OT: Rittenhouse shot "three black men" - apparently! (2023 Update)

bitrex = f****it wrote: ==================

** What a load of f****ng desperate drivel. ** Don't matter. The context defines the intended meaning.

In this case, the clear imputation was that Kyle deserved to go to jail for life. A massive, criminal defamation.

...... Phil

Actually they are. Under English law, this publication is generally cited in court as to precisely what and what is not defamatory (this is a *very* old edition judging by how slim it is) -

I find it impossible to believe that the US courts don't have their own equivalent (although granted I believe in the US it's necessary to prove malice in the statement made which is not the case in England). --

"The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality."

- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels

There's links to the relevant US case history in the ACLU link I posted. Anyway, the court system tends to deal with what was actually said, not what anyone "imputed." Who the f*ck knows what an American is thinking exactly when he says something? I sure don't but I'm not a mind-reader.

Joe Biden himself has been called a white supremacist before so why anyone would immediately assume him calling someone else that imputed he wanted anyone to go to jail for life IDK...in his own words, "we got things done." Perhaps he should send himself to jail for life! That'd sure be different eh!

bitrex = f****it wrote: ==================

** What a f****ng, pig ignorant idea.

In any defamation case the WHOLE issue revolves around " defamatory imputations". What the words implied about the defamed party in the minds of others.

Look it up - f*****ad.

...... Phil

With respect to claims that can be shown to be true, or false. There's no way to show whether the claim "he is a white supremacist" is true or false. What makes you think a court would just assume he isn't one? They won't assume that. A s*****ad white supremacist might assume a court would just take him at his word that he's actually an upstanding citizen, it won't.

Nobody cares about what is implied about the defamed party in the minds of others unless it's with respect to something that can be shown to be untrue in the first place or the statement is defamation per se, and what was said is definitely not defamation per se. It's not even a crime to be one.

Opinions are protected speech here. f*ck off.

Waah waah someone said a mean thing, let's run to the State to help like a little bitch running to mommy.

They won't help, not here.

The real crime with American media is they almost universally expect you to pay to watch/read it, instead of the reverse.

I wanted to watch the Red Sox lose to the Astros and it's never been harder to just watch a game than it is now, it's all paywalled to hell and gone with a few captive providers and who would ever pay them for a subscription.

Fox was carrying it online and they give you a free 1 hour trial so I watched it for an hour and then just repasted the link to the free trial in a Chrome incognito window thinking "no way this is gonna work" and it worked fine, what a bunch of dumb-dumbs.

You could probably just write a script to automate that and get infinite sports TV until they figure it out.

I haven't used them for a while but you might still be able to stream Fox TV with these links. Also other U.S. channels too.

Looks like those are for Fox News (ick), but in the US they have a number of other channels that carry live sports etc. that you can only watch online if you have like a cable TV provider login, or subscribe to one of those online service like Hulu, Fubo, Sling, YouTubeTV, and probably pay some additional monthly fee, I haven't checked.

bitrex = RAVING LUNATIC wrote: ===========================

** That is a problem for the defamer - to prove their claim is true. Truth is a defense in defamation law. ** Fucking stupid garbage. > What makes you think a court would just assume he isn't one? ** They have to, cos they cannot assume otherwise. ** More f****ng stupid garbage. Accusers must prove their claims in court. ** But is is a crime to be a murderer - as Kyle was called many times in the MSM.

Also breaking the law of "sub judice contempt".

** ROTFL - not when it is a serious defamation of a person.

...... Phil

They assume nothing, there is no "presumption of innocence" in civil law in the US. The person claiming defamation denies the allegation, but the court doesn't intrinsically believe him or the other guy, either.

Then let them him sue them over that and good luck, I don't mind.

But the statement "he is a white supremacist" is an opinion. It imputes nothing further anyone can agree on, definitely not "the clear imputation was that Kyle deserved to go to jail for life." Huh? I don't think it implies that, where did that come from? There are thousands of self-described ones walking around free all day here.

Some people think being one is bad. Some people think being one is great. so what. It doesn't imply anything other than "he's a bad person" in the minds of _some_ people. As you know, being a "bad person" isn't a crime.

bitrex = RAVING LUNATIC wrote: ===========================

** Just what I posted.

When filing a defamation action, the applicant must list the imputations that are false. Then the respondent needs to show otherwise.

** Criminal offence.

You have no mind .

** A defamatory one.

It imputes nothing further anyone can agree on,

** Utter garbage - it has several clear and very negative meanings. ** It was a clear jury instruction by implication. Vote to acquit and you are letting a vile, white racist and murderer go free.

Some as saying EXACTLY that RIGHT NOW !!! ===================================

...... Phil

So do the terms "communist" and "cultural Marxist", but it doesn't matter. I'm not surprised you can't see the corollary, though.

Some say, life here, began out there...far across the Universe...

It is rather appalling.

Just to arbitrarily pick one of the infinitely repeated disinformation tidbits, there is the lie that it was "not his community" and he had no business being there (were the rioter's quals checked?).

"[H]is father, grandmother, aunt, uncle, cousins and best friend live in Kenosha. He had a job as a lifeguard in Kenosha and worked a shift on Aug. 25 before helping clean graffiti left by rioters at a local school." --

There's the "mom drove him" and "crossed state lines with a weapon" lies too. There's the white supremacist smear. It goes on and on. It is an ever-flowing sewer main.

bitrex = RAVING LUNATIC wrote: =======================

** LOL - I win - yet again.

The sites offer other live U.S. channels too. I used Fox in the links because that what you mentioned.

I have no idea if a defamation suit could be successful. In the US it mostly hinges on whether Rittenhouse has become a public figure, as the barrier becomes much more difficult for public figures.

But mostly, I wanted to point out the utter duplicity and incoherence regarding the term "white supremacist" that we have just witnessed. You're totally right that it is "defamatory and has ... very negative meaning." They would not be smearing people with the label if it didn't.

Out one side of Democrat mouths is "white supremacy is a huge thing in the US ... IT MUST BE FOUGHT! Call in the FBI and DOJ!"

Then, we see like we do here, when pressed "It imputes nothing further anyone can agree on." So, it is a horrible thing that we must sick the Federal cops on, and also not much of anything at all. All at the same time. It's amazing. lol

I have seen this nonsense elsewhere with high frequency. It isn't unique to Bitter. He's just getting from his leaders.

You've confused words for the actual thing. The words "white supremacist" are just words. Whether anyone in particular is one or isn't because someone says they are, isn't a true/false decision that can be determined by a court. A court can't determine if anyone is actually "communist" or a "cultural Marxist", either, the terms aren't well-defined.

More like long legal precedent in the US court system, not that "true patriots" here have much use for that stuff when it doesn't give them what they want, either.

That is to say they are a bunch of f****ng frauds.

** So what should you do? ** Bullshit, public figures are MORE likely to suffer from defamation and Kyle is NOT one.

... very negative meaning." They would not be smearing people with the label if it didn't.

** Correct.

It a real cheap shot that is hard for the victim to disprove. But defamation law does not require them to do that.

..... Phil