[Politics] Calls Have Been Made To Reopen Cases By "Central Park 5" Prosecutor

[gorfias]

While I don't want to make this about Coulter, the problem is, if she is writing true things, I do not know where else to find them such as [...]

She is not writing true things. She is, quite straightforwardly, an immense liar. You may as well be asking why the MSM isn't covering some blogger claiming the Royals are lizard people.

And no, there isn't any "big trouble" for lying. The right to lie is covered by the constitution. She is constantly called out, but the people who listen to her are not going to be convinced that she's not telling the truth.

There are laws against defamation. If you falsely accuse someone of a felony, you do not even need to show damages to win awards against that person. Particularly if they are private persons.

While I don't want to make this about Coulter, the problem is, if she is writing true things, I do not know where else to find them such as

If she's saying true things, why can't you find anyone else saying them?

She would write that it is due to a biased main stream media and corporate narratives.

But, I'll take a look for those specific accusations, not attributed to her column, elsewhere too.

If these particular things are lies, were I one of the 5? I'd sue the hell out of her.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Ann Coulter is a racist.

Honestly, I think Ann Coulter might be insane. And a racist.

I think racism is insane.

Isn't she just Milo in a dress? I don't believe she believes a tenth of the things she says but she keeps the facade going cause it's hilarious and sells her books.

 

[Silvanus]

There are laws against defamation. If you falsely accuse someone of a felony, you do not even need to show damages to win awards against that person. Particularly if they are private persons.

For that, the plaintiff would have to establish negligence or malice, which is notoriously hard to do (and where countless claims against media figures and outlets fail).

Defamation in the US is far more defendent-friendly than in most other countries.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Ann Coulter is a racist.

Honestly, I think Ann Coulter might be insane. And a racist.

I think racism is insane.

Isn't she just Milo in a dress? I don't believe she believes a tenth of the things she says but she keeps the facade going cause it's hilarious and sells her books.

I don't think anyone finds it funny, other than bigoted idiots that already believe her.

But you're right that it sells merchandise

Those who believe her would not find it funny, they'd find it serious and concerning, as the things I've heard her say would rightly worry someone to death were one to believe them for real.

Only when you see it as absurdist and as a caricature of the most extreme of positions does it ever end up being funny. Like the whole "we should kill the leaders of every Muslim country and convert them to Christianity " business. The sheer absurdity illicits nothing but an amused chuckle but if you really thought you had to go do that you'd be beside yourself with worry.

 

[gorfias]

There are laws against defamation. If you falsely accuse someone of a felony, you do not even need to show damages to win awards against that person. Particularly if they are private persons.

For that, the plaintiff would have to establish negligence or malice, which is notoriously hard to do (and where countless claims against media figures and outlets fail).

Defamation in the US is far more defendent-friendly than in most other countries.

Thankfully as there is a pro establishment danger as to who is arguiging what constitutes malice. Just seems in this case, there would easily be a malice charge if untrue.

What is happening w/ youtube/ facebook deserves its own thread.

 

[Silvanus]

Thankfully as there is a pro establishment danger as to who is arguiging what constitutes malice. Just seems in this case, there would easily be a malice charge if untrue.

You're missing the point-- a statement being false, even demonstrably false, is not enough.

Factual error, content defamatory of official reputation, or both, are insufficient to warrant an award of damages for false statements unless "actual malice" -- knowledge that statements are false or in reckless disregard of the truth -- is alleged and proved.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/254/

So, it would need to be proved that Coulter knew what she was saying was untrue. That's an exceptionally hard standard to reach.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

Ann Coulter is a racist.

Honestly, I think Ann Coulter might be insane. And a racist.

The Coultergeist will do anything to be relevant anymore, since even Trump kicked her out of the conservative cool kids clique.

 

[gorfias]

Thankfully as there is a pro establishment danger as to who is arguiging what constitutes malice. Just seems in this case, there would easily be a malice charge if untrue.

You're missing the point-- a statement being false, even demonstrably false, is not enough.

Factual error, content defamatory of official reputation, or both, are insufficient to warrant an award of damages for false statements unless "actual malice" -- knowledge that statements are false or in reckless disregard of the truth -- is alleged and proved.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/254/

So, it would need to be proved that Coulter knew what she was saying was untrue. That's an exceptionally hard standard to reach.

If someone publishes a "fact" they knew or should have known was false, in context, it can create a rebuttable presumption that that person wanted to harm a Plaintiff's reputation. If you punch me in the face, I can intuit you meant to harm me. Maybe you were trying to swat a fly away from me. Then I'd have to win by a preponderance of the evidence.

I concede, with all the fake news flying around, it (successful prosecution of defamation cases) isn't happening often.

 

[Silvanus]

If someone publishes a "fact" they knew or should have known was false, in context, it can create a rebuttable presumption that that person wanted to harm a Plaintiff's reputation. If you punch me in the face, I can intuit you meant to harm me. Maybe you were trying to swat a fly away from me. Then I'd have to win by a preponderance of the evidence.

I concede, with all the fake news flying around, it (successful prosecution of defamation cases) isn't happening often.

The point is that it needs to be proven that they knew it was false. That is not assumed, and falsity is not enough.

I'm sure you can recognise how difficult that is to prove beyond reasonable doubt.