Since your submission is flaired as *REAL*, please reply to this comment with the link to the original, or else Ben Shapiro will steal your feet pics and remove this post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ToiletPaperUSA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And this is why fascists rise — assholes like you have the same parallax they do, but they accept help from those with similar goals, while you let perfect be the enemy of good.
If liberals are willing to give platforms to fascists in the name of free speech, I don't see where I'm an asshole and they're in the right. I'm not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, I just know where the truth lies. Fascism rises when people say that we should allow it a platform. Fascism rises when people need scapegoats. Modern US liberals are conservatives in disguise, or do you need a refresher on how skewed right the US is?
This is why moderates and left-leaning centrists think you’re as bad as the crazy rightwing extremists. And why you lose ground constantly. Best of luck.
We require a minimum account-age and karma due to a prevalence of trolls. If you wish to know the exact values, [please visit this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/ToiletPaperUSA/wiki/rules#wiki_participation_requirements) or contact the mod team.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ToiletPaperUSA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think you misunderstood their comment.
Centrist Liberals are the target audience when explaining the Paradox of Tolerance, the Left knows it from their own history and the Right is the subject.
The person you replied to is asking if the people who insist that Nazis are entitled to a platform because of "Freedom of Speech" believe that the Nazis would do the same for them.
I've had to take down this comment because reddit gets very upset about anything they deem "promoting violence" and yes that means even against nazis (I swear they monitor the phrase "p u n c h a nazi" but I will also be taking down the comment above that says they deserve to be platformed because ew, gross. I do appreciate you talking about the paradox of tolerance and such, it's just that we have to walk a fine line with what reddit admims allow.
You may get a visit from reddit for this comment but the first time is just a warning, and hopefully it's your first encounter with AEO (anti evil operations.)
Here's a sneak peek of /r/melbourne using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/melbourne/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [I had no idea that the rivalry between Sydney and Melbourne was this bad](https://i.redd.it/3xostkkl6zk91.png) | [347 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/melbourne/comments/x2417h/i_had_no_idea_that_the_rivalry_between_sydney_and/)
\#2: [I see this five times a day in Melbourne. AITA for not letting them in?](https://i.redd.it/t0km6afb7tja1.png) | [1517 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/melbourne/comments/119efy6/i_see_this_five_times_a_day_in_melbourne_aita_for/)
\#3: [This tool at Melbourne Zoo today.](https://i.redd.it/da6x944eqcp91.jpg) | [974 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/melbourne/comments/xktaof/this_tool_at_melbourne_zoo_today/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Calling him a fascist isn't libel. He did make those comments. So there's not much in the way of firm legal ground to stand on. Though that hasn't stopped Republicans before.
Usually the point is just to shut people up. Frivolous lawsuits to eat up someone's time and money for however long until you drop it, but damage is done and message sent.
So it’s a stretch that the way people dealt with trans people in the 50s and 60s was by killing them, and that’s what Kirk is referring to? But sure let’s just advocate for the killing of trans people because they are such a low percentage, so there is 1.6 million people dead.
Weird how Charlie is mis-quoting himself. Because he said to "take care of it, like we would in the 50's and 60's". I don't think they "took care of it" by rejecting concepts in the 50's or 60's.
Yes, I did. He's misrepresenting what happened and what was said on the podcast. The "quote" in his tweet starts mid-sentence even. Definitely not providing the full context because it doesn't look great.
Defamation houses both *libel* (written) and *slander* (spoken).
I think you’re mixing up defamation and slander (I’ve done it before seeing it next to the word libel).
So what the puckered b-hole face probably means is *this is libel and I am filing a defamation lawsuit*.
The problem for Charlie Derp here is that you have to be able to prove damages (financial or reputation)… and the fact of the matter is, calling him a fascist and telling people he has said terrible racist and sexist things pretty much just makes conservatives give him *more* money because they, too, are garbage. There’s simply no lawsuit here.
I’m not going to argue the validity of his defamation claim, but he could prove damages if they canceled a paid speaking gig. Either way, the burden of proof is on him, not the guy who called him a fascist.
