Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dunamisdeos]

If I'm not mistaken the gov can bring charges for slander if you can prove damages from it. Since that generally means that you are trying to prove real damages from hearsay of a hearsay etc etc, it's almost impossible to prove and therefore the charge isn't usually brought.

[hector13]

So... seeing as how Roy Moore was favourite for the election, he could bring slander (and presumably libel) charges against the women and publications that said/printed the “lies” they were spreading about him?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

And as a controversial public figure, the standards of both of those things are going to be raised substantially. If you go around putting up flyers of your neighbor's face calling him a child rapist because he lets his FUCKING BRANCHES grow over your fenceline, that's a lot more harmful and a lot easier to prove malicious. Your neighbor is a nobody and now 100% of their public exposure is as a child rapist. But a politician will probably have some people who believe any particular thing about them. There are surely some people who believe Roy Moore is the reincarnation of John the Baptist who will hail Christ Returned, as there are some who believe he's a child rapist, as there are some who believe he's a Russian agent, as there are some who think he's a good person.

So proving actual maliciousness is pretty much impossible, the only way you could do it is if you had recorded evidence of news executives cackling about how they're going to make sure Roy Moore goes down as a child rapist even though he's just a humble man of god, and his accusers cheering in response.

[Loud Whispers]

And as a controversial public figure, the standards of both of those things are going to be raised substantially. If you go around putting up flyers of your neighbor's face calling him a child rapist because he lets his FUCKING BRANCHES grow over your fenceline, that's a lot more harmful and a lot easier to prove malicious. Your neighbor is a nobody and now 100% of their public exposure is as a child rapist. But a politician will probably have some people who believe any particular thing about them. There are surely some people who believe Roy Moore is the reincarnation of John the Baptist who will hail Christ Returned, as there are some who believe he's a child rapist, as there are some who believe he's a Russian agent, as there are some who think he's a good person.

So proving actual maliciousness is pretty much impossible, the only way you could do it is if you had recorded evidence of news executives cackling about how they're going to make sure Roy Moore goes down as a child rapist even though he's just a humble man of god, and his accusers cheering in response.

The West in a nutshell

[SalmonGod]

And as a controversial public figure, the standards of both of those things are going to be raised substantially. If you go around putting up flyers of your neighbor's face calling him a child rapist because he lets his FUCKING BRANCHES grow over your fenceline, that's a lot more harmful and a lot easier to prove malicious. Your neighbor is a nobody and now 100% of their public exposure is as a child rapist. But a politician will probably have some people who believe any particular thing about them. There are surely some people who believe Roy Moore is the reincarnation of John the Baptist who will hail Christ Returned, as there are some who believe he's a child rapist, as there are some who believe he's a Russian agent, as there are some who think he's a good person.

So proving actual maliciousness is pretty much impossible, the only way you could do it is if you had recorded evidence of news executives cackling about how they're going to make sure Roy Moore goes down as a child rapist even though he's just a humble man of god, and his accusers cheering in response.

The West in a nutshell

I kinda miss Tom Green.  He could be brilliant at times.

[origamiscienceguy]

I think there is also a clause somewhere in the constitution (or one of the amendments) that makes you immune from charges of slander while in the heat of debate... or something like that.

[smjjames]

I think there is also a clause somewhere in the constitution (or one of the amendments) that makes you immune from charges of slander while in the heat of debate... or something like that.

I really doubt that's actually a thing, maybe you're thinking of the 5th? That's completely different.

[sluissa]

I think there is also a clause somewhere in the constitution (or one of the amendments) that makes you immune from charges of slander while in the heat of debate... or something like that.

I really doubt that's actually a thing, maybe you're thinking of the 5th? That's completely different.

There's a sometimes held rule that things said in the course of litigation (i.e. in a court setting) can't be used as part of a defamation case. That might be what's being thought of. There's very little to go on other than a few supreme court rulings with regards to defamation on the federal level. So you'd need to go to Alabama laws and precedent.

In Alabama there are defamation laws, but for people in the public eye, they're pretty strict. Moore would have to prove that the women are lying and that the lying is on purpose and with malice. Not impossible, if the proper evidence can be found. But not easy after such a time period has passed.

[Helgoland]

So let me ask the obvious question: Could the Dreamers now sue Comey?

[Loud Whispers]

So you guys know about swatting rite
Well swatting is fucked up and happens hundreds of times every year internationally, but for possibly the first time an innocent dude has died over it

[smjjames]

So you guys know about swatting rite
Well swatting is fucked up and happens hundreds of times every year internationally, but for possibly the first time an innocent dude has died over it

I've definetly heard of it, yes, but I don't think it's the first time someone got killed over it.

Seems more WTF thread worthy than politics though.

[Loud Whispers]

I've definetly heard of it, yes, but I don't think it's the first time someone got killed over it.

Seems more WTF thread worthy than politics though.

Nah, I only say possibly because there may have been an unknown case, but as far as the FBI know, this is the first death

The potentially devastating prank method has in recent years gained particular popularity among players of first-person shooter games such as Call of Duty and the FBI estimates that some 400 cases occur annually. But Thursday's tragic hoax might be the first time anyone has been killed as a consequence.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/unarmed-kan-man-killed-cops-victim-swatting-prank-article-1.3726171

[redwallzyl]

I wonder if the idiot who swatted that guy can be charged with manslaghter.

[smjjames]

The article does say that if the guys account is accurate, there could be another arrest of the person who commissioned the harrassment.

[Rolan7]

There's also the intended target of the swatting, who provided a false address while daring his opponent to do something with it.  He bears some blame for this as well.