Doomsider @ Doomsider @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

1,045

Joined

2 yr. ago

I am not sure this is going to be looked at this way by a jury or judge in the case of a summary judgement. I think the operational word here is purporting.

""Purport" focuses on the substance or essence of a legal document, rather than its literal wording. "

Was he saying something meant to be considered factual in an attempt to defame. I think most reasonable people would agree with this statement.

Also, you must consider this will be a civil trial not a criminal one. The don't need to prove mens rea here so instead of beyond a shadow it is what side is more believable.

On a personal level, I find it disturbing that for one, an aid to the POTUS talks to the media to begin with. Two, that this aid likes to freak the fuck out and make an ass of himself on national broadcast media. Three, that he is clearly a Neo-Nazi.

Any one of these things would have prevented someone from being part of our government in the past...yet here we are discussing whether or not he is defaming. Just seems odd.

Don't even play, your original statement was nonsensical to defining defamation.

While defamation is hard to prove in some circumstances, in this case it is pretty cut and dry.

"prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence ; and 4) damages , or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement."

We have three of the conditions already. The plaintiff would need to prove harm for the last. With an actual tort I think this case could be successful, but there are a lot of variables.

What do you think?

Thanks for your law degree!

I think you are getting confused as telling the truth is generally not considered defamation. Telling a lie that causes a tort (or an injury, now that you have lost your license) is the definition of defamation.

Please just stop with your opinion nonsense.

"Defamation is a statement that injures a third party's reputation. The tort of defamation includes both libel (written statements) and slander (spoken statements). State common law and statutory law governs defamation actions, and each state varies in their standards for defamation and potential damages ."

I will also be waiting for you to turn in your law license.

->Musk's team launches the most expensive firework ever blowing up and disrupting air traffic and destroying the environment again for the eighth time

Starlink is everything to Felon now. This is the only way to break him now. Starlink has to be stomped out of existence or nationalized at this point. Anything less will allow Muskrat to continue playing dictator.

It is literally in the name. Trickle-down. You do know what a trickle is?

Trickledown and firehouse up!

Shhh your not allowed to use logic anymore!

I prefer my oligarchy representatives to at least pretend they care, but I am not about to carry water for the Democratic Party.

At a certain point the two sides of the same coin falls apart. That point for me is local elections with issues about homelessness. The conservatives campaign to eliminate homelessness by trying to drive them away. The progressives try to solve the actual problems and get people help.

Edit: I also would like mention election reform. Many of the blue states have been hard at work making sure everyone's vote can be heard. Many of the red states are restricting voting so less voices can be heard.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-september-2024

In a broken system full of voter suppression. Not exactly a fair election by any stretch of the imagination.

For sure, you just need to travel back in time thirty years for any place you would want to live.

I will happily block you. You are a incapable of not personalizing this whole conversation and any future discussions with you will likely lead to the same outcome.

Please don't lecture me about bad faith as you engage in bad faith. I will restate my premise that you came across as an apologist. This was a objectively true from my viewpoint as well as your perhaps inadvertent devil's advocacy (I am being generous here because maybe you have never thought about your behavior in this regard).

He was simply wrong for this statement. It was a half baked political opinion that did more harm than good. This is from the standpoint of an actual leader who has started businesses from the ground up.

You are just learning, and pointing out your own words is not bad faith. Your emotions get the better of you and it becomes about your ego at this point. Your lack of self reflection in this matter is unbecoming.

You can only see better from your point of view that you want more knowledge. Keeping their mouth shut is what leaders do everyday to protect their business, their profits, their coworkers, etc.

I suppose you have to be a knowledgeable leader to understand this. We often thrust people into leadership positions and we end up with people like Andy as a result.

I don't pretend to the arbitrator of what is right or wrong, but I have learned a lot in my lifetime and calling a spade a spade is something I believe is important. You take all this so personally and thus show a certain level of immaturity as you probably feel I display as well.

Your proof of your political commentary only supports my assertion that you are very technically minded. Your critique of cloud computing shows your technical understanding is profound, but does little to forward a feeling that you are politically minded. You state yourself you are just learning about this which is very clear.

There is nothing to debate because my summary and all your replies just reinforce my opinion of you. This is just my critical opinion though and it is not meant as an attack, but a wake up call. I appreciate the time and effort you put into this even if it is misplaced at best

We all know problems exist. We all know speech has consequences. A leader, particularly in business, has a special fiduciary responsibility to their business. If they choose to expose themselves as politically ignorant and supporting positions that are indefensible the consequences are they will lose business. This is all I am pointing out.

You conflate two things here which are a person's right to speak their mind and their responsibility to bigger issues. I get you want to hear their opinions and then play devil's advocate about them because that is just what you do.

You are clearly technically minded but you are also clearly not politically minded. Much like our errant CEO and reminiscent of when a US congressman tries to grasp web technology. They say a lot of ignorant things about tech just like Andy says ignorant things about politics.

Clearly you feel a kinship with this man because you are also heavily invested in the tech world. You defend him because you also admire him. No amount of debate or hand waving will change this immutable fact.

Your don't really have much of opinion except as an apologist. A devil's advocate defender of corporate and political nonsense without stating your actual thoughts beyond, "it is more nuanced that that" is pretty disingenuous.

It is okay to have differing opinions when someone's opinion smells like shit. All the while you pass out the verbal/written clothespins is really just your version of carrying water. I know, I know it is more nuanced than that. Only it really isn't.

And yes, you should have a degree or really just some critical thinking skills before deploying your wanna be political commentary on the world when you are in a leadership position. Otherwise please keep that shit to yourself and keep it out of your business if you ever want my money.

Read your entire post. You claim people will say you come off as an apologist and you do.

As a person who was seriously considered switching to Proton this just reminds me of why I should not. It is clear no matter what corner of the Internet we run to as long as it is into the open arm of corporations it is a mistake.

Blue sky, Proton, etc. are not a solution to a problem. They are just the newest version of putting lipstick on a pig. We need to move beyond corporate control and it is clear Proton, even being a nonprofit, is no solution.

I find your hand waving of the CEOs position particularly distasteful. There are a lot of CEOs out there that don't decide to get all political. They don't do this because they have an image or brand to protect. Maybe I just like a good illusion though.

In this respect I am glad he opened his ignorant mouth and showed he has no business commenting on politics. He is no political scientist, just another person drunk on his accomplishments trying to pretend he knows fuck all about anything.

5% cash back for all bookings at Trump's hotels.

This is always in their playbook. They get called out for acting stupid and they are all "we are just joking." If they don't get called out they are all "we are serious." The truth is they are just clowns.

This one is just projection. To believe this statement denies there are plenty of people who are innocent on both sides. We are not talking about those people.

We are talking about the people who hate the other side on both sides, but once again we aren't talking about both sides here. One side has made the statement popular to dehumanize the other side.

This is what we are talking about. You can't agree with this statement because it is used as an excuse to kill people. Regardless if the statement has truth to it it is in essence propaganda used to manipulate people.