam. We know that he did not. Does he actually say that he returned from Vietnam? I'm not sure about that, and neither are the folks at Snopes.

It appears to me that Phillips has been disingenuous about his service: at worst outright lying about it, at its most benign perhaps not correcting people who misunderstood him. (Oh Lord, don't let that happen!) Other than as a formative experience in his younger days that led him toward a life of activism, however, I don't see him claiming any kind of kudos for being some great soldier. In his interview from January of this year, he was quite careful to not claim to be a Vietnam Veteran. Thus, on balance, I still think that the "stolen valor" smear campaign against him has been ~75% bs and 25% his own damn fault.
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 26th February 2019, 05:22 PM   #2107
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,021
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
It's boring for you? How do you suppose the rest of us feel?


Oh, by the way, technically, you are correct. A statement does not have to be false in order to be defamatory. Therefore, a defamatory statement is not, by definition, false. It's just that in order to be the basis for a libel suit, it must be a false statement.
I'll accept that distinction.
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 26th February 2019, 05:37 PM   #2108
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Jesus christ. Have we really reached the point where we should accept trolling wrong posts that pollute threads because explaining the correct actual analysis is boring?

911 was an inside job
Tbd: no actually it was not, lists reasons
Hmm, thats a bit boring..

I dream of the time someone does not bust my balls for being right
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 26th February 2019, 05:49 PM   #2109
Apathia
Philosopher
 
Apathia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 5,350
I think I must be the dictionary example of na´ve snowflake. That or my notion of civility is too kumbaya.

Phillips and Sandmann stood right there in each others faces: Phillips drumming at Sandmann, and Sandmann giving him the you shall not pass smile. with neither saying a word to each other. Either one could have moved or asked the other to do so. But they stood their ground as if to say "I'm containing your threat." OK maybe Sandmann was just holding space for Phillip, or protecting him from continuing into harm's way. What I'm saying is that both didn't attempt to speak to each other or as much as make a gesture of recognition. It looks like they saw each other as a threat. Phillips said he took Sandman as being threatening. Maybe Sandmann wasn't seeing it that way, but both said nothing to each other and continued the I'm not budging confrontation.

I'd have at least said "Excuse me," and tried to go around. Or "Mister, it's dangerous that way cause things are getting mobbish." Or did the MAGA hat and the Native American drum signal someone's last stand?

Darn, it was a misunderstanding that got blown up by the media. But how come it hasn't occurred to Sandmann and Phillips to meet with each other and clear the air? Or do they feel the other simply wants a strangle hold. What are they afraid of? This is not the Hatfields vs the McCoys (who did finally reconcile after generations.)

Well, come to think of it. It has become a whites/Native Americans standoff and has now been kicked up to a whole new level of hostility. It has been infused with history and political animosity. People aren't going to dare talk with each other. No one wants to be the Custer or the Sitting Bull.

Never mind I was truly na´ve to expect Americans might be civil.
__________________
"At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections."
Justice William O. Douglas

"Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures."
Author Unknown
Apathia 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 26th February 2019, 05:58 PM   #2110
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,486
Originally Posted by Apathia View Post
I think I must be the dictionary example of na´ve snowflake. That or my notion of civility is too kumbaya.

Phillips and Sandmann stood right there in each others faces: Phillips drumming at Sandmann, and Sandmann giving him the you shall not pass smile. with neither saying a word to each other. Either one could have moved or asked the other to do so. But they stood their ground as if to say "I'm containing your threat." OK maybe Sandmann was just holding space for Phillip, or protecting him from continuing into harm's way. What I'm saying is that both didn't attempt to speak to each other or as much as make a gesture of recognition. It looks like they saw each other as a threat. Phillips said he took Sandman as being threatening. Maybe Sandmann wasn't seeing it that way, but both said nothing to each other and continued the I'm not budging confrontation.

I'd have at least said "Excuse me," and tried to go around. Or "Mister, it's dangerous that way cause things are getting mobbish." Or did the MAGA hat and the Native American drum signal someone's last stand?

Darn, it was a misunderstanding that got blown up by the media. But how come it hasn't occurred to Sandmann and Phillips to meet with each other and clear the air? Or do they feel the other simply wants a strangle hold. What are they afraid of? This is not the Hatfields vs the McCoys (who did finally reconcile after generations.)

