Do Republicans know what defamation/libel is?

[msquared]

Palin lost with the jury and the judge.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/jury-rejects-sarah-palins-libel-claim-against-the-new-york-times-201149490.html

Let's see how the Dominion and Smartmatic suites fare.  I think they will go in favor of Dominion and Smartmatic.

[LetterRip]

Palin had two high bars - proving actual malicious intent is extremely difficult (and I think lacking in this case).  Also there appear to be no actual damages.  So she lacks 2 of the 4 parts required to prove libel.

[cherrypoptart]

It's still not a good look for the media and their credibility when everyone sees cases like these which prove our laws let them lie about Republicans with total impunity. We see with shoplifting now that when the law lets people do things with impunity, they will do them all day long and come back tomorrow for more. We see that with the media too with their constant lies about conservatives. Since the law will do nothing and everyone knows it, knows that it's perfectly legal for the media to lie, the only thing left is not to trust a word they say.

And that's what many are doing. And then people scratch their heads, confused about why trust in so called journalists is so low, on par with trust in the claims of women and their lawyers in family court, another venue in which lying with impunity is both common and encouraged by the law, or lack of it.

[TheDrake]

No, there are not constant lies about conservatives. Prove me wrong.

[TheDrake]

No, there are not constant lies about conservatives. Prove me wrong.

Let me elaborate. Constant means you better not dredge some sort from 2020. Constant means continuous.

Nor is an opinion a lie. By definition a lie must be a provable false statement.

Nor is a statement made in error a lie. I've been consistent about this when people accuse Trump of lying.

[cherrypoptart]

Trump collusion with Russia to steal the 2020 election. I know you said don't bring up 2020 but this lie went on for years and maybe most Democrats still believe it today. I hear in the news even on NPR about how it's lucky we have Biden in office who will stand up to Putin unlike Trump, never mind the obvious fact that this latest Russian aggression is happening under Biden instead of Trump. The lies are constant, and a new one for instance is CRT not being taught in public schools and so it's just racist Republicans not wanting history to be taught who are against what's happening when the truth is there are people on both sides, on all sides, who think it's wrong to teach any race of kids that they're inherently evil for the crimes of people who share their skin color. Critical Race Theory: You have to be critical of a race of people and start by scolding their children.

[Wayward Son]

But you have to remember, cherry, that CRT does NOT teach that any race of kids are inherently evil and to scold those children.  That is only what those who don't understand CRT says it teaches. 

Critical race theory is an academic concept that is more than 40 years old. The core idea is that race is a social construct, and that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies.

The basic tenets of critical race theory, or CRT, emerged out of a framework for legal analysis in the late 1970s and early 1980s created by legal scholars Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and Richard Delgado, among others.

A good example is when, in the 1930s, government officials literally drew lines around areas deemed poor financial risks, often explicitly due to the racial composition of inhabitants. Banks subsequently refused to offer mortgages to Black people in those areas.

Today, those same patterns of discrimination live on through facially race-blind policies, like single-family zoning that prevents the building of affordable housing in advantaged, majority-white neighborhoods and, thus, stymies racial desegregation efforts.

CRT also has ties to other intellectual currents, including the work of sociologists and literary theorists who studied links between political power, social organization, and language. And its ideas have since informed other fields, like the humanities, the social sciences, and teacher education.

I suspect that what many people find objectionable about CRT is that it shows that racism is not just hating another race and that it is baked-in to many laws that we still have.  IOW, that racism isn't dead in this country and still needs to be addressed.

But, because Republicans are such a bunch of liars, they keep repeating their version of CRT until people believe it--and then vote for them. 

[LetterRip]

Trump collusion with Russia to steal the 2020 election. I know you said don't bring up 2020 but this lie went on for years and maybe most Democrats still believe it today.

It isn't a lie, I literally just posted evidence of it from the Mueller report.  It is thoroughly documented that Trump and Russians colluded.  What Mueller claims is that the actions didn't rise to the level 'criminal conspiracy' - in one particular case because he couldn't prove that the individuals involved knew that their actions were illegal.

You seem to believe false propaganda readily and contrary to all evidence.

[jc44]

Trump collusion with Russia to steal the 2020 election. I know you said don't bring up 2020 but this lie went on for years and maybe most Democrats still believe it today.

Just so I'm on the same page as everyone else, I thought that the allegation was that the Trump team talked to the Russians before the 2016 election and so that was the one that was "stolen". Yes, from a UK perspective, Trump seemed to have a possibly unhealthy admiration for strongman Putin and was not averse to using his contacts to stir up trouble for his enemies (lets not call them opponents - that implies some sort of respect), but I hadn't really heard that he'd tried to use Russia to steal 2020. Putin likes to stir up trouble abroad, and it seems very likely that he prefers Trump to Biden so any interference was likely independent though I can't see Trump going out of his way to prevent it.

[cherrypoptart]

"That is only what those who don't understand CRT says it teaches."

I suppose that includes the teachers who think they are teaching CRT when they instill in the belief of the children under their care that whites are evil so that little white girls literally come home crying to their momma. They don't understand the "real CRT" and have twisted it, kind of like the violent jihadi Muslims and the imams who preach death or dhimmitude to the infidel don't understand the "real Islam".

----------------------------------------------

On Trump colluding with Russia, well at least we can apparently agree that many if not most Democrats still believe that Trump did collude with Russia to steal the election. I'll take whatever common ground I can find.

[cherrypoptart]

LetterRip

"It isn't a lie, I literally just posted evidence of it from the Mueller report.  It is thoroughly documented that Trump and Russians colluded."

You say they colluded. Granted, they colluded. Talking with people is colluding with them. People talk to each other and collude all the time. There's nothing wrong with that. I don't think anybody doubts there was communication between Trump people and Russian people. It would be totally bizarre if there wasn't.

But was it collusion to steal the election? There's the rub.

 

[yossarian22c]

----------------------------------------------

On Trump colluding with Russia, well at least we can apparently agree that many if not most Democrats still believe that Trump did collude with Russia to steal the election. I'll take whatever common ground I can find.

Several members of Trump's team coordinated his campaign with Russia in violation of election laws. The Trump tower meeting was one such incident, but there were others with Roger Stone and Manafort sharing polling data, coordinating the timing of the hacked DNC emails, and the Trump campaign's connection to  Cambridge Analytica. 

Did it have a material impact on the outcome of the election? Unlikely. Did he coordinate with the KGB to hack voting machines and manipulate the vote totals? No. Was the election 2016 election stolen? No.

But the Russia story wasn't and isn't a hoax.

[TheDrake]

instill in the belief of the children under their care that whites are evil so that little white girls literally come home crying to their momma.

Wrong tense. Whites were evil, but not all of them. Kids wouldn't have such a shock if the parents weren't out there worshipping Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jefferson, and taught them the nuance that while the might have achieved some good things, the real takeaway is that they whipped human beings or had them whipped on their behalf. Nobody as far as I know is teaching kids that Abraham Lincoln was a bad guy.

[msquared]

No one except some people in the south who believe he started the War of Northern Agression.

[Wayward Son]

"That is only what those who don't understand CRT says it teaches."

I suppose that includes the teachers who think they are teaching CRT when they instill in the belief of the children under their care that whites are evil so that little white girls literally come home crying to their momma. They don't understand the "real CRT" and have twisted it, kind of like the violent jihadi Muslims and the imams who preach death or dhimmitude to the infidel don't understand the "real Islam".

If they are, then you are correct, they don't understand CRT either.

But then that brings up the question, where did they get that idea that it did?    It's not on the syllabus; it's not in the instructions on how to teach CRT; in fact, there are no instructions to teach CRT because it's too complex to teach little children.  So if it is not officially taught as part of the curriculum, exactly how do you propose to ban it? 

And that's the problem with banning CRT.  Since it is not part of CRT (or the curriculum), you end up having to ban talking about the whole subject, in order to prevent some teachers (and I really do question how many--anyone under 45-years-old here have a memory of being traumatized for being an evil white kid, or seen someone who was? ) who may teach it inappropriately.  Or, actually, in order to prevent some parents to complain about it, whether it is happening or not. 

So in order to prevent the teaching of a subject that is not taught in elementary or junior high schools, you are proposing to prevent the teaching of an entire part of American history to prevent some teachers from teaching it wrong and hurting the feelings of some students.  You are proposing to white wash a hugely important part of American history.  And who do you think profits from such a white wash?  Those who were oppressed, and continue to be oppressed by lousy attitudes and lousy laws, or those who benefit from such oppression?    And why would anyone think it is good to oppress any segment of our population?

[msquared]

I saw a comment somewhere that the problem with how we have taught slavery in the past is that we taught it as a black issue and not a white issue.  Basically that Black people were enslaved, not White people enslaved Black people. 
And I know there were probably some black people who owned slaves, which misses the point.

[TheDrake]

The truth is that we SHOULD be ashamed of what most of the white population went along with. Even those who didn't own slaves. Do you think that Germans should stop teaching their kids about the holocaust? The only reason that we aren't talking about racism being in the past, is because it isn't in the past. Racial profiling is not only still around, but on the rise, and justified by many of the parents of these kids. They aren't worried about the kids feeling bad about themselves, I suspect. They are worried that the kids will come home and realize their parents are racists.

Kids don't need to be fed a myth about equality and the big melting pot and systemic fairness.

[Fenring]

No, there are not constant lies about conservatives. Prove me wrong.

Let me elaborate. Constant means you better not dredge some sort from 2020. Constant means continuous.

Nor is an opinion a lie. By definition a lie must be a provable false statement.

Nor is a statement made in error a lie. I've been consistent about this when people accuse Trump of lying.

Here's an article written by what sometimes used to be considered a decent site:

https://www.salon.com/2022/02/18/threatens-hillary-clinton-with-all-over-again--and-nobody-seems-to-care/

Here is the claim at the top of the article:

Donald Trump, the former president of the United States and political crime boss of the Republican Party, continues to threaten his "enemies" with lethal violence — and at this point his enemies include anyone who opposes him, or stands in his way.

And what was it that Trump said, inspiring this claim?

The latest pleading from Special Counsel Robert Durham provides indisputable evidence that my campaign and presidency were spied on by operatives paid by the Hillary Clinton Campaign in an effort to develop a completely fabricated connection to Russia

This is a scandal far greater in scope and magnitude than Watergate and those who were involved in and knew about this spying operation should be subject to criminal prosecution. In a stronger period of time in our country, this crime would have been punishable by death. In addition, reparations should be paid to those in our country who have been damaged by this.

So the article is saying flat-out that Trump is threatening his opponents with death, whereas his actual comment is that traitors used to be hanged for their crimes, but now there is apparently no penalty. First of all his is suggesting that the system should punish (perhaps severely punish) this sort of illegal activity. Not him personally, but the justice system. Second of all, he's not evening saying Hillary should be executed, but rather highlighting the severity of the crime in contrast to how it's being treated, and drawing what is in his view a parallel with how things were in the past. So the claim that he is threatening his enemies, based on this quote alone, is a flat-out lie (not even a spin, but just a lie), and the secondary claim the article makes that, "and at this point his enemies include anyone who opposes him, or stands in his way" implies pretty directly that Trump threatens anyone who opposes him with death, which is not only a baseless statement but is probably grounds for a pretty serious libel suit.

But what does the article follow Trump's quote with?

Donald Trump is literally threatening Hillary Clinton and her campaign staff with death. Trump's followers are listening closely.

It says he is "literally" threatening Hillary with death. It's pretty interesting that it's telling you what you conclude and telling you what plain English means, almost as if it's not the job of the reader to reach their own conclusions. Not that this is anything unusual in 'journalism' these days.

So anyhow here's an example of the type of nonsense we got to hear from media sources during Trump's entire presidency, and I curse them all for making me repeatedly defend Trump when really it's the last thing I'd like to do. But I will stand against lies no matter who they're told about.

[TheDrake]

Literally is a bit much. It's over the top. Calling it a lie? I'm not so sure. Isn't it likely that the author believes that Trump is threating death, when he mentioned death adjacent to a public figure? Who else does that? This is not normative behavior, and it deserves to be scorned.

The measures were imposed by the CIA’s Security Protective Service, which monitored thousands of threats across social media and Internet chat rooms. Over time, a pattern emerged: Violent messages surged each time the analyst was targeted in tweets or public remarks by the president.

So Trump didn't say to his followers "go forth and kill this whistleblower", but his rhetoric inspires it.

I don't believe that GWB inspired the same kind of behavior, because he didn't strike the angry bone like Trump does.

Calling someone a traitor can get the target killed, regardless of whether it is a vigilante or "the system". This "thing" didn't used to get punished with death and it shouldn't even enter the discussion. Or maybe Trump thought Nixon should have been in front of a firing squad also.

Let's also understand that my challenge was that there are "constant lies about conservatives" which can't be proven even if there are constant lies about Trump.

The conversation started with Palin, and the judgement of the court was that it was an inaccurate report but not at all a "proven lie"

[Fenring]

Literally is a bit much. It's over the top. Calling it a lie? I'm not so sure. Isn't it likely that the author believes that Trump is threating death, when he mentioned death adjacent to a public figure? Who else does that? This is not normative behavior, and it deserves to be scorned.

Dude, it's a flat out lie. Unless you say "I will kill you" it is not a death threat. In this case it's not even a death implication. It's a comparison of severity between crimes and punishments, with "zero" being the current punishment and death being the most severe. Only a reading comprehension of zero could interpret his statement to imply he intends to carry out Hillary's execution, or even that he's hoping someone else will.

The measures were imposed by the CIA’s Security Protective Service, which monitored thousands of threats across social media and Internet chat rooms. Over time, a pattern emerged: Violent messages surged each time the analyst was targeted in tweets or public remarks by the president.

So Trump didn't say to his followers "go forth and kill this whistleblower", but his rhetoric inspires it.

This in no way implies a death threat. In fact I think you'd find it's surprisingly easy to get people to make death threats. Basically if you tar and feather anyone publicly there's enough sickos out there that they'll receive threats. Call JK Rowling a TERF and she receives ample death threats. You don't need to actually call for her death, only to make people hate her enough and they will want her dead. The same is true in many other cases. So the evidence in the U.S. culture would suggest that simply calling negative attention to someone (presumably where people will agree) is enough to generate extreme anger and threats. This is not a valid way to reverse-engineer the assumption that Trump threatened Hillary.

I don't believe that GWB inspired the same kind of behavior, because he didn't strike the angry bone like Trump does.

It was a different era. There were no twitter mobs back then, no chasing politicians into restaurants. And as much as left-wingers hated Bush they didn't want him arrested on a daily basis. Which is actually quite remarkable when you compare his official presidential actions with Trump's (not their rhetoric, which is miles apart).

Calling someone a traitor can get the target killed, regardless of whether it is a vigilante or "the system". This "thing" didn't used to get punished with death and it shouldn't even enter the discussion. Or maybe Trump thought Nixon should have been in front of a firing squad also.

I mean, I don't personally like this calling people out in public thing in any manner, so I'm not really going to disagree. But insofar as Trump is (in his mind) making a real charge, it seems to me it's not wrong to say someone is a traitor (in principle) if you really think they are. I mean, imagine the converse situation: a real traitor is around, and you know it, but you're debarred from saying so out loud because of...politeness?

Let's also understand that my challenge was that there are "constant lies about conservatives" which can't be proven even if there are constant lies about Trump.

Haha well I'll accept this distinction, partially because I never believed Trump was a conservative in the first place.

[TheDrake]

Dude, it's a flat out lie. Unless you say "I will kill you" it is not a death threat. In this case it's not even a death implication. It's a comparison of severity between crimes and punishments, with "zero" being the current punishment and death being the most severe. Only a reading comprehension of zero could interpret his statement to imply he intends to carry out Hillary's execution, or even that he's hoping someone else will.

You got a real nice shop here. Be a shame if something happened to it.

Threats don't have to be explicit. He didn't tell his followers to hang Mike Pence either, but I don't believe those gallows would have been constructed except for his rhetoric about Mike.

Yes, Rowling and others get death threats. So did probably every American president. They aren't usually inspired by an American president. I stipulated that using "literally" is wrong. But I wouldn't have any problem if they wrote "Trump is inspiring death threats by bringing up executions"

Traitors used to be put to death. Hillary is a traitor.

It's not such a stretch to think that those dots are going to be connected.

How do you imagine the right wing press would handle it if Biden called Trump a traitor and offhandedly reminded people that this is punishable by death?

By the way, his statement itself is a falsehood. Washington pardoned the leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion, Adams did the same.
John Brown was the first traitor to be executed in 1859.

In fact the execution of traitors is limited to the civil war. The others were imprisoned, pardoned or fled.

But Trump does love his executions. There hadn't been a federal execution in the seventeen years prior before his doj went on a tear with thirteen of them that only ended on Inauguration Day.

[Fenring]

I know you can hedge on the 'what Trump really meant' argument (i.e. to incite people to make the association or not), but what about the article's follow-up claim that Trump "continues to threaten his "enemies" with lethal violence — and at this point his enemies include anyone who opposes him, or stands in his way." You think this is also a fair interpretation of Trump's public statements, i.e. that he has been regularly threatening his "enemies" with death?

[LetterRip]

I know you can hedge on the 'what Trump really meant' argument (i.e. to incite people to make the association or not), but what about the article's follow-up claim that Trump "continues to threaten his "enemies" with lethal violence — and at this point his enemies include anyone who opposes him, or stands in his way." You think this is also a fair interpretation of Trump's public statements, i.e. that he has been regularly threatening his "enemies" with death?

I think he regularly tries to induce his supporters to threaten or engage in actual violence against those who oppose him.  He wants people who oppose him intimidated.  It has been a very successful tactic with death threats against those he expresses ire at skyrocketing after his statements attacking particular individuals.

[Fenring]

I think he regularly tries to induce his supporters to threaten or engage in actual violence against those who oppose him.  He wants people who oppose him intimidated.  It has been a very successful tactic with death threats against those he expresses ire at skyrocketing after his statements attacking particular individuals.

This seems to be a circular argument: in order to demonstrate that he threatens people, you cite the fact that after his fans get angry and threaten people based on his statements, that therefore this must be mean intends for this harm to come (i.e. that he is making threats). But once again, this is reverse-engineered logic, where you arrive and the conclusion you want by assuming it in the first place and using it to explain the behavior of his fans. But as I've mentioned, the same reaction (or worse) comes from many corners of the U.S., where invective and twitter mobs create death threats all the time, and not a as a result of people trying to threaten others with death. You're making the affirming the consequent fallacy. You can't deduce backwards that because people get riled up that Trump made the precise threat that those riled up make. That *alone* provides no argument. So when you say Trump threatens "his enemies" with death (or as the article says, at any rate) I have seen no instances of this, ever, that I can tell, no less multiple instances of it. I've seen blustery narcissistic invective that gets people revved up, but while problematic in itself it is not a death threat, nor is it (as the article's tone implies) Trump acting like a psychopathic murderer threatening to kill everyone around him. Given his character, I doubt very much he's the sort to make such direct threats. In his line of business I expect the "don't mess with me or you'll be sorry" type of threat would be more in keeping with his general manner.

[TheDrake]

I know you can hedge on the 'what Trump really meant' argument (i.e. to incite people to make the association or not), but what about the article's follow-up claim that Trump "continues to threaten his "enemies" with lethal violence — and at this point his enemies include anyone who opposes him, or stands in his way." You think this is also a fair interpretation of Trump's public statements, i.e. that he has been regularly threatening his "enemies" with death?

I believe they went too far in their characterization. I don't think he was really hoping that anyone would hang Mike pence. Plus, even looking at the statement that provoked the article doesn't warrant the suggestion that he's linking a bunch of his enemies with actual death. He got his supporters to chant "lock her up" not "string her up"

But he never seems to intervene or try to calm down the people he is whipping up into a murderous rage. He was well aware of the tendencies among his supporters, and he doesn't even criticize them for it.

From the guardian, Trump responds that it is common sense for people to threaten the life of Mike pence.

Karl said: “They were saying ‘hang Mike Pence’.”

“Because it’s common sense, Jon,” Trump said, repeating baseless claims about election fraud. “It’s common sense that you’re supposed to protect. How can you – if you know a vote is fraudulent, right? – how can you pass on a fraudulent vote to Congress? How can you do that?”

[Fenring]

I believe they went too far in their characterization. I don't think he was really hoping that anyone would hang Mike pence. Plus, even looking at the statement that provoked the article doesn't warrant the suggestion that he's linking a bunch of his enemies with actual death. He got his supporters to chant "lock her up" not "string her up"

But he never seems to intervene or try to calm down the people he is whipping up into a murderous rage. He was well aware of the tendencies among his supporters, and he doesn't even criticize them for it.

Just to be clear, I'm not posting in order to vindicate Trump's behavior in general, only to illustrate that mainstream journals now regularly post clickbait nonsense that either sensationalizes or outright lies about the literal facts. This was in context of you challenging anyone to show that lies are regularly told about conservatives in the press. But to be fair I would also argue that lies are told about liberals in the press. Pretty much lies are told all the time in the press.

[msquared]

To paraphrase the Bard, "Will no one rid me of this troublesome VP?"

[jc44]

To paraphrase the Bard, "Will no one rid me of this troublesome VP?"

"troublesome" -> "turbulent" and apparently not Shakespeare but Robert Dodsley (1740).  But according to wikipedia the earlier version of that line from Edward Grim who saw Becket murdered is good too "What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born VP (cleric)!"