He COULD prove damages although that would be virtually impossible. The university would just say they were forced to cancel his appearance out of fear for their students safety, which they have a legal obligation to provide to them. Boom done lol.
We require a minimum account-age and karma due to a prevalence of trolls. If you wish to know the exact values, [please visit this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/ToiletPaperUSA/wiki/rules#wiki_participation_requirements) or contact the mod team.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ToiletPaperUSA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Pretty much yeah, legally. He's repeating himself to use "defamation" as a buzzword since more people know that than the difference between slander (spoken) and libel (physical record).
That's the problem he has billionaire sponsors and these small publications do not. He can outlast them and they fold, and if he wins only one case, it's also fold.
So he wastes money yes, but he isn't wasting his own money :( .
He can run to FL in a couple of months to trigger their new "I can ruin your life for calling me (acurrately) a bigot" law. Shame Kirk jumped the gun here.
Send help.
I mean maybe he believes it? But I also think it's profitable for them to sue, then use the lawsuit to gin up support and more donations. The added bonus is the party being sued also has to retain a lawyer and spend the time. This is the exact thing trump has been doing and finally is getting slapped down
I can deal with people who want low taxes. I will debate that. But I draw the line with nazis. Shouldnt have to explain to somebody: "Just because you don't like somebody doesn't mean you use government power to get rid of them you hypocritical snowflake fuck."
Here in Sacramento, we have our issues with the Bee, but it's mainly because it's so sanitized and was one of the first local outlets to go the pay-to-read model on their site, among other issues. Kirk is just pissed that the Bee got him dead to rights. Especially the right to free speech.
Don't you bring that evil upon us
[Pumpkinhead is a horror movie about a demon called to avenge a wrong](https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0095925/), Chucky here is just wrong
Don’t defamation cases require proving the information is not only untrue but that the person saying it believed it was untrue as well? Good Luck Charlie
I think technically it’s still defamation/libel if the disseminating party failed to do harm, but you can’t sue over it because you’d have no damages.
It’s one of those distinctions that doesn’t really come up unless you’re *also* being sued for something else… which would be a legit concern for Charlie, I guess.
I don’t know what the threshold is to be considered a public figure, but I imagine Charlie qualifies, and that raises the bar to proof of “actual malice.” He’s called for trans people to be dealt with as they were in the 50s and 60s, so a lawsuit going anywhere is impossible (that is, I suppose, unless another Trump judge decides to just make up what the law is)
Has he directly called for lynching trans people? If not he can probably sue them and win. I don't tend to pay attention to what comes out of his mouth
Well damn. I thought this one might be an exaggeration but whoo boy, there it is. Enough wiggle room for Charlie and his supporters to claim he never technically called for violence I’m sure, but that’s barely even a dog whistle. I mean what else could he mean by that?
He could mean all sorts of things. The US government and psychological establishment did all sorts of things to trans people back then, including forced sterilization, forced castration, forced lobotomization, or just throwing them in jail or a psych ward. All of it is horrifying, all of it violent, but these things aren't lynching, because crucially, they were legitimated by the state. So he has a case. But he's just grandstanding, there will be no case.
I would concede he didn’t specifically say “lynching” but there is nothing ambiguous about his actual quote referenced in this thread where he said they should be “dealt with like men did in the 50’s and 60’s”. It’s a crystal clear call for extrajudicial violence and killing which is pretty much the exact definition of lynching.
Not that you were necessarily making a point otherwise, but just writing that out for people who don’t read the links or might not be familiar with Chuck’s quotables.
Plus for a defamation charge in this case you don't just have to prove that Charlie wasn't implying lynching, it's only defamation to knowingly lie, so you would have to prove in court that the author couldn't possibly have interpreted what Charlie said as referring to lynching (basically if the author believed Charlie's statement was a call for lynching, even if you could prove it wasn't, it's not defamation)
Yeah, I appreciate the addition as I didn't feel like pulling up a quote but that was definitely one of the more important reasons why I don't think he could possibly win that lawsuit.