Well, come to think of it. It has become a whites/Native Americans standoff and has now been kicked up to a whole new level of hostility. It has been infused with history and political animosity. People aren't going to dare talk with each other. No one wants to be the Custer or the Sitting Bull.

Never mind I was truly na´ve to expect Americans might be civil.
Sandmann invited Phillips to talk to him. Phillips declined.


ETA: Of course by now, lawyers are calling the shots, so the situation has changed. See my previous, speculative, post about "reasonable and customary" fees. Short summary: If Sandmann were to drop the lawsuit, who would pay the legal team for all the time they have already spent? It might be pretty much impossible for Sandmann to attempt reconciliation at this point, because it might leave him on the hook for a large legal bill. If anyone has some actual insight into the subject of my speculation, I would appreciate it.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 26th February 2019 at 06:01 PM.
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 26th February 2019, 06:02 PM   #2111
Apathia
Philosopher
 
Apathia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 5,350
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Sandmann invited Phillips to talk to him. Phillips declined.
Thanks. I didn't catch that happening.
Alas! How pathetic!
__________________
"At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections."
Justice William O. Douglas

"Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures."
Author Unknown
Apathia 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 26th February 2019, 06:15 PM   #2112
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Apathia View Post
I think I must be the dictionary example of na´ve snowflake. That or my notion of civility is too kumbaya.

Phillips and Sandmann stood right there in each others faces: Phillips drumming at Sandmann, and Sandmann giving him the you shall not pass smile. with neither saying a word to each other. Either one could have moved or asked the other to do so. But they stood their ground as if to say "I'm containing your threat." OK maybe Sandmann was just holding space for Phillip, or protecting him from continuing into harm's way. What I'm saying is that both didn't attempt to speak to each other or as much as make a gesture of recognition. It looks like they saw each other as a threat. Phillips said he took Sandman as being threatening. Maybe Sandmann wasn't seeing it that way, but both said nothing to each other and continued the I'm not budging confrontation.

I'd have at least said "Excuse me," and tried to go around. Or "Mister, it's dangerous that way cause things are getting mobbish." Or did the MAGA hat and the Native American drum signal someone's last stand?

Darn, it was a misunderstanding that got blown up by the media. But how come it hasn't occurred to Sandmann and Phillips to meet with each other and clear the air? Or do they feel the other simply wants a strangle hold. What are they afraid of? This is not the Hatfields vs the McCoys (who did finally reconcile after generations.)

Well, come to think of it. It has become a whites/Native Americans standoff and has now been kicked up to a whole new level of hostility. It has been infused with history and political animosity. People aren't going to dare talk with each other. No one wants to be the Custer or the Sitting Bull.

Never mind I was truly na´ve to expect Americans might be civil.
Hi, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Phillips went up to confront the teens. He wasn't going anywhere, he wasn't trying to get past. He was confronting a bunch of teens who were simply trying to drown out a literal hate group.
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 26th February 2019, 06:20 PM   #2113
Joe Random
Master Poster
 
Joe Random's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,100
Originally Posted by Apathia View Post
Thanks. I didn't catch that happening.
Alas! How pathetic!

Actually I linked that 'invitation to talk' several pages/weeks back, and it was clear from the way he worded it that Phillips was going to lecture MagaHatBrat, or at the very least use the media exposure to prop up his (Phillips') side of the story. I forget the exact wording now, but it was along the lines of having a discussion on 'the importance of respecting diverse viewpoints and native culture'. Not at all what I'd call an Obama-beer moment.

Given that the invitation came out early, before the entire video was as widely circulated and while Phillips was still going on interviews about the incident I can't say I'd blame anyone for turning down a meeting with Phillips at that point.


edit to add : found the link I first read and it's still live : https://nypost.com/2019/01/22/native...th-maga-teens/

Quote:
He offered to meet with the students and community leaders to “have a dialog about cultural appropriation, racism, and the importance of listening to and respecting diverse cultures,” the group said in a statement Monday.

“Phillips and others were closing the Indigenous Peoples March with a prayer ceremony in their permitted area when, videos show, two groups without permits — Black Hebrew Israelites and the high school students — began arguing,” the statement said.

