Topic: racism defamation law - page 3. (Read 602 times)
Racism is for snowflake people who can't accept that the world is not equal and if equality actually exist then why some people and children starves to death while on the other hand scums who doesn't deserve anything has everything they need. In reality humans are the most intelligent being in the world, who can't find joy in life without discrimination or violence.
You have to prove that a false statement about someone is actually false.
It's impossible to prove someone is or is not a racist.
"Joe is a KKK member, he is in charge of bringing bagels and coffee to the weekly meetings, and burns a cross in his yard every year on July 4th" <=== defamation
"Joe is a racist" <=== nope
It's impossible to prove someone is or is not a racist.
"Joe is a KKK member, he is in charge of bringing bagels and coffee to the weekly meetings, and burns a cross in his yard every year on July 4th" <=== defamation
"Joe is a racist" <=== nope
What is this specific law you are talking about? Anyway imho there should be harsher punishment for misrepresentation if it's a media company because they have too much power that even a retraction isn't enough to erase any misinformation they have spread.
The problem though is with today's cancel culture, even being accused of a non-crime such as racism is enough to destroy a person's life. We are seeing this with the poundmetoo movement. Touching someone's hand is not a crime but you can be portrayed as creep. People have actually lost jobs over it. There was one story about a guy who got fired when a female collegue at an out-of work-party overheard them ranking the women at work by looks. Of course the accusation is misogyny, a non-crime but the guy got fired anyway.
damaging some ones image is not defamation
snip
defamation has to be a reputation ruining task using lies, where it truly creates true hardship. like proper long term loss of income hardship
snip
defamation has to be a reputation ruining task using lies, where it truly creates true hardship. like proper long term loss of income hardship
The problem though is with today's cancel culture, even being accused of a non-crime such as racism is enough to destroy a person's life. We are seeing this with the poundmetoo movement. Touching someone's hand is not a crime but you can be portrayed as creep. People have actually lost jobs over it. There was one story about a guy who got fired when a female collegue at an out-of work-party overheard them ranking the women at work by looks. Of course the accusation is misogyny, a non-crime but the guy got fired anyway.
damaging some ones image is not defamation
damaging some ones reputation to such an extent it drastically affects them is..
by this i dont mean just a small negative review that sways a couple customers away from a restaurant. i dont mean saying someone smells and it stops someone getting a date with a woman on one ocassion.
i dont mean media saying one of their stories out of the millions they right are affecting their overall business
defamation has to be a reputation ruining task using lies, where it truly creates true hardship. like proper long term loss of income hardship
damaging some ones reputation to such an extent it drastically affects them is..
by this i dont mean just a small negative review that sways a couple customers away from a restaurant. i dont mean saying someone smells and it stops someone getting a date with a woman on one ocassion.
i dont mean media saying one of their stories out of the millions they right are affecting their overall business
defamation has to be a reputation ruining task using lies, where it truly creates true hardship. like proper long term loss of income hardship
why is there now law in the usa, that allows someone who has been accused of racism, to sue the defamer, if he is absolutely not racist?
many big american tv and newspapers like cnn nyt, washington journal constantly defame others of racism. why can't they be sued, easier
regards
many big american tv and newspapers like cnn nyt, washington journal constantly defame others of racism. why can't they be sued, easier
regards
Did you stop to think about it for one second before posting this thread?
Being racist isn't a crime, that's why.
When did CNN, NYT or Washington Journal defame others of racism? It may very well have happened, but you should at least provide an example before shitposting into the wind.
it is highly offence, and i am not talking about being racist, i am talking about accusing someone publicly of racism, because thats highly damaging for someone's image.
being racist is highly unpopular.
why is there now law in the usa, that allows someone who has been accused of racism, to sue the defamer, if he is absolutely not racist?
many big american tv and newspapers like cnn nyt, washington journal constantly defame others of racism. why can't they be sued, easier
regards
many big american tv and newspapers like cnn nyt, washington journal constantly defame others of racism. why can't they be sued, easier
regards
Did you stop to think about it for one second before posting this thread?
Being racist isn't a crime, that's why.
When did CNN, NYT or Washington Journal defame others of racism? It may very well have happened, but you should at least provide an example before shitposting into the wind.
defamation is not just about an insult.
its about a perceived wrongful insult that causes actual financial damage.
if i just called kingscorpio a rapist. its meaningless. but if a romour got around that caused kingscorpio to lose his job or his landlord evicted him. he may have a case.
however he has to show direct linkage that caused the landlord/employer to act. otherwise kingscorpio can only sue his landlord/employer for their opinion. as it was their opinion that caused the finaincial loss.
next if its deemed that its true. and the landlord did have the right to evict due to rapes caused by king scorpio. the landlord can then increase the landlords costs of having to attend court and any financially loss related to anything king scorpio for publiciing that his landlord is a bad landlord and a liar.
but again it has to show proper financial loss linked to the defamation
with media. for instance being racist to megan merkle.. megan can sue the news. but the news cant counter-sue her if they proved they are not racist. because they didnt lose anything.. for media even bad news is good profit. plus they have legal insurance so there wouldnt be costs
its about a perceived wrongful insult that causes actual financial damage.
if i just called kingscorpio a rapist. its meaningless. but if a romour got around that caused kingscorpio to lose his job or his landlord evicted him. he may have a case.
however he has to show direct linkage that caused the landlord/employer to act. otherwise kingscorpio can only sue his landlord/employer for their opinion. as it was their opinion that caused the finaincial loss.
next if its deemed that its true. and the landlord did have the right to evict due to rapes caused by king scorpio. the landlord can then increase the landlords costs of having to attend court and any financially loss related to anything king scorpio for publiciing that his landlord is a bad landlord and a liar.
but again it has to show proper financial loss linked to the defamation
with media. for instance being racist to megan merkle.. megan can sue the news. but the news cant counter-sue her if they proved they are not racist. because they didnt lose anything.. for media even bad news is good profit. plus they have legal insurance so there wouldnt be costs
Every group uses this argument to gain something by defaming and shaming their opponents into submission.
-women will use this argument against men
-gays and lesbians against straight people
-black people against white people
We could go on and on. It's one of those paradoxes where calling a black person black can offend them and white people somehow don't feel offended when they're called white... It's the same with Jews. Saying that someone is a Jew, even if it's true, can be taken as insult. It's a jungle out there.
-women will use this argument against men
-gays and lesbians against straight people
-black people against white people
We could go on and on. It's one of those paradoxes where calling a black person black can offend them and white people somehow don't feel offended when they're called white... It's the same with Jews. Saying that someone is a Jew, even if it's true, can be taken as insult. It's a jungle out there.
why is there now law in the usa, that allows someone who has been accused of racism, to sue the defamer, if he is absolutely not racist?
many big american tv and newspapers like cnn nyt, washington journal constantly defame others of racism. why can't they be sued, easier
regards
many big american tv and newspapers like cnn nyt, washington journal constantly defame others of racism. why can't they be sued, easier
regards
Jump to: