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

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Baffle2:

Saelune:
Ann Coulter is a racist.

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

I think racism is insane.

Baffle2:
Honestly, I think Ann Coulter might be insane. And a racist.

She's a polemicist whose specific selling point is launching outrageous attacks on targets for the entertainment of people who can be extreme and racist. She doesn't need to be personally extreme and racist to do so, just unprincipled.

Agema:

Baffle2:
Honestly, I think Ann Coulter might be insane. And a racist.

She's a polemicist whose specific selling point is launching outrageous attacks on targets for the entertainment of people who can be extreme and racist. She doesn't need to be personally extreme and racist to do so, just unprincipled.

Saelune:
Linda Fairstein is a racist. Ann Coulter is a racist.

Baffle2:

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

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

"
Santana was one of the first boys picked up in the park the night of the attacks, April 19, 1989. While being driven to the precinct house, he blurted out: "I had nothing to do with the rape. All I did was feel the woman's tits."

At this point, the jogger hadn't been found. The police knew nothing about any rape...

-- Dennis Commedo, one of the boys who was part of the larger group, told the police that, when he ran into Richardson in the park that night, he'd said, "We just raped somebody."...

-- Wise told a friend's sister, Melody Jackson, that he didn't rape the jogger; he "only held her legs down while Kevin (Richardson) f---ed her." Jackson volunteered this information to the police, thinking it would help Wise...

-- Wise told the detective interviewing him that someone he thought was named "Rudy" had stolen the jogger's Walkman. The officer's notes state: "persons present when girl raped. ... Rudy -- played with tits/took walkman."...

At that point, the jogger was still in a coma. Police investigators had no way of knowing that she'd been carrying a Walkman. Thirteen years later, the sixth rapist, Matias Reyes -- the only rapist, according to Hollywood and former District Attorney Robert Morgenthau -- told police that in addition to raping the jogger, he'd stolen her Walkman..."

And much more. She posits that forcing a confession from these kids would have been too risky a thing to do. The victim was still alive and could wake and show the cops acted criminally.

I assume there would be big trouble for her if any of this is untrue.

The MSM anyway, is full of group think. Or is all of this old news and I'm looking in the wrong place? I'm sure there are plenty of links to state the 5 were innocent but do they also include (and efute) this kind of information?

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.

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

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

Silvanus:

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.

Baffle2:

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

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.

Saelune:

Baffle2:

Saelune:
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.

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.

Dreiko:

Saelune:

Baffle2:

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

undeadsuitor:

Dreiko:

Saelune:
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.

Silvanus:

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.

Dreiko:

undeadsuitor:

Dreiko:

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.

The problem with that is what used to be absurdist caricature is now the Republican party.

Silly Ann isn't some outlier you can brush off. She's simply expressing the base party line.

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.

Baffle2:

Saelune:
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.

Silvanus:

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.

Gorfias:

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.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here