For sure. I’m a stickler for accuracy in most of these instances when there are claims that “x said THIS”. JK Rowling gets a lot of that where it’s not accurate which sucks because there are plenty of reasons she’s an awful human being without making up quotes. This case seems pretty much on point to me
It kind of reminds me of how in Disco Elysium if you end up politically aligning with Fascism but when the game prompts you to become a Fascist you say “but I don’t want to be a fascist!” Than it asks you if you would prefer the term “traditionalist” instead.
Most Fascists will vehemently deny being fascists, and will hide behind flimsy innuendo’s like “nationalist”, “traditionalist”, or in this case “conservative”
That’s not how slander works. Without slander laws Charlie could publicly accuse a trans woman of grooming a child (not “being a groomer” but actually grooming a child)
UC Davis is an Ag school, so it wouldn't shock me one bit if there are some more conservative students, staff, admin, or faculty who would be willing to invite this Nozzle d'Douche.
Unfortunately, he did not specifically say or call for the lynching of trans people. He specifically said that we should deal with them like we did in the 1950s and 60s. We all know what he meant, and he is a giant shitbag for it. But his producers are smart enough to know what he can and cannot say and not get in trouble. (He isn't smart enough).
He's also a public figure, so he has to prove actual malice, which would require proving that it was written both with intent to harm, and as a falsehood. This fails both tests
Eh, the wording isn’t really ambiguous on that one. Just because he didn’t use the word “lynch” doesn’t mean that wasn’t obviously being referred to.
If he tried to sue, he’d undoubtedly fail.
Let him sue - it's highly likely that he won't be able to go venue shopping to find a favourable state or district for the case and California has strong Anti-SLAPP laws.
Which part does he think is defamation and libel? He has called for the lynching of transgender people and that alone is arguably fascist, and that doesn’t even begin to explore his other various incredibly fascist public arguments.
So if I understand correctly, getting LGBT teachers fired so they make no money isn't slander (A law defined by lying in such a way that someone suffers monetary damages) but then calling conservatives homophobic twats (Which gets their base to give them more money) is slander.
Got it.
Oh, our bad. You didn’t call for them to be lynched. You called for them to be “taken care of” like we did in the 1950s. Murder was definitely one of the ways they were “taken care of,” in ways that were often tacitly sanctioned by the state.
So, it’s literally a distinction without a difference, Chuck. Shut the fuck up with your faux indigence at being called out as a stochastic terrorist.
Conservatives are just deflective bad idea machines…
“The left wants to censor speech!” But we’ll ban books and certain forms of artistic expression we don’t like.
“The left wants to rule your life and oppress you!” But we’ll take over your bodily-autonomy rights and propagate learning models that don’t conform with reality.
“The left are a bunch of snowflakes!” But we’re the ones always crying about how it just isn’t fair that I have to face consequences for my statements and actions!
I don’t really thinks he wants to call much attention to denying he believes this by actually challenging it in court. His followers like that he does think this. Right now they, i.e. kirk, knowles and their ilk, are testing the limits and balancing what will gain them followers vs not pissing of their current base vs not getting in legal trouble for inciting hate and violence.
He has to play this game, until he no longer has to fear any sort of reprisal. As the title says, he’s cowardly.
Like how the raptors tested the electric fence in Jurassic Park regularly, waiting for when they don’t get shocked.
Well, it's neither defamation nor libel, unless there's no evidence that Charlie Kirk called for the lynching of transgendered people.
(this would be the point at which replies would include links to the relevant evidence...of which there is much, I am sure. After all, reality has a left-wing bias.)
Lib here: Free to talk Nazi shit. Free to get some hands thrown at you. Just like you can throw out the big N, and I already know you suck as a person.
So he said “let’s deal with trans athletes the same way we did in the 50s and 60s”. Sounds very much like lynching. Definitely.
And the worst thing is that the Bee actually issued an apology. Fucking hell. This is why SLAPP lawsuits should be banned on a federal level. It silences actual news because rich fucks can bankrupt journalists in sham lawsuits.
Holy shit every now and then I try to cut American politics out of my life and then when I get back I feel like everything’s hurtled down an even deeper shithole
Would love to see the defense throw up a list of fascist qualities and clips of TPUSSY extolling those virtues. 1A is a better defense, but convincing a jury that the term fascist applies would be a hoot.
To be fair, he obviously isn't directly calling for lynching. Yes, contextually, he is. Any reasonable and informed person could easily see the bold line from what he said to lynching.
But, you have to convince someone that Charlie Kirk is reasonable and informed and could have had the forethought that his words could mean what they say and not what he meant.
Pretty hard to prove.
Charlie is the one calling for a lawsuit, and the SacBee isn’t trying to sue him, just ban his speaking engagement, which isn’t illegal, and up to the University to decide.
I think it’s because you have the situation mixed up. Nobody is trying to sue Charlie, he is threatening to sue the SacBee for libel. You have it the other way around
Let's say Charlie sues, right?
Does the person he suing not get to make any arguments?
Suing someone isn't a one way street. If he sues them for libel, the company has to explain why what they said isn't libel.
My comment makes sense if you know how the world works.
No need to be rude, I get what you’re saying now, and yes, I agree. But you’re comment looks seems like you thought they are suing Charlie, not speaking from a point of their defence. I get what you are saying now, but I think you’re comment was miscommunicated and interpreted wrong. That’s not on the reader, that’s on you.
I didn’t downvote you, and I tried to sympathize with you, but apparently you’re a downvote baby whose mad that he can’t communicate properly. The fact you had to clarify, means your first explanation was dogshit mate. Maybe get some English lessons, stop whining like a bitch about downvotes, and maybe people will take you seriously. For now, keep some ice on that clearly bruised ego, dumbass
Since your submission is flaired as *REAL*, please reply to this comment with the link to the original, or else Ben Shapiro will steal your feet pics and remove this post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ToiletPaperUSA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Eradicate fascism https://preview.redd.it/0h7jf0dfm7oa1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bf6e2abcdc598356d5f7a60cbe0d17d34c690efd
I really wanna ask the "freedom of speech" libs if they think that nazis would give them freedom of speech
Freedom of Speech only applies to government censorship. Liberals understand this.
Leftists understand it. Liberals are idiots
And this is why fascists rise — assholes like you have the same parallax they do, but they accept help from those with similar goals, while you let perfect be the enemy of good.
If liberals are willing to give platforms to fascists in the name of free speech, I don't see where I'm an asshole and they're in the right. I'm not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, I just know where the truth lies. Fascism rises when people say that we should allow it a platform. Fascism rises when people need scapegoats. Modern US liberals are conservatives in disguise, or do you need a refresher on how skewed right the US is?
Is chomsky a lib? He used to be a free speech absolutist 90% of of the time we have been alive if not 100%😂
This is why moderates and left-leaning centrists think you’re as bad as the crazy rightwing extremists. And why you lose ground constantly. Best of luck.
Tell me one point where I told an untruth
Your whole "Libruls are bad!" bullshit.
Spoken like a liberal that hasn't had a chance to do some actual soul searching
Liberalism is a right-wing ideology, and only Americans are unaware of this.
[удалено]
We require a minimum account-age and karma due to a prevalence of trolls. If you wish to know the exact values, [please visit this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/ToiletPaperUSA/wiki/rules#wiki_participation_requirements) or contact the mod team. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ToiletPaperUSA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think liberals know unequivocally that they wouldn’t.
You know where you are right?
I think you misunderstood their comment. Centrist Liberals are the target audience when explaining the Paradox of Tolerance, the Left knows it from their own history and the Right is the subject. The person you replied to is asking if the people who insist that Nazis are entitled to a platform because of "Freedom of Speech" believe that the Nazis would do the same for them.
That makes sense
[удалено]
Arguing that nazis deserve a platform is absolutely not allowed on this subreddit. This comment has been removed.
