What that means is that if you made an honest mistake, you're fine.
The lie has to be told negligently (unless you're criticizing a public official or company acting as a public official in that they are shaping public discourse and opinion) which requires actual malice.
Once I get them manuscript I'm working on turned in (due very soon) I plan to dedicate a page of my blog to the investigations and lawsuits.
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/
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.
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.