“Phillips said he approached and stepped between the two groups in an effort to quell the burgeoning conflict through spiritual song.”
I absolutely would not have taken that wording as sign of a good-faith effort to clear up misunderstandings.

Last edited by Joe Random; 26th February 2019 at 06:27 PM.
Joe Random 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 26th February 2019, 06:33 PM   #2114
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,486
Originally Posted by Joe Random View Post
Actually I linked that 'invitation to talk' several pages/weeks back, and it was clear from the way he worded it that Phillips was going to lecture MagaHatBrat, or at the very least use the media exposure to prop up his (Phillips') side of the story. I forget the exact wording now, but it was along the lines of having a discussion on 'the importance of respecting diverse viewpoints and native culture'. Not at all what I'd call an Obama-beer moment.

Given that the invitation came out early, before the entire video was as widely circulated and while Phillips was still going on interviews about the incident I can't say I'd blame anyone for turning down a meeting with Phillips at that point.


edit to add : found the link I first read and it's still live : https://nypost.com/2019/01/22/native...th-maga-teens/



I absolutely would not have taken that wording as sign of a good-faith effort to clear up misunderstandings.

You are talking about Phillips' invitation to the Covington kids. A day later, Sandmann issued his own invitation to Phillips. Phillips, at that point, declined.
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 26th February 2019, 06:35 PM   #2115
Joe Random
Master Poster
 
Joe Random's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,100
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
You are talking about Phillips' invitation to the Covington kids. A day later, Sandmann issued his own invitation to Phillips. Phillips, at that point, declined.

Really? Wow, I missed that one. Have a link to it by any chance? Curious if it was more even handed than Phillips' or if it was just as 'let us sit down and talk about what you did wrong'.
Joe Random 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 26th February 2019, 06:40 PM   #2116
Apathia
Philosopher
 
Apathia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 5,350
Originally Posted by Joe Random View Post
Actually I linked that 'invitation to talk' several pages/weeks back, and it was clear from the way he worded it that Phillips was going to lecture MagaHatBrat, or at the very least use the media exposure to prop up his (Phillips') side of the story. I forget the exact wording now, but it was along the lines of having a discussion on 'the importance of respecting diverse viewpoints and native culture'. Not at all what I'd call an Obama-beer moment.

Given that the invitation came out early, before the entire video was as widely circulated and while Phillips was still going on interviews about the incident I can't say I'd blame anyone for turning down a meeting with Phillips at that point.
Already at the Battle of The Greasy Grass.
__________________
"At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections."
Justice William O. Douglas

"Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures."
Author Unknown
Apathia 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 26th February 2019, 06:42 PM   #2117
Apathia
Philosopher
 
Apathia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 5,350
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Hi, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Phillips went up to confront the teens. He wasn't going anywhere, he wasn't trying to get past. He was confronting a bunch of teens who were simply trying to drown out a literal hate group.
You are correct that I missed some information.
May I please pass around you now?
__________________
"At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections."
Justice William O. Douglas

"Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures."
Author Unknown
Apathia 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 26th February 2019, 07:03 PM   #2118
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Apathia View Post
You are correct that I missed some information.
May I please pass around you now?
You mean you are just going to ignore the fact that you regurgitated the lies that were told about the teens that were confronted by the race grifter?

What ever floats your boat
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 26th February 2019, 07:03 PM   #2119
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,486
Originally Posted by Joe Random View Post
Really? Wow, I missed that one. Have a link to it by any chance? Curious if it was more even handed than Phillips' or if it was just as 'let us sit down and talk about what you did wrong'.
Can't find an actual link.

I know that he said he wanted to meet Phillips during his "Good Morning America" interview. (Or was it Today....they all look alike to me) I don't know if any additional invitation was issued in any form.

I remember reading shortly after that Phillips said he no longer wanted to meet with the kids, but I don't know any more than that.


In a couple of tweets I found while searching google news, the tweeters said that Phillips had declined but, again, gave no additional info.
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 26th February 2019, 07:04 PM   #2120
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,486
Originally Posted by Apathia View Post
You are correct that I missed some information.
May I please pass around you now?
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
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 03:52 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.