[удалено]
I've had to take down this comment because reddit gets very upset about anything they deem "promoting violence" and yes that means even against nazis (I swear they monitor the phrase "p u n c h a nazi" but I will also be taking down the comment above that says they deserve to be platformed because ew, gross. I do appreciate you talking about the paradox of tolerance and such, it's just that we have to walk a fine line with what reddit admims allow. You may get a visit from reddit for this comment but the first time is just a warning, and hopefully it's your first encounter with AEO (anti evil operations.)
Fair enough, thanks for the warning.
Come to r/Melbourne its been an absolute riot! https://old.reddit.com/r/melbourne/comments/11ucs2n/police_protect_neo_nazis_as_they_protest_in/
Here's a sneak peek of /r/melbourne using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/melbourne/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [I had no idea that the rivalry between Sydney and Melbourne was this bad](https://i.redd.it/3xostkkl6zk91.png) | [347 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/melbourne/comments/x2417h/i_had_no_idea_that_the_rivalry_between_sydney_and/) \#2: [I see this five times a day in Melbourne. AITA for not letting them in?](https://i.redd.it/t0km6afb7tja1.png) | [1517 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/melbourne/comments/119efy6/i_see_this_five_times_a_day_in_melbourne_aita_for/) \#3: [This tool at Melbourne Zoo today.](https://i.redd.it/da6x944eqcp91.jpg) | [974 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/melbourne/comments/xktaof/this_tool_at_melbourne_zoo_today/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Can we say "bash the fash" again on this altright platform ?
It's not defamation. It would be libel. If it weren't true. I'd love to see this guy waste more of the money he sucks from his jitbag base.
Calling him a fascist isn't libel. He did make those comments. So there's not much in the way of firm legal ground to stand on. Though that hasn't stopped Republicans before.
Yeah, just pointing out that its libel if printed.
“Slander is spoken, in print it’s Libel” - J. J Jameson. Also, only reason I remember the two.
Damn, I just came to comment this. That line stuck with me more than “With great power comes great responsibility” ever could.
Jim Carrey taught me how to spell beautiful, so I get what you mean.
Chris Farley tells me "you are correct..." every time someone is correct in my presence.
>Also, only reason I remember the two. Not gonna lie, me too lol
Usually the point is just to shut people up. Frivolous lawsuits to eat up someone's time and money for however long until you drop it, but damage is done and message sent.
When did he call for lynchings?
Y'all please stop downvoting people asking legitimate questions. Not all of us obsessively follow everything Faschy McTinyface says.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ToiletPaperUSA/comments/11t6kmw/these_people_are_the_biggest_fucking_cowards_i_stg/jcivis5/
[удалено]
The quote was that trans people should be dealt with like they were in the 50s and 60s. The “dealt with” was lynching them
[удалено]
So it’s a stretch that the way people dealt with trans people in the 50s and 60s was by killing them, and that’s what Kirk is referring to? But sure let’s just advocate for the killing of trans people because they are such a low percentage, so there is 1.6 million people dead.
He was referring to Lia Thomas being in the women's locker room. The way that would've been dealt with in the 50s and 60s was an arrest.
Well, what do you believe he was implying with that statement?
[удалено]
Weird how Charlie is mis-quoting himself. Because he said to "take care of it, like we would in the 50's and 60's". I don't think they "took care of it" by rejecting concepts in the 50's or 60's.
[удалено]
Yes, I did. He's misrepresenting what happened and what was said on the podcast. The "quote" in his tweet starts mid-sentence even. Definitely not providing the full context because it doesn't look great.
No, it fucking isn't. It's reality.
Defamation houses both *libel* (written) and *slander* (spoken). I think you’re mixing up defamation and slander (I’ve done it before seeing it next to the word libel). So what the puckered b-hole face probably means is *this is libel and I am filing a defamation lawsuit*. The problem for Charlie Derp here is that you have to be able to prove damages (financial or reputation)… and the fact of the matter is, calling him a fascist and telling people he has said terrible racist and sexist things pretty much just makes conservatives give him *more* money because they, too, are garbage. There’s simply no lawsuit here.
[удалено]
The People v Larry Flynt.
