The elements of defamation claim:
🔹 a false statement purporting to be fact
🔹publication or communication of that statement to a third person
🔹fault amounting to at least negligence
🔹damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement
I don't see why. The heightened standard in New York Times v. Sullivan doesn't apply.
News stations get no special treatment unless they're talking about public figures.
#lawtwitter may be misunderstanding the First Amendment.
The right-wing has the deluded idea that the First Amendment means they have the right to say whatever they please.
Wrong 🛎️🛎️
The 1st Amendment is a protection against government action. That's why it says: CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW . . .
(includes state governments)
There are lots of things you are not allowed to say. I can think of a bunch.
🔹You can't yell "fire" in a crowded building.
🔹You can't walk up to a bank teller and say, "Give me all your money."
🔹You can't tell deliberately tell lies about someone that cause her to get fired.
For that matter, you can't tell deliberate lies about people (but you have to show damages or it's not worth the trouble to bring the case.)
When these right-wing newscasters started telling those lies about Dominion, it was clear they were ruining that company.
If this is true that they published lies without evidence, they are in deep trouble.
Alex Jones had to pay damages to the Sandy Hook families after saying that they faked the massacre.
Issue the framing of the question: Can a case of defamation be proven against Trump and pals?
For rule, we plug in the elements of defamation.
2/
To prove defamation, the plaintiff must meet 4 elements:
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, 4) damages, or some harm caused to plaintiffs.
3/
How the NRA helped get us into this mess, and how we can get out.
I read these two books⤵️ and I’m ready with a Twitter Book Report.
The NRA was founded in 1871 by a former Union general and a soldier who were appalled by the terrible marksmanship of Union soldiers.
2/ Before the Civil Rights movement, the NRA was an apolitical, gun safety group. Members were gun enthusiasts from both parties.
When the National Rife Act of 1934 was debated in Congress, the NRA lobbyist said this ⤵️
3/ Then after the Civil Rights movement, everything changed.
There was a power struggle within the NRA between the “old guard” and the radicalized extremists who advanced the [new] idea that “conservatism” meant unfettered access to guns.
Yes, this is dangerous--not because a military coup would succeed between now and Biden's inauguration (Biden will be president) but because a major political party and so many voters continue to back Trump.
The danger going forward is that so many voters are OK with this.
The end game is a successful disinformation campaign, by which I mean that a significant portion of the population either believes (or for political expediency pretends to believe) that Trump would have won the election if not for massive fraud.
A Pinochet-style military coup was more common in the 20th century.
21st-century would-be autocrats have an easier and less bloody method: They overthrow democracy by undermining truth and disrupting accurate dissemination of information.