Yeah I mentioned it a few pages back as well, but I really wouldn't be shocked to see a defamation case. Unless he wants to just disappear into normalcy and not make a big deal out of it, but he definitely does have a case. MSNBC was particularly disgusting
Examples? I'm not arguing, I'm just curious how exactly he was defamed.
I think the only factual information that was routinely erroneously stated was the transporting of a weapon across state lines. However, to claim defamation there must be some harm in the statement so even if the media ought to have known he drove then picked up his gun, is there reasonable harm there? I mean who cares if he drove and picked up his gun or picked up his gun and drove outside of the law?
As for white supremacist, in order to claim defamation you must prove a guilty state of mine or negligence. The "actual malice" standard when it comes to public figures. Unlike that grinning Trump kid where media had access to the entire video but only reviewed/shared certain aspects of the video to reframe the content, there was malice. In this scenario we have Rittenhouse throwing up white power symbols, or at least a symbol some believe to be white power, with members of the Proud Boys. An organization that has been deemed a domestic terrorist group in Canada because of its ties to white supremacy and violent far right rhetoric.
It will differ by state as there is no federal law but the bar for defamation in the states is very high thanks to the First Amendment. It may make sense to settle instead of fight in court, but I am not so sure there's any clear cut defamation based on the little I have saw. Again, maybe you have better examples.
He didn't win any lawsuits. The Washington Post suit had 30 of 33 claims thrown out and they settled after that ruling.
He's settled with WP and CNN. He has a bunch of ongoing stuff too but I cant even guess how those may turn out, though it sounds like the payouts he's gotten are peanuts for the original ask:
In this situation, I’d estimate the legal fees incurred by the insurance company if they conduct discovery on this issue and then argue summary judgment is on the magnitude of $200,000.....So a settlement in that situation needs to be quite a bit below $200k for the carrier to be financially incentivized to provide Sandmann a graceful, confidential exit from the suit that saves face. $50k is a good guess.
This thread makes me wish we still had the returning posters thread. BoLevi is obviously a returning poster, but for the life of me his prior name is escaping me. But literally the same trolling technique, and like his previous incarnation he is getting into elite troll territory. Though, to be fair, baiting Lanny is about is easy as it gets.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Following User Says Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
This thread makes me wish we still had the returning posters thread. BoLevi is obviously a returning poster, but for the life of me his prior name is escaping me. But literally the same trolling technique, and like his previous incarnation he is getting into elite troll territory. Though, to be fair, baiting Lanny is about is easy as it gets.
He's settled with WP and CNN. He has a bunch of ongoing stuff too but I cant even guess how those may turn out, though it sounds like the payouts he's gotten are peanuts for the original ask:
As was Rittenhouse's....for a bit. He appeared to be a very competent lawyer up until recently. Just like Giuliani. I am not sure if they were just faking it until they made it or if it's some form of dementia as they aged (69 and 77 respectively).
A State cannot, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves "actual malice" -- that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false
Petitioner was also not a public figure. Absent clear evidence of general fame or notoriety in the community and pervasive involvement in ordering the affairs of society, an individual should not be deemed a public figure for all aspects of his life.
Those are the big Supreme Court cases. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan it established the "actual malice" standard for public officials. In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. it extended to public figures including those who had gain notoriety. In a nut shell. Feel free to correct me any smart people.
So Rittenhouse would not need to prove he isn't racist, he would have to prove it was unreasonable to assume he was/is. Which is very much ironic given the case against him in my opinion. And I think I already shown I made up my mind when he's partying with Proud Boys throwing up a symbol that had been co-opted by racists, I mean he wouldn't stand a chance if I was on the jury
I'd also be curious to see some actual example of media intentionally lying in relation to this case. That seems mighty hard to prove, but I'm not even sure I've heard of one off-the-cuff example.
Seems more like the usual talking heads going for the lazy "mainstream media" rant, but happy to be corrected.
If Rittenhouse was there to protect property, why was he roaming the streets? Shouldn't he have been manning the property he was supposedly protecting?
Tell me you have no idea about basic facts about the case without telling me you have no idea about basic facts about the case.
The day after having one of their car dealerships burnt down Rittenhouse sent a text to the son of a family owned dealership called Car Source.
Quote:
“Hey Sam it’s Kyle do you need anyone to protect your business tonight im more then willing and will be armed i just need address.”
A second message read: “Me and my brother would both be thwre armed.”
Rossenbaum was shot and killed in a car dealership-lot. Three guesses which car dealership that was.
Spoiler!
Car Source
Now the son would deny seeing the text or asking for protection but employees would testify differently. There was also photos of the son posing with Rittenhouse and friend's outside his dealership on the day of question and he confirmed he never asked him to leave. It's not entirely unlikely that he did not want to get sued so he distanced himself from the protection squad.
I found this disturbing story.
There’s no way any of it’s true.
__________________
The Delhi police have announced the formation of a crack team dedicated to nabbing the elusive 'Monkey Man' and offered a reward for his -- or its -- capture.
I'd also be curious to see some actual example of media intentionally lying in relation to this case. That seems mighty hard to prove, but I'm not even sure I've heard of one off-the-cuff example.
Seems more like the usual talking heads going for the lazy "mainstream media" rant, but happy to be corrected.
He didn't win any lawsuits. The Washington Post suit had 30 of 33 claims thrown out and they settled after that ruling.
When getting your ass kicked on 30 out of 33 claims and having 3 narrow claims about whether stating that Sandman "blocked" Phillips and having a media giant pay out a nuisance amount of money to get rid of the case is "kicking liberal media ass"
I'd also be curious to see some actual example of media intentionally lying in relation to this case. That seems mighty hard to prove, but I'm not even sure I've heard of one off-the-cuff example.
Seems more like the usual talking heads going for the lazy "mainstream media" rant, but happy to be corrected.
Rittenhouse's attorney, who by his own admission is pretty much a Democrat at heart took offense to MSNBC and CNN getting basic facts about the case (and states a few specific examples) wrong.
'He had his mother drive him across state lines, he appointed himself a militia member. He goes around and he ends up unloading -- what? -- 60 rounds, kills 2 people, wounds a third person...' Scarborough said on-air.
That alone has multiple well documented lies / fabrications by this point in one statement.
The crossing states line with the rifle myth has also been repeated multiple times by several posters here, and media as well, despite being fact checked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald
Traveling 40+ miles, across state lines, with a weapon.
A few media outlets have been playing a very dangerous game by deliberately gaslighting an already outraged crowd with bad facts for dubious motives, even as the trial evidence contradicts the claims presented. Facts don't need to be made up, people can be openly critical of RH's actions and gun laws while still believing he was not guilty legally on the evidence.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Firebot For This Useful Post:
Yes, if you are outraged by the verdict, you have been successfully gaslighted.
Newspapers and TV media are no longer news outlets, they are content providers. The sooner people treat them like content providers, they better off they will be.
The Following User Says Thank You to BoLevi For This Useful Post:
Rittenhouse's attorney, who by his own admission is pretty much a Democrat at heart took offense to MSNBC and CNN getting basic facts about the case (and states a few specific examples) wrong.
That alone has multiple well documented lies / fabrications by this point in one statement.
The crossing states line with the rifle myth has also been repeated multiple times by several posters here, and media as well, despite being fact checked.
A few media outlets have been playing a very dangerous game by deliberately gaslighting an already outraged crowd with bad facts for dubious motives, even as the trial evidence contradicts the claims presented. Facts don't need to be made up, people can be openly critical of RH's actions and gun laws while still believing he was not guilty legally on the evidence.
Thanks.
It is tough to say, the "drove across state lines" thing is such a pervasive rumour that I'm not sure there's anything malicious in repeating it, but it has definitely reached a point where it is ignorant. That said, there's also posters here who paint this glorious picture of Rittenhouse and yet had to have the actual events of that night explained to them because they didn't know.
I know that the typical right/left media split have their own loaded language habits around the case, but even then, I think it's probably closer to a matter of people not doing their job or not caring enough about the truth than it is lying with an intent. Is that better or worse? I don't know. I would bet money Morning Joe and Tucker Carlson both believe the words they say. I think it's a stretch to say there's been deliberate gaslighting going on, but maybe that's just naive hope.
It's definitely been icky though. And I agree with you on your last point. You can pretty much write off anyone who is unwilling to be critical of Rittenhouse and his actions and/or in denial that justice was served. The jury made the right call and the call they had to make, but Rittenhouse carries plenty of moral responsibility for what happened. There are no good guys and bad guys. Rittenhouse, Huber, and Grosskreutz all had good intentions and made stupid decisions. Maybe Rosenbaum is the only one you can point a finger at. Maybe if it wasn't for him, none of this happens. But they're all victims.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Yes, if you are outraged by the verdict, you have been successfully gaslighted.
Newspapers and TV media are no longer news outlets, they are content providers. The sooner people treat them like content providers, they better off they will be.
I'm not outraged at the verdict, I gave up being outraged at the #### show called the US decades ago when I grew beyond the adolescent belief in justice and fairness, I do think the US is a failed state and I doubt it will still be around as one country in my lifetime, if Canada can avoid to much of the fallout and maybe just gain something from the breakup, I have always been partial to Washington State myself, then so be it.
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
Yes, if you are outraged by the verdict, you have been successfully gaslighted.
Newspapers and TV media are no longer news outlets, they are content providers. The sooner people treat them like content providers, they better off they will be.
Jesus. I agree with something hulderfolk has said. Should I feel dirty?
This is the problem with media in the United States, and beginning to be a problem in Canada as well. There is little truth in media and you can't trust what you have read. I've fallen for that more than a few times, trusting what a once trustworthy source says, only to find shoddy reporting didn't disclose enough or appropriate detail. The news outlets have become content providers. It's time for a return of the Mayflower and Fairness doctrines so we can reclaim the truth and the media can get back to being our mechanism to speak truth to power.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