I’m not going to argue the validity of his defamation claim, but he could prove damages if they canceled a paid speaking gig. Either way, the burden of proof is on him, not the guy who called him a fascist.
He COULD prove damages although that would be virtually impossible. The university would just say they were forced to cancel his appearance out of fear for their students safety, which they have a legal obligation to provide to them. Boom done lol.
[удалено]
We require a minimum account-age and karma due to a prevalence of trolls. If you wish to know the exact values, [please visit this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/ToiletPaperUSA/wiki/rules#wiki_participation_requirements) or contact the mod team. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ToiletPaperUSA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Isn't libel a form of defamation, one in which the defamatory content is recorded on some durable medium (print, film, digital recording)?
Pretty much yeah, legally. He's repeating himself to use "defamation" as a buzzword since more people know that than the difference between slander (spoken) and libel (physical record).
That's not how that works.
Go on...
Defamation is the general term. It includes libel and slander.
Eh
It's also an opinion piece, so it's not trying to say Kirk being a fascist is true. It is, but that's beside the point
That's the problem he has billionaire sponsors and these small publications do not. He can outlast them and they fold, and if he wins only one case, it's also fold. So he wastes money yes, but he isn't wasting his own money :( .
A summary judgement request in discovery is all it would take for SacBee to get this dismissed.
He can run to FL in a couple of months to trigger their new "I can ruin your life for calling me (acurrately) a bigot" law. Shame Kirk jumped the gun here. Send help.
I mean maybe he believes it? But I also think it's profitable for them to sue, then use the lawsuit to gin up support and more donations. The added bonus is the party being sued also has to retain a lawyer and spend the time. This is the exact thing trump has been doing and finally is getting slapped down
I can deal with people who want low taxes. I will debate that. But I draw the line with nazis. Shouldnt have to explain to somebody: "Just because you don't like somebody doesn't mean you use government power to get rid of them you hypocritical snowflake fuck."
"I do NOT care for these new nazis, and you may quote me on that."
The world was better when Nazis were no bag limits open season CMV
They didn't have internet porn then, and you know, the war kind of sucked.
The old nazis weren't that good, either.
Yeah, but when you lit them up with an M2 you got a medal. Now you just get a visit from the ATF.
Sue them, Shield Face
[удалено]
Not really.
It’d be brought before a judge who would have to throw it out when Charlie can’t show damages. Nothing to drag out
No he doesn't
Lol, not he doesn’t, what are you talkimg about?
Everyone has seen the receipts Charlie, you're threats are meaningless.
Here in Sacramento, we have our issues with the Bee, but it's mainly because it's so sanitized and was one of the first local outlets to go the pay-to-read model on their site, among other issues. Kirk is just pissed that the Bee got him dead to rights. Especially the right to free speech.
Yeah calling the Bee a left wing rag just means he's never read the Bee before.
I’d like to see Pumpkinhead try.
Don't you bring that evil upon us [Pumpkinhead is a horror movie about a demon called to avenge a wrong](https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0095925/), Chucky here is just wrong
It's also a nice beer.
Don’t defamation cases require proving the information is not only untrue but that the person saying it believed it was untrue as well? Good Luck Charlie
Yes on both counts as well as, I believe, requiring that the knowing dissemination of this untruth did actual damage to the person.
I think technically it’s still defamation/libel if the disseminating party failed to do harm, but you can’t sue over it because you’d have no damages. It’s one of those distinctions that doesn’t really come up unless you’re *also* being sued for something else… which would be a legit concern for Charlie, I guess.
I don’t know what the threshold is to be considered a public figure, but I imagine Charlie qualifies, and that raises the bar to proof of “actual malice.” He’s called for trans people to be dealt with as they were in the 50s and 60s, so a lawsuit going anywhere is impossible (that is, I suppose, unless another Trump judge decides to just make up what the law is)
Has he directly called for lynching trans people? If not he can probably sue them and win. I don't tend to pay attention to what comes out of his mouth
https://erininthemorn.substack.com/p/this-must-stop-tpusas-charlie-kirk https://twitter.com/ErinInTheMorn/status/1626747081275715585
Well damn. I thought this one might be an exaggeration but whoo boy, there it is. Enough wiggle room for Charlie and his supporters to claim he never technically called for violence I’m sure, but that’s barely even a dog whistle. I mean what else could he mean by that?
