News Teens in Make America Great Again hats taunted a Native American elder at the Lincoln Memorial

[zinfamous]

ridiculous lawsuit spurned by ridiculous people with a derp-driven, anti-American agenda to silence the actual media that takes seriously their responsibility to properly inform the very people that deride them. ...and they do it anyway. Not one soul living in Trumptardia will ever understand that; these people are fundamentally broken in their skulls, and will probably never be of any use in any functional society.

...anyway, I wonder if it would be possible to file a class-action against Fox News Corp, as a private citizen, for private citizens, on behalf of the Federal government, for willfully seeking to disinform the American public and pervert their world view against any rational acceptance of real fact. ...basically sue them for lying to the public, disregarding the right of the public to have access to a responsible news media that takes seriously the task of informing them (this, I think is legit, because the Fox audience watches only Fox. To them, there is no choice: only Fox, because that's how propaganda works). ....The way this works is that, Fox would essentially have to argue, and prove, that they aren't a News organization (they aren't--the FCC licenses them as "entertainment."). ...and this is the point. Fox would have to provide ample testimony proving that they aren't news, that they aren't trying to inform people, that they are just grabbing ratings at the expense of the dumbest collection of human brains on the planet.

 

[HurleyBird]

Trump is a treasonous crook who is burning down our democracy and the rule of law and...

...And that entire preamble is just terrible. I'm at a loss of words. We can't discuss other things than Trump. What? This is such an obviously illogical non-sequitur that I'm not even sure it has a formal name.

And for the record, I think Trump is an idiot. Not that it's relevant in the slightest.

you're posting some third rate, right wing YouTube blowhard

None of those things are true. Also, genetic fallacy.

about the piteous plight of some teen-age twerp in a Trump hat?

Assuming he is a twerp (which let's be honest, he could be, but it's not like either of us know him. You think simply doning the hat makes him a terrible person I guess?) he still has rights and doesn't deserve to have his name drug through the mud for... standing and smirking as some guy beats a drum in his face.

Your particular enthusiasms are very revealing.

I hate to break it to you, but glenn1 has the right of it. This can actually be a form of personal attack.

For example, if you say:

"Pedophiles should only be prosecuted when they pay for cp. Simply possessing it doesn't harm a child in and of itself."

And I respond:

"Perknose, your particular enthusiasms are very revealing."

Then in essence, I'd be calling you a pedophile. That's obviously a personal attack. No two ways about it.

And in this case, it's clear that you're calling me a right wing nut.

That said, it's a rather silly statement in general given that posting one sentence that the lawsuit is back on, and one video explaining what happened, hardly constitutes enthusiasm.

 

[HurleyBird]

A plaintiff merely getting past the pleading stage and being allowed to pursue discovery is pretty meaningless. There are very few cases where it doesn't happen.

Absolutely. Even though I see WaPo's actions as immoral, I think this particular lawsuit is very unlikely to succeed. The press has a lot of latitude, and that's almost always a good thing. But I'm glad the kid is going to be allowed to get his day in court all the same. The original dismissal seemed off to me since it is so rare that they are granted, and some of the "facts" seemed less like facts and more like something that a jury should decide.

And I said as much back when the case was originally dismissed. But I guess this makes me some kind of over-enthusiastic right wing nut job. Only in P&N.

 

[CZroe]

plz explain how that is a personal attack? He was commenting on the substance of what was posted and not the poster!!

...except he wasn't. The poster was sharing legal commentary from a Quebec lawyer who has been following the case and summed up the biggest development ("lawsuit against WaPo is happening after all"). The lawyer is not a "third rate, right wing YouTube blowhard going on and on about the piteous plight of some teen-age twerp in a Trump hat."

No matter how you "rate" him, he's not "right wing" and he doesn't go on and on about some "teen-age twerp." It's literally been months since he last talked about Sandmann. He only made another video about it when there was something significant/new to discuss from a legal perspective... and this development was certainly significant news that could benefit from a lawyer's explanation (exactly what his channel exists for).

