Get a free Kyle Rittenhouse at Culver's

Edaw said:

No one was disputing there are defenses and that opinion is not defamation, they were pointing out the stupidity of your statement, which still stands.

Click to expand...

Stupid enough that even the defamation lawyer on Rakieta says it will be next to impossible. I get it, you want this to go as well as the verdict today. Odds aren't in the kids favor.

Edaw said:

Because clearly, as we all saw, lawyers are infallible.

Click to expand...

Well they did call the verdict today which is more than we can say about you. You should probably pay some attention to what they are saying about their field of expertise.

Zapatta said:

I don't think Sandman got paid to keep it out of court for nothing. CNN and MSNBCs defense was 'we lie so much no one believes us', which actually did work for Maddow getting sued. Pretty hard to say it's not malicious if you are caught doing it a second time.

Click to expand...

And the networks would be a good target to go after. Some random guy on twitter tweeting the day after however would just be throwing money at lawyers.

AladainAF said:

They were talking about this on Rekieta Law stream today, that any kind of defamation is going to be an epic hill for Kyle to climb, and that was coming from a defamation lawyer.

Click to expand...

Yeah I've been saying the same thing but everybody is riding high off the acquittal and doesn't want any downers from reality land. You have to prove someone knowingly made a false statement to get to the level of defamation, just making a false statement alone isn't defamation.

Zapatta said:

I don't think Sandman got paid to keep it out of court for nothing. CNN and MSNBCs defense was 'we lie so much no one believes us', which actually did work for Maddow getting sued. Pretty hard to say it's not malicious if you are caught doing it a second time.

Click to expand...

I don't think that case was settled solely because CNN was scared, I think it's likely Sandmann settled because even in his much more egregious situation he still had an iffy case that would be uphill battle to prove.

Outrage about the verdict seems inverse to knowledge of the facts about the trial. Literally everyone pissed at this is consumers of misinformation.

Meanwhile, in Chicago


"Mutual combat"

Zapatta said:

Oh, yeah I am not talking about randos, I am talking about checkmark journos and celebrities. Broadcasting lies to 100s of thousands of followers is how you get in trouble, some nobody screaming into the void isn't publicly defaming anybody.

Click to expand...

The problem is you'd have to prove they are acting in an official capacity, reporting news rather than opinion, on twitter as opposed to their broadcast where it should be more obvious.

Edaw said:

None of this is even remotely true.

Click to expand...

Thats not very constructive. How so?

Gavinmad said:

Yeah I've been saying the same thing but everybody is riding high off the acquittal and doesn't want any downers from reality land. You have to prove someone knowingly made a false statement to get to the level of defamation, just making a false statement alone isn't defamation.


I don't think that case was settled solely because CNN was scared, I think it's likely Sandmann settled because even in his much more egregious situation he still had an iffy case that would be uphill battle to prove.

Click to expand...

Wrong on both.

You don't have to 100% know that you're wrong. If you're in a position where you should and easily could be correct but are wilfully/maliciously ignorant then it 100% can be slander/libel.

Your whole understanding with why cases settle is also flawed. You go into a civil case like that asking for way more than you think you'll ever get hoping to get a settlement for a more realisitic number. Wouldn't be surprised if Sandmann settled for <10% of what his lawsuit was asking, which was by design

Imma hit up the Culver’s in West Point, UT in a few mins if any shitposters want to join