Get a free Kyle Rittenhouse at Culver's

Status
Not open for further replies.

Muurloen

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
13,540
38,103
1637376496272.png


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

Byr

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
3,663
4,943
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.

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

Kiroy

Marine Biologist
<Bronze Donator>
34,647
100,001
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.

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

Vyemm Raider
418
914
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

Trump's Staff
11,559
-2,388
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.
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

Potato del Grande
7,469
11,717
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.

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

Kiroy

Marine Biologist
<Bronze Donator>
34,647
100,001
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.

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

Tranny Chaser
27,151
72,023
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.

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

Ssraeszha Raider
16,040
19,500
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.

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

King Turd of Shit Hill
<Gold Donor>
18,886
73,728

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