He's a vlogger who "vLAWgs" about law. Like LegalEagle, he's just a lawyer who publicly provides legal perspective on current events, Twitter trolls, the legality of what we see in movies/TV, and many others. It's literally been months since he talked about Sandmann. Other current events he's talked about since then: Everything from Jussie Smollett to the college admissions scandal to PewDiePie's retracted donation promise to Brexit to Canadian elections to... -well, I have to end this somewhere but the list goes on and on. Point is, more than half his content is legal stuff about YouTube, Facebook, Brexit, and cases in Canada as opposed to US politics. It simply isn't political commentary. It's legal commentary.

Even when he is discussing US politics, it's as legal commentary and not political commentary (Tulsi Gabbard suing Google as the latest example). How anyone could call him a political blow hard is beyond me. One only needs to pick a video at random to know that's not who he is.

 

[WelshBloke]

I hate to break it to you, but glenn1 has the right of it. This can actually be a form of personal attack.

For example, if you say:

"Pedophiles should only be prosecuted when they pay for cp. Simply possessing it doesn't harm a child in and of itself."

And I respond:

"Perknose, your particular enthusiasms are very revealing."

Then in essence, I'd be calling you a pedophile. That's obviously a personal attack. No two ways about it.

And in this case, it's clear that you're calling me a right wing nut.

That said, it's a rather silly statement in general given that posting one sentence that the lawsuit is back on, and one video explaining what happened, hardly constitutes enthusiasm.

Wait.

Are you equating paedophilia and following right wing loons on YouTube in their public standing? I mean I'm not going to say that you're wrong but it's an interesting approach for someone who follows right wing loons on YouTube.

 

[HurleyBird]

Are you equating

No.

 

[jackstar7]

Fun thread.

 

[cytg111]

Look at his posting history. He’s one of those posters that complains about others because they treat him exactly like he treats others.

in before some1 flenn calls personal attack

 

[WelshBloke]

No.

Well calling someone a paedophile is quite obviously an insult, it's a hideous thing to be and involves hideous unforgivable behaviour.
But you seem ok on swapping paedophile behaviour for watching right wing YouTube videos in your analogy. That would suggest that you see a similarity or some sort of common ground in both things, otherwise it would be nonsensical to swap them.

 

[CZroe]

...
But you seem ok on swapping paedophile behaviour for watching right wing YouTube videos in your analogy. That would suggest that you see a similarity or some sort of common ground in both things, otherwise it would be nonsensical to swap them.

Are you joking? Wow.

 

[brandonbull]

lolwut? Seems quite a bit of it is turning out to be true

Unless you have the Adam Schiff edition of the dossier, that would be incorrect.

 

[brandonbull]

How? He is commenting on the substance.....
DFor certain the last sentence is NOT a personal attack! An observation is being made!!

So could I say something like: "Yoda, it's been my observation that only morons post in a similar manner as you do."?

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

There are discrepancies between real life and YouTube? Mind blown. Pseudo intellectuals who follow YouTube posters who point this out? Mind blown.

 

[CZroe]

There are discrepancies between real life and YouTube? Mind blown. Pseudo intellectuals who follow YouTube posters who point this out? Mind blown.

What are you babbling about?

 

[cytg111]

Unless you have the Adam Schiff edition of the dossier, that would be incorrect.

You are mistaken. Again.

 

[Luna1968]

why hasnt the title been changed on this thread. Its is totally inaccurate of what transpired.

 

[Luna1968]

This is the crap you are drawn to on the web?

Trump is a treasonous crook who is burning down our democracy and the rule of law and you're posting some third rate, right wing YouTube blowhard going on and on about the piteous plight of some teen-age twerp in a Trump hat? Your particular enthusiasms are very revealing.

Iam confused. HurleyBird shares a video about this case and is totally on topic but you bring up trump and berate hurleybird for posting the video for not bashing trump. Would you please explain why?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I kind of want to lawsuit to succeed. All the deplorable news networks will be sued out of existence.

Typical how the deplorable’s are cheering this on and if successful it will bankrupt all their favorite news outlets. Their usual short sighted thinking and desire to own the libs.

 

[fskimospy]

I kind of want to lawsuit to succeed. All the deplorable news networks will be sued out of existence.

