Get a free Kyle Rittenhouse at Culver's

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Status
Not open for further replies.
Muurloen

Muurloen

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
13,880
39,474
1637376496272.png


1637376508972.png
 
  • 8Worf
  • 1Like
Reactions: 8 users
Byr

Byr

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
3,802
5,421
Ambiturner said:
It would obviously be based on how it's phrased and who the person is. If it's a ditzy reality show "star" or some other celebrity not known for being bright then it would be hard to show damages. Someone known to be knowledgeable and well versed saying the exact same thing could make showing damages much easier.

I think he'd be much better off by going the Sandmann route and going after actual news sources since they're "supposed to be" taken seriously and damage to reputation is almost automatic.
Click to expand...

So we agree, thank you.
 
  • 1Picard
  • 1Dislike
  • 1GreNeg
Reactions: 2 users
Kiroy

Kiroy

Marine Biologist
<Bronze Donator>
35,325
102,364
Ambiturner said:
It would obviously be based on how it's phrased and who the person is. If it's a ditzy reality show "star" or some other celebrity not known for being bright then it would be hard to show damages. Someone known to be knowledgeable and well versed saying the exact same thing could make showing damages much easier.

I think he'd be much better off by going the Sandmann route and going after actual news sources since they're "supposed to be" taken seriously and damage to reputation is almost automatic.
Click to expand...

exactly, you force them into a position where they have to PROVE, on record, that they are retarded and legacy media is dead. This is why cnn settled.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Serwol

Serwol

Vyemm Raider
439
952
Eating dinner a little bit late tonight but Culvers is usually busy right around normal dinner time, this time of the night it is mostly people getting the mixers.


dindin.jpg
 
  • 15Like
  • 3Solidarity
Reactions: 17 users
Xequecal

Xequecal

Trump's Staff
11,559
-2,388
Ambiturner said:
It would obviously be based on how it's phrased and who the person is. If it's a ditzy reality show "star" or some other celebrity not known for being bright then it would be hard to show damages. Someone known to be knowledgeable and well versed saying the exact same thing could make showing damages much easier.

I think he'd be much better off by going the Sandmann route and going after actual news sources since they're "supposed to be" taken seriously and damage to reputation is almost automatic.
Click to expand...
Sandmann wasn't a public figure and didn't have to prove actual malice, that's why the media settled with him. Rittenhouse is, so he does have to prove it, and winning a libel case is going to be a huge uphill battle.
 
  • 2Moron
  • 1Pathetic
  • 1Potato
Reactions: 3 users
popsicledeath

popsicledeath

Potato del Grande
7,547
11,831
Xequecal said:
Sandmann wasn't a public figure and didn't have to prove actual malice, that's why the media settled with him. Rittenhouse is, so he does have to prove it, and winning a libel case is going to be a huge uphill battle.
Click to expand...

That settles it, the lawyer has spoken.
 
  • 15Worf
  • 1Double Worf
  • 1Like
Reactions: 16 users
Kiroy

Kiroy

Marine Biologist
<Bronze Donator>
35,325
102,364
Xequecal said:
Sandmann wasn't a public figure and didn't have to prove actual malice, that's why the media settled with him. Rittenhouse is, so he does have to prove it, and winning a libel case is going to be a huge uphill battle.
Click to expand...

the fuck, they were only public figures because the media turned them into public figures - how fucking convenient

(I don't think he'll win a libel case I think they'll settle with him so they don't have to talk about what they did in court)
 
  • 6Like
Reactions: 5 users
Arbitrary

Arbitrary

Tranny Chaser
29,032
79,807
Xequecal said:
Sandmann wasn't a public figure and didn't have to prove actual malice, that's why the media settled with him. Rittenhouse is, so he does have to prove it, and winning a libel case is going to be a huge uphill battle.
Click to expand...

Assclown is correct. Kyle is going to count as a public figure and thus have a much higher standard.

Go for the misconduct of the prosecution, win and use that as ammunition in a civil lawsuit against the state.
 
Ambiturner

Ambiturner

Ssraeszha Raider
16,043
19,530
Byr said:
Would it even matter? Its still a statement of opinion. If I were on trial, news agencies would have to call me an alleged pedophile but that standard wouldn't carry over to random celeb A on twitter who reasonable people don't view as a news source.
Click to expand...

You're not understanding the difference between the statement of fact element and actual damages.

Just because it's a random person doesnt make what they said an opinion, it just makes it harder to prove what they said actually damaged you.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users
zzeris

zzeris

King Turd of Shit Hill
<Gold Donor>
20,299
86,111


They really are stupid. Any catchphrase their masters promote.
 
  • 10Like
Reactions: 9 users
Status
Not open for further replies.