Capitol attack and 6th of January hearings
VP was rushed off the floor by Secret service.
Senate is on lockdown.
Terrorists have breached barricades and appear to be
Damn, people who have been found guilty of rape just can't catch a break with America's defamation laws.
By the way this is from the first defamation suit. Making up lies about her and insulting her physical appearance doesn't really fall under "defending himself."
I remembered joe6pack as being more trolly and less aggro than Brian James, but after a little research, I think you may be on to something. At a minimum, they are both Vitamin D fans.
Like a joe6pack 2.0?
Also Rococo, one of my favorite things about the politics forum is when you state objective facts about the law and people still argue that you're wrong.
Are you sure? the lawsuit claimed the lie itself, and claiming Carroll was a lier, was defamation.
And i think the jury found for the plaintiff on that claim.
And what part of the rest of that statement would be "the problem"? giving a possible motive for the lies? you are allowed to do that in court, so why not in the "public court of opinion" ffs
I didn't say to include anything that wasn't part of that trial. I screenshotted and posted a summary from the first trial that tells what all he was sued for. You didn't mention any of that. You tried to imply that little blurb you quoted was all he said. It wasn't.
It was found liable for making defamatory statements when he defended his innocence IN PUBLIC. IN PUBLIC. LOL at the idea you can't defend your innocence in public with the same arguments you can use in court, that's totally ****ed up. I understand that's the law in NYS (and maybe many other states), still absurd for an european.
In most countries you can call anyone who claims you committed a crime a liar, unless you have been convicted of that crime, and it's not defamatory. And you can actuall
Why does it matter whether there is a corresponding court case?
Let's imagine that we are in Italy. You allege in a local TV interview that I criminally defrauded you in some sort of business deal. And you have the receipts. You provide documentary evidence that proves that I defrauded you. The evidence is indisputable, but the statute of limitations has run, so I don't have any basis on which to sue you. I am much wealthier than you, and in response to your claims, I embark on a five-year campaign in which I spend $100 million dollars on advertising -- digital, TV, whatever -- in which I claim that you are a habitual liar and that you fabricated both the story and the seemingly indisputable evidence. I do all this knowing that (i) your story is 100% true; and (ii) your evidence is 100% legitimate. Your five-year ad campaign effectively ruins my life.
I understand that this is an extreme example, more extreme that the situation between Trump and Jean Carroll, but I am using an extreme example to illustrate a point. According to what you wrote above, no matter how baseless and virulent my attacks on you may be, you will never be able to sue me for defamation because I have an absolute right to do what I did, and I have that right because you accused me of a crime. And even though your claims are 100% accurate, I might be able to successfully sue you for defamation because you have claimed publicly that I committed a crime for which I have not been convicted.
I am no expert in Italian law, but I find that hard to believe. Would the situation be different if your allegation did not involve a crime? For example, let's assume that I am 80 years old, and you allege (again with incontrovertible proof) that I offered to be your 18-year old daughter's sugar daddy. That isn't a crime. Would I be at risk of liability for defamation if I did my five-year ad campaign in response that allegation?
As I said, I am no expert in Italian law, but FWIW, this summary of Italian defamation law doesn't mention the sort of absolute right that you are describing.
Lol. You didn't mention the indictment in the post where you said Trump committed crimes. Now that you got caught out lying you are trying to slither out of it by hiding behind language used in the indictment. Which is kind of pathetic really but not surprising as it's typical behavior of people like you.
Anyway there's not much point continuing a conversation with a liar so I'll leave it at that.
Again, no. I said trump committed crimes. That is completely standard usage and the indictment and many other sources say the same. You claim that's a lie, but you don't know what you are talking about.
Trump has not been proven guilty of any crimes in criminal court
He has been proving guilty of civil law violations and lying about raping someone.
Why does it matter whether there is a corresponding court case?
Let's imagine that we are in Italy. You allege in a local TV interview that I criminally defrauded you in some sort of business deal. And you have the receipts. You provide documentary evidence that proves that I defrauded you. The evidence is indisputable, but the statute of limitations has run, so I don't have any basis on which to sue you. I am much wealthier than you, and in response to your claims, I embark on a five-year
Man in Italy you can be sued for defamation even if you say the truth lol, if you do it in a way that "offends the reputation".
Like if an ex wife doesn't get paid alimony and she goes public with "my ex is a bastard he doesn't pay alimony" that's defamatory under Italian law.
It's possible in the latter example you provide both people are guilty
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal standard. In reality, people have committed crimes before being proven guilty of that commission. In general conversation, there is no such standard. Why are we actually getting bogged down in this? Ah, right, because Brian James wants deniability about Trump's crimes, and then after conviction he can switch to claiming a biased jury?
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal standard. In reality, people have committed crimes before being proven guilty of that commission. In general conversation, there is no such standard. Why are we actually getting bogged down in this? Ah, right, because Brian James wants deniability about Trump's crimes, and then after conviction he can switch to claiming a biased jury?
Yea prob this
Just like Biden is guilty of assaulting all those girls whose hair he sniffed and who he kissed and stuff
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Man in Italy you can be sued for defamation even if you say the truth lol, if you do it in a way that "offends the reputation".
Like if an ex wife doesn't get paid alimony and she goes public with "my ex is a bastard he doesn't pay alimony" that's defamatory under Italian law.
It's possible in the latter example you provide both people are guilty
OK, but according to you, in my example, you would not be able to assert a defamation claim against me, right? Because I have an absolute right to deny that I committed a crime, no matter the truth, no matter the evidence, and no matter how big a bullhorn I use.
OK, but according to you, in my example, you would not be able to assert a defamation claim against me, right? Because I have an absolute right to deny that I committed a crime, no matter the truth, no matter the evidence, and no matter how big a bullhorn I use.
Bullhorn can be as big as you want but you have to be very careful of all the details you add, and the claims. But for sure the "liar!" part wouldn't be defamation if used to profess your own innocence (And you don't have a guilty verdict upon you).
We actually have the examples of Berlusconi (who had the biggest bullhorn of all, owning 3 tv channels, and newspapers) which was sued for defamation a zillion times and only lost a few, mostly not to accusers he called liars, but to people he simply insulted (like other politicians he called "failed", which is a very heavy word that actually implies fraudulent bankruptcy in business in italian, which often has criminal implication, or prosecutors/judges).
He did call a lot of people liars when he referred to them accusing him of various crimes and afaik they never won a defamation suit against him (but maybe of the 100+ there were, some won? not sure).
Otoh a "detail" i didn't mention is that while in Italy it's very easy (compared to most countries) to win a defamation lawsuit, fines are redicolously low (compared to other countries).
Like when Berlusconi said, of the prosecutors who were trying him for one of the many cases, that "they were people without dignity conspiring against the sitting prime minister with taxpayers money during the electoral campaign", he lost but the fine was 50k euros lol.
OK, but according to you, in my example, you would not be able to assert a defamation claim against me, right? Because I have an absolute right to deny that I committed a crime, no matter the truth, no matter the evidence, and no matter how big a bullhorn I use.
It can't be illegal to protest your innocence can it? Even in the usa?
That would be outraegous in any system. Doesn't give license to say anything abut your accuser even though it is implicit that the accusation is false.
It can't be illegal to protest your innocence can it? Even in the usa?
That would be outraegous in any system. Doesn't give license to say anything abut your accuser even though it is implicit that the accusation is false.
You have absolute immunity to protest your innocence in a court proceeding.