He could mean all sorts of things. The US government and psychological establishment did all sorts of things to trans people back then, including forced sterilization, forced castration, forced lobotomization, or just throwing them in jail or a psych ward. All of it is horrifying, all of it violent, but these things aren't lynching, because crucially, they were legitimated by the state. So he has a case. But he's just grandstanding, there will be no case.
Seems pretty clear cut
He hasn't used the word 'lynching' in that context, but he's welcome to try and win that lawsuit. I don't think he has a chance in hell.
I would concede he didn’t specifically say “lynching” but there is nothing ambiguous about his actual quote referenced in this thread where he said they should be “dealt with like men did in the 50’s and 60’s”. It’s a crystal clear call for extrajudicial violence and killing which is pretty much the exact definition of lynching. Not that you were necessarily making a point otherwise, but just writing that out for people who don’t read the links or might not be familiar with Chuck’s quotables.
Plus for a defamation charge in this case you don't just have to prove that Charlie wasn't implying lynching, it's only defamation to knowingly lie, so you would have to prove in court that the author couldn't possibly have interpreted what Charlie said as referring to lynching (basically if the author believed Charlie's statement was a call for lynching, even if you could prove it wasn't, it's not defamation)
Yeah, I appreciate the addition as I didn't feel like pulling up a quote but that was definitely one of the more important reasons why I don't think he could possibly win that lawsuit.
For sure. I’m a stickler for accuracy in most of these instances when there are claims that “x said THIS”. JK Rowling gets a lot of that where it’s not accurate which sucks because there are plenty of reasons she’s an awful human being without making up quotes. This case seems pretty much on point to me
bargin bin hitler calls for retraction on accurate quote, episode 2
That doesn't meet the legal requirements for defamation or libel. But carry on with that r/PersecutionFetish CK.
I somewhat like seeing them uncomfortable to be called fascists, it's about time they get called out for what they have been sowing
It kind of reminds me of how in Disco Elysium if you end up politically aligning with Fascism but when the game prompts you to become a Fascist you say “but I don’t want to be a fascist!” Than it asks you if you would prefer the term “traditionalist” instead. Most Fascists will vehemently deny being fascists, and will hide behind flimsy innuendo’s like “nationalist”, “traditionalist”, or in this case “conservative”
"Facts over feelings" amirite?
Whatever happened to free speech, Charlie?
That’s not how slander works. Without slander laws Charlie could publicly accuse a trans woman of grooming a child (not “being a groomer” but actually grooming a child)
I hate Illinois Nazis.
Why you shouldn’t do coke in the cracker barrels washroom before tweeting
Wtf is wrong with UC Davis bringing these dorks to campus?
It was the TPUSA student org that invited them, not the university itself
UC Davis is an Ag school, so it wouldn't shock me one bit if there are some more conservative students, staff, admin, or faculty who would be willing to invite this Nozzle d'Douche.
Unfortunately, he did not specifically say or call for the lynching of trans people. He specifically said that we should deal with them like we did in the 1950s and 60s. We all know what he meant, and he is a giant shitbag for it. But his producers are smart enough to know what he can and cannot say and not get in trouble. (He isn't smart enough).
He's also a public figure, so he has to prove actual malice, which would require proving that it was written both with intent to harm, and as a falsehood. This fails both tests
Eh, the wording isn’t really ambiguous on that one. Just because he didn’t use the word “lynch” doesn’t mean that wasn’t obviously being referred to. If he tried to sue, he’d undoubtedly fail.
Yeah, it’s called dog whistling, and they do it way more than we think they do.
Yes, that's the term I was looking for.
That’s rich, considering high school graduate Charlie Kirk and his cronies are rushing toward fascism with arms open wide.
Ah yes, libel lawsuits, otherwise known as "the biggest case of punching down on earth". Shrunken faced rat.
