Lest We Forget the 'Victims'

[Whale biologist]

Originally Posted by unsunghero [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Boobs are way too big for me there. I like boobs, just not giant boobs

And if Nick got peanuts, why the NDA? I don't know legal proceedings, but it sounds like an NDA is something the defendant would set up, not the prosecuting person. Giving Nick peanuts is a clear victory for CNN, and if that was the case, why have an NDA then? Why not let the world see just how little he got and show off the victory?

That's my .02

That would be a lot of peanuts if people knew they could litigation troll CNN to get $X payout.

[unsunghero]

Originally Posted by Whale biologist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That would be a lot of peanuts if people knew they could litigation troll CNN to get $X payout.

Yeah but where’s the checks and balances?

Why not just claim Kyle was a pedophile too? Call him a woman beater. Call him a serial killer. Say he worshipped Satan?

I mean why not? CNN’s viewers would believe it, and there’s no consequence for it. I’m not calling for their de-platforming like when Alex Jones spread lies, but there should be a legal consequence for outright lies, especially about a non-public-figure. Otherwise there’s literally nothing to keep news agencies in check

Edit: it’s weird. It’s not legal to lie about a product. For example, I can’t claim my supplement cures cancer, I’ll get sued into the ground. But a company can lie about a person, no harm no foul

[Whale biologist]

Originally Posted by unsunghero [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah but where’s the checks and balances?

Why not just claim Kyle was a pedophile too? Call him a woman beater. Call him a serial killer. Say he worshipped Satan?

I mean why not? CNN’s viewers would believe it, and there’s no consequence for it. I’m not calling for their de-platforming like when Alex Jones spread lies, but there should be a legal consequence for outright lies, especially about a non-public-figure. Otherwise there’s literally nothing to keep news agencies in check

Edit: it’s weird. It’s not legal to lie about a product. For example, I can’t claim my supplement cures cancer, I’ll get sued into the ground. But a company can lie about a person, no harm no foul

I think if you let the state(or other organ) define lying as a carveout to the free speech right, then you wouldn't really have free speech anymore.

[Ooloo]

Originally Posted by Whale biologist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think if you let the state(or other organ) define lying as a carveout to the free speech right, then you wouldn't really have free speech anymore.

This is the right's beef with the censorious faction of the left, who just exchange the word lying for the word "misinformation". They invoke their mantra "Free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence" without ever defining what a "consequence" entails. Like no actually, free speech is supposed to mean exactly that.

You can play word games all the way to being North Korea. Can you criticize the Dear Leader? Well, of course you can! Therefor, North Korea has freedom of speech! But remember, that doesn't mean freedom from "consequence"!

[Jibartik]

I know everything about stypid kyle rittenhouse and I never once seeked any information whatosever.

I know what his mom looks like, what his sister
what he majored in in higshcool, what he wanted to be when he grew up
what his dad does for a living, his marital status, how kyle felt about it
where his dad lives where kyle lives where kyle worked

its fucking insane

I know jack shit about the guy who drove through a parade of people.

[robayon]

Originally Posted by unsunghero [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Edit: it’s weird. It’s not legal to lie about a product. For example, I can’t claim my supplement cures cancer, I’ll get sued into the ground. But a company can lie about a person, no harm no foul

Damn dude it's almost like this whole game is rigged against the little guy, and to protect companies and the wealthy people who control them, but surely a few little tweaks and jerks to the levers of power will fix these problems

[Jibartik]

Originally Posted by robayon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Damn dude it's almost like this whole game is rigged against the little guy, and to protect companies and the wealthy people who control them, but surely a few little tweaks and jerks to the levers of power will fix these problems

only way to stop it is to build a wall and fix ourselves.

cant fix the world.

[Whale biologist]

Originally Posted by Ooloo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is the right's beef with the censorious faction of the left, who just exchange the word lying for the word "misinformation". They invoke their mantra "Free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence" without ever defining what a "consequence" entails. Like no actually, free speech is supposed to mean exactly that.

You can play word games all the way to being North Korea. Can you criticize the Dear Leader? Well, of course you can! Therefor, North Korea has freedom of speech! But remember, that doesn't mean freedom from "consequence"!

Rights protect you from being judged criminal by the state(and jailed), not from civil liability. You need to be a pharmaceutical company for that! [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[unsunghero]

Originally Posted by Whale biologist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think if you let the state(or other organ) define lying as a carveout to the free speech right, then you wouldn't really have free speech anymore.

Well not the state. It's supposed to be the justice system. That's why slander/defamation lawsuits exist, it's just that they seem relatively impotent in their application

Hence giving companies free reign to profit (in CNN's case, viewership is profit when advertising) from lies about a non-public-figure, but not a product. I guess it's justified in that a product harms many people, while lying about a single person only harms that person and people that care about that person

[Whale biologist]

Originally Posted by unsunghero [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Well not the state. It's supposed to be the justice system.

Huh? Criminal courts are the state. What?