Typical how the deplorable’s are cheering this on and if successful it will bankrupt all their favorite news outlets. Their usual short sighted thinking and desire to own the libs.

I'm not sure if destroying the concept of a free press in America is worth getting rid of a few right wing propaganda outlets.

 

[HurleyBird]

Well calling someone a paedophile is quite obviously an insult, it's a hideous thing to be and involves hideous unforgivable behaviour.
But you seem ok on swapping paedophile behaviour for watching right wing YouTube videos in your analogy. That would suggest that you see a similarity or some sort of common ground in both things, otherwise it would be nonsensical to swap them.

At first I thought you were just deflecting with snark, but now I'm not sure you're arguing in good faith at all. It should be obvious enough what I'm getting at.

At no point did I say or imply that being a right wing nut is as bad as being a pedophile.

Calling someone a pedophile is about the worst insult imaginable. That's why accusing someone by means of, eg. "Your behavior is revealing" is still obviously a personal attack.

While calling someone a right wing nut is extremely mild in comparison and much less obvious when done with a wink and a nod. But fundamentally the nature of the "behavior is revealing" invocation is the same, simply with significantly lower magnitude.

The formulation is:

1. If calling someone a pedophile is a personal attack.
2. And calling someone a pedophile via a workaround like "behavior is revealing" is still a personal attack.
3. And if calling someone a right wing nut is a personal attack.
4. Then it follows that using that same workaround to call someone a right wing nut is still a personal attack, despite the lower severity and lesser obviousness. Nothing has fundamentally changed in the substitution except for severity.

 

[Greenman]

I'm not sure if destroying the concept of a free press in America is worth getting rid of a few right wing propaganda outlets.

I'm absolutely behind protection of the press, it's the cornerstone of democracy. But at what point do they lose that protection? Some news services have become little more than rumor mongers. When key information is left out of a story so that it fits a political agenda, that's no longer a free press, and shouldn't enjoy any protection under the law. I don't care which networks that brings down.

 

[Jaskalas]

I'm not sure if destroying the concept of a free press in America is worth getting rid of a few right wing propaganda outlets.

Agreed. Certainly mixed feelings, but ultimately we need free speech and a free press to deliver information. How else is a Democracy to thrive?

OTOH, we probably don't need the media painting a false narrative that attacks a private citizen who happens to visit the Capitol. Can we hold them to account for mistakes without going too far? Or is this topic a case of "opps, my bad" and is that good enough to rectify the damages done?

 

[fskimospy]

I'm absolutely behind protection of the press, it's the cornerstone of democracy. But at what point do they lose that protection? Some news services have become little more than rumor mongers.

What news services do you think have become little more than rumor mongers?

When key information is left out of a story so that it fits a political agenda, that's no longer a free press, and shouldn't enjoy any protection under the law. I don't care which networks that brings down.

So to be clear you're claiming that the Washington Post deliberately misrepresented this story in order to service a political agenda? Do you have any evidence for that whatsoever?

If you do not have evidence for this interestingly enough it would be exactly the sort of defamatory claim you're saying should not be protected.

 

[Greenman]

What news services do you think have become little more than rumor mongers?



So to be clear you're claiming that the Washington Post deliberately misrepresented this story in order to service a political agenda? Do you have any evidence for that whatsoever?

If you do not have evidence for this interestingly enough it would be exactly the sort of defamatory claim you're saying should not be protected.

Who exactly did I defame here? Please be specific so I can check the names against those in my post.

 

[fskimospy]

Agreed. Certainly mixed feelings, but ultimately we need free speech and a free press to deliver information. How else is a Democracy to thrive?

OTOH, we probably don't need the media painting a false narrative that attacks a private citizen who happens to visit the Capitol. Can we hold them to account for mistakes without going too far? Or is this topic a case of "opps, my bad" and is that good enough to rectify the damages done?

This really isn't even a case of 'oops, my bad', this is a case of clearly protected speech by the Washington Post. Did they change the contents of the video? No. What the MAGA teen seems to be complaining about are conclusions the reporter drew from the contents of the video but those conclusions are clearly first amendment protected opinions and not defamatory statements of fact.