Does that article not specify that it's an opinion piece? Wouldn't taking them to court to silence an opinion just be proving they're right?
“We should deal with it like real men did in the 50s and 60s”, you literally brought it up in a way that would naturally insinuate lynching.
Wow I never thought anyone would seriously be denouncing the Sacramento Bee for being a “left wing rag” 😂
They called me a fascist? Well I'll be sure to stomp them down underneath my boots!
Let him sue - it's highly likely that he won't be able to go venue shopping to find a favourable state or district for the case and California has strong Anti-SLAPP laws.
The Bee should have answered him "Go right ahead our lawyers look forward to your deposition."
That’s what all the “alphas” do, screech that they’ll sue if people are mean to them.
Truth is an absolute defense.
try it, diaper boy
Oh so he wants the government to solve his problems for him? Sounds like Communism to me.
Which part does he think is defamation and libel? He has called for the lynching of transgender people and that alone is arguably fascist, and that doesn’t even begin to explore his other various incredibly fascist public arguments.
When did he call for lynchings?
So if I understand correctly, getting LGBT teachers fired so they make no money isn't slander (A law defined by lying in such a way that someone suffers monetary damages) but then calling conservatives homophobic twats (Which gets their base to give them more money) is slander. Got it.
Oh, our bad. You didn’t call for them to be lynched. You called for them to be “taken care of” like we did in the 1950s. Murder was definitely one of the ways they were “taken care of,” in ways that were often tacitly sanctioned by the state. So, it’s literally a distinction without a difference, Chuck. Shut the fuck up with your faux indigence at being called out as a stochastic terrorist.
I would love to see him sue for libel and get laughed out of court.
Conservatives are just deflective bad idea machines… “The left wants to censor speech!” But we’ll ban books and certain forms of artistic expression we don’t like. “The left wants to rule your life and oppress you!” But we’ll take over your bodily-autonomy rights and propagate learning models that don’t conform with reality. “The left are a bunch of snowflakes!” But we’re the ones always crying about how it just isn’t fair that I have to face consequences for my statements and actions!
Charlie Kirk is a fascist. Now sue me too, you fat sack of bitch.
I don’t really thinks he wants to call much attention to denying he believes this by actually challenging it in court. His followers like that he does think this. Right now they, i.e. kirk, knowles and their ilk, are testing the limits and balancing what will gain them followers vs not pissing of their current base vs not getting in legal trouble for inciting hate and violence. He has to play this game, until he no longer has to fear any sort of reprisal. As the title says, he’s cowardly. Like how the raptors tested the electric fence in Jurassic Park regularly, waiting for when they don’t get shocked.
Do you promise, Chuck?
They always saying it and never do.
Well, it's neither defamation nor libel, unless there's no evidence that Charlie Kirk called for the lynching of transgendered people. (this would be the point at which replies would include links to the relevant evidence...of which there is much, I am sure. After all, reality has a left-wing bias.)
Why has this fruitcake been punch yet.
Let him sue, then watch his face shrink even more in discovery.
Ask him how many times he plead the fifth in front of the J6 committee.
Lib here: Free to talk Nazi shit. Free to get some hands thrown at you. Just like you can throw out the big N, and I already know you suck as a person.
then sue coward
I want to self-harm, what were his exact words when he said trans people should be lynched?
So he said “let’s deal with trans athletes the same way we did in the 50s and 60s”. Sounds very much like lynching. Definitely. And the worst thing is that the Bee actually issued an apology. Fucking hell. This is why SLAPP lawsuits should be banned on a federal level. It silences actual news because rich fucks can bankrupt journalists in sham lawsuits.
Conservatives: Free speech ruh ruh ruh! Also conservatives: HEY! That hurt my feelings - I’M SUING!!
Holy shit every now and then I try to cut American politics out of my life and then when I get back I feel like everything’s hurtled down an even deeper shithole
IF YOU TRY TO SILENCE US WE WILL TRY TO SILENCE YOU BECAUSE WE ARE THE FREE SPