Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Victims of wrongful death aren't suing for libel, defamation or slander.
This may come down to whether Rittenhouse is considered a "public figure".
In the case of private citizens, they don't have to prove "malice" by the speaker.
But in the case of public figures (celebrities, politicians, people who place themselves in the public eye and are therefore greatly discussed in the media), the "victim" of defamation has to prove that the speaker had MALICE - and knew the statements weren't true but wanted to harm the victim.
We'll see if the court decides he's a public figure. He was certainly in the news every night.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 6 days ago)
35,624 posts, read 17,961,729 times
Reputation: 50650
Quote:
Originally Posted by erieguy
Bingo…and he’s going to cash big. Many simply don’t want to see it happen.
I'm not opposed to this kid getting some relief from the public anger that has been unleashed at him, perhaps unjustly. I get that.
BUT. Do you want all media sources, like Facebook, and even this one, to be forced to shut down because they don't vet all their posts and keep posters from defaming others who are subjects of news stories?
Do you want to have that kind of complete internet silence?
I would argue that would be the end of the 1st Amendment.
I'm not opposed to this kid getting some relief from the public anger that has been unleashed at him, perhaps unjustly. I get that.
BUT. Do you want all media sources, like Facebook, and even this one, to be forced to shut down because they don't vet all their posts and keep posters from defaming others who are subjects of news stories?
Do you want to have that kind of complete internet silence?
I would argue that would be the end of the 1st Amendment.
Ummm, Facebook has police all over their site. How do you know they weren’t told not to remove posts about him even if they violated TOS standards?….and let’s not act like Zuckerberg is the only one he’s going after. There’s plenty of folks on the defamation list.
He views himself as a hero, (and we do need young men who view themselves as heroes) and he took up arms in a very visible way as a public "militia" like presence, and as a result he had to defend himself against people who felt they were defending themselves against him.
Perfect storm of testosterone overload all over the place.
What I don't want to see is media formats like Facebook having to sort through each post for truth. In this case, listening to the video of Carlson, Rittenhouse and Todd the Lawyer that was posted upthread, their beef isn't so much that Facebook had lies about Rittenhouse, but rather, that they removed posts defending him.
So what we'll end up with is media formats that won't allow any discussion at all on current news topics.
The defunding police crowd loves it when the community polices itself.
That made zero sense as did your comment of shorting stock AFTER public info became available and not only that predicting a tiny amount that wouldn't impact their stock price.
I hate to have to explain why but a high profile lawyer that just won a bunch of suits would not need further funding on a contingent basis like in the Rittenhouse case.
If you are newer to the country etc. then I apologize for any tone in explaining basic knowledge about our stock and legal system.
Ok...thank God!____Someone who knows more about the Law than me.
QUESTION: Why did Nick Sandman settled his lawsuit?
Your link says that’s how much the lawsuit was for/how much Nick was suing for……not that that’s how much the settlement was for.
Fair enough, we will probably never know the exact dollar amount. They settled though, in his favor...that really is all that matters. It cost them, we just don't know how much.
He views himself as a hero, (and we do need young men who view themselves as heroes) and he took up arms in a very visible way as a public "militia" like presence, and as a result he had to defend himself against people who felt they were defending themselves against him.
Perfect storm of testosterone overload all over the place.
What I don't want to see is media formats like Facebook having to sort through each post for truth. In this case, listening to the video of Carlson, Rittenhouse and Todd the Lawyer that was posted upthread, their beef isn't so much that Facebook had lies about Rittenhouse, but rather, that they removed posts defending him.
So what we'll end up with is media formats that won't allow any discussion at all on current news topics.
Point of clarity, he didn't win that much, that's how much he sued for.
But in total he's likely pulled down a few mil after lawyers fees from the various suits.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
