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.
someone sued Donald Trump for defamation from his tweets and a judge dismissed the case saying Trump's tweets were obvious hyperbole and couldn't be taken seriously
Saying someone "begged for a job" COULD be a cause for action in a defamation suit - i.e., it's not a matter of opinion (as insults like "loser" are). I disagree with the legal reasoning here. What it ought to boil down to is whether the plaintiff actually requested a job ("begged" as opposed to simply requested is a matter of opinion and non-actionable - but JMO, so perhaps a judge might think otherwise) - OR whether the defendant possessed a reasonable belief that it was true. It seems like it was probably a bona fide error on the plaintiff's part if she was merely offered a role but turned it down. Still, the potential for defamation exists if a court of law were to hold that the plaintiff did not exercise a reasonable degree of care in verifying the claim before publishing it. You can argue it's just Twitter, but it's still potentially libel. Given Twitter's popularity and the number of followers involved with high-publicity users, I think courts ought to impose a higher standard of due diligence to satisfy reasonable belief in such cases.
The "foundation of the Nation" often conflates too dangerously with the "government of the day" for my comfort level. That's why I think the right to dissent (and to express it) is an extremely important right in any democracy.
I'll use more concrete examples. In a Ukrainian context, I support the following restrictions on speech (which would not be held constitutional in the USA): denial of the Holodomor should be (and is) illegal, playing the soviet anthem should be (and is) illegal, desecration of a Ukrainian flag should be (and is) illegal. I'd go further than that, but that's a fairly decent start. I would absolutely criminalize all those things that patriots can have no legitimate disagreements about. There are plenty of matters that patriots can disagree on. That's fine. In any case, restrictions on speech should NEVER apply to the government. You should always be able to say, e.g., "so-and-so politician is an idiot" and so on. The Heroes of a Nation do not fight for the government, but for the Nation itself.
yea, advocating violence is probably crossing a line. Dunno if it needs to be illegal; like does criminalizing kronan accomplish much? He's not exactly an effective advocate, just a nuisance.
Kronan and other internet warriors aren't even on the radar. There's people urging for genocide every day on social media. Nothing is happening to them.
That's always the thing I do with the Sweden Democrats ahead of every election. I try and vet their local parties and see whether they're respectable or not. A vote at a national stage doesn't mean that one would endorse a local candidate. Especially in France a vote for the president really is a vote for the president and not the party.
She won't govern alone if she gets elected though. I don't want the Minister of the Interior or one of their advisors to be a Jean-Marie Le Pen 2.0.
Quote:
The fact that Macron is a Europhile sounding like Tim Farron is enough for me to decide he's not up for the job.
Although I have my reservations as to whether he's up for the job or not, being a europhile myself I obviously strongly disagree with this statement. It's refreshing having a candidate not blaming Europe for everything, from Islamism to the rainy start to spring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunno what to put here
Yes, fair point. Still wouldn't describe him as socialist - a word that at this point has lost all meaning due to repeated over/misuse.
I was only using the word strictly in a French context, where a socialist is someone that's in line with the policies of the socialist party. Though nowadays you would indeed be hard pressed to find a common denominator between its left and right wings. But yeah when you see how some people use the word on this board it obviously has different meanings from country to country. Pretty much all Europeans are fierce socialists since we support socialized healthcare.
In Finnish media Macron has been only called an 'independent liberal'. YLE has called him "a person who committed patricide", turning against Hollande.
Would an editor from Breitbart be better than Jean LePen II as an advisor?
US Socialist = enthusiastic supporter of Bernie Sanders? Or in the left-wing of the Democratic Party with a focus on economic issues? Or Whatever the earnest writers at Jacobin magazine support...
Someone started a Thermidor website! Pro-trump, don't think many read it
My impression of marine LePen is her policies aren't as extreme as some portray her, but her style is more appeals to fear than I'm comfortable with. Haven't followed carefully
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.
It's refreshing having a candidate not blaming Europe for everything, from Islamism to the rainy start to spring. 
