Definition of “Gaslighting”. See above.
What role does mayor of New York has on a case in Wisconsin?
They called him a vigilante. That’s hardly an implication. Sounds like an accusation.
Lady Ashli of the doorway smh.
You knew her personally eh?
I am surrounded by lawyers irl (unfortunately or fortunately could go either way) i dunno if anyone who thought he should have ever been charged tbh. And i agree with that. There should have been an investigation but based on what we saw at trial he should have never been charged.
1 Like
It was so obvious from the very beginning.
1 Like
Most of them aren’t. He is a public figure but not the extent that he can be called out as a white supremacist
The first prong is whether the statement is true or false not whether it’s opinion. An opinion can be false
You can argue reckless disregard for the truth.
He won’t prove malice.
Is this different from the Sadmann case(s) ?
um… no
Rittenhouse was not a public figure at the time of the shootings.
The liberal media and Democrat politicians ignored the truth to support their narratives. Defeating Trump was the prime directive, and they were more than happy to ignore and/or lie about the events in Kenosha to support that objective.
2 Likes
He could be found to be a public figure as defined by the Supreme Court if he brings federal action which he has to given that the the media he may be suing are all over the place
It’s possible that he may be found not to have gained sufficient pervasive notoriety as the Supreme Court set forth.
1 Like
Well those videos were fake. That was the issue with Sandman.
At the time he pulled the trigger he was not.
Only those in the free press or government can be sued for liable or defamation?
Oh really, that was the entire basis of the lawsuits ? I didn’t realize that, I thought it was libel.
The first prong is, if I’m remembering correctly, whether or not it is a false statement of fact.
I think that calling Rittenhouse a white supremacist can most reasonably be interpreted as “rhetorical hyperbole” used in asserting an opinion, rather than it being intended to be interpreted as a statement of fact.
Yeah the 250m is because they Umm forgot to show the part where sandman and his classmates were accosted
He was after.
Which is when any comments referring to him were made.
Oh i am sure there are tons of defenses. It’s just that i don’t think it’s as clear cut.
The Sandman videos were deceptively edited.
The same thing happened with Rittenhouse. Most of the media left out clear attacks on Rittenhouse and only showed his response.
2 Likes
