I agree 100% with her defense.. (Page 2/3)
williegoat MAR 24, 01:28 PM

quote
Originally posted by 2.5:


Couple thoughts

Sadly, people will probably believe the headlines regardless.

Doesnt it seem like there should be a law against lying about what someone said in a news headline?

Wouldn't suing for 1.3 billion bring this whole thing to actual court?



I am vehemently opposed to most any law that would restrict the press. It is up to each of us to find the truth.

Besides, it would be very difficult to write such a law without violating the first amendment.

edit: I see that rinselberg posted while I was composing my post. He said essentially the same thing in his last sentence. How very Libertarian!

[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 03-24-2021).]

sourmash MAR 24, 02:21 PM
Libertarians support White genocide because they wishing for and supporting open borders.

The Founders were Nationalists. Otherwise they wouldn't have requirements on birth of Presidents and Vice Presidents.

Now we have a Vice President that nobody wanted who is the first American born in her immediate family.
rinselberg MAR 24, 03:09 PM

quote
Originally posted by sourmash:

Libertarians support White genocide because they wishing for and supporting open borders.

The Founders were Nationalists. Otherwise they wouldn't have requirements on birth of Presidents and Vice Presidents.

Now we have a Vice President that nobody wanted who is the first American born in her immediate family.


So also, Nikki Haley. And Marco Rubio. Just two other names that come easily to my mind.
2.5 MAR 24, 03:24 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

1. "A [new] law against lying about what someone said in a news headline?"

Libel is already a legal concept.

I added "new" to make it say "new law", because that is the implication.

I think I'll pass on that suggestion.

2. Caveat emptor. It's up to each and every consumer of news or news-style media to decide what to do with their time and money and which of the (many) media brands and venues to favor with their patronage.




1. No.... that is not an implication. Let me clarify. We ABSOLUTELY do not need new laws for it. "Doesnt it seem like there should be a law" (somewhere), AS IN... isnt there a law.....AND WHY is it not enforced? A legal concept, apparently concepts alone don't seem to be doing much out in reality.
Any comments on that?
Can she sue for what they said, that she did not say, and win?

2. Did you seriously just suggest that if we stop watching the lies on the "news" they will stop lying? If only.

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 03-24-2021).]

sourmash MAR 24, 03:55 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

So also, Nikki Haley. And Marco Rubio. Just two other names that come easily to my mind.




I hate (yes, "hate"), them both.
williegoat MAR 24, 04:02 PM
The "freedom of the press" includes the freedom to lie. Each of us should take personal responsibility for what we believe.

For example: I believe that it is irresponsible to accept "revisionist history", such as Holocaust Denial or the theory that George Bush caused the attack on the Twin Towers. To disseminate such ideas is antisocial and destructive, but each has the freedom to do so.

Irresponsible behavior is what causes other, short sighted individuals to call for the abolition of our God given rights. We cannot have freedom without responsibility.

[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 03-24-2021).]

2.5 MAR 24, 04:23 PM

quote
Originally posted by williegoat:

The "freedom of the press" includes the freedom to lie. Each of us should take personal responsibility for what we believe.

For example: I believe that it is irresponsible to accept "revisionist history", such as Holocaust Denial or the theory that George Bush caused the attack on the Twin Towers. To disseminate such ideas is antisocial and destructive, but each has the freedom to do so.

Irresponsible behavior is what causes other, short sighted individuals to call for the abolition of our God given rights. We cannot have freedom without responsibility.




I do agree.
Perhaps certain wording use is my prob? I consider if someone can sue and win, then what the offender did was not "legal", because a court of law held up the lawsuit. Perhaps Illegal isnt the correct word? I don't think being able to sue and win restricts freedom of the press.
sourmash MAR 24, 04:27 PM

quote
Originally posted by williegoat:

The "freedom of the press" includes the freedom to lie. Each of us should take personal responsibility for what we believe.

For example: I believe that it is irresponsible to accept "revisionist history", such as Holocaust Denial or the theory that George Bush caused the attack on the Twin Towers. To disseminate such ideas is antisocial and destructive, but each has the freedom to do so.

Irresponsible behavior is what causes other, short sighted individuals to call for the abolition of our God given rights. We cannot have freedom without responsibility.




One specific historical event is illegal to dispute in many countries. Even when you make a truthful and provable statement about it, it is still illegal.
williegoat MAR 24, 05:50 PM

quote
Originally posted by 2.5:

I do agree.
Perhaps certain wording use is my prob? I consider if someone can sue and win, then what the offender did was not "legal", because a court of law held up the lawsuit. Perhaps Illegal isnt the correct word? I don't think being able to sue and win restricts freedom of the press.


Please don't take my post as a criticism of your opinions. I respect your ideas. I am just clarifying my position.

There are two prominent issues that are driving some to call for the erosion of our rights: "mass shootings" and "fake news".

We must not relinquish freedom because some antisocial individuals act irresponsibly. The problem lies with those individuals and the solution is obscured when we take the easy path and lay blame where it doesn't belong. We should not restrict gun ownership because some angry young man acts irresponsibly, nor should we restrict the press because CNN acts irresponsible.

Freedom, by its nature, has hazards. A chainsaw is a great tool and was indispensable when I worked for lumber companies, but it can be very dangerous if the operator acts irresponsibly.
rinselberg MAR 24, 06:07 PM
Just taking one of the CNN headlines as an example:

quote
Sidney Powell argues in new court filing that no reasonable people would believe her election fraud claims


That's the headline or banner at the top of the report. But the text of the report includes this:

quote
In a new court filing, Powell's attorneys write that she was sharing her "opinion" and that the public could reach "their own conclusions" about whether votes were changed by election machines.

"Given the highly charged and political context of the statements, it is clear that Powell was describing the facts on which she based the lawsuits she filed in support of President Trump," Powell's defense lawyers wrote in a court filing on Monday.

"Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves characterize the statements at issue as 'wild accusations' and 'outlandish claims.' They are repeatedly labelled 'inherently improbable' and even 'impossible.' Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants' position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process."


The headline was created by taking the first part of an assertion in the court filing from Sidney Powell's lawyers. But the text of the article provides the entire assertion.

Could Sidney Powell sue CNN for libel over this report?

It doesn't strike me as a winnable case for her.


"Sidney Powell argues in new court filing that no reasonable people would believe her election fraud claims"
Katelyn Polantz for CNN; March 23, 2021.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03...ion-fraud/index.html

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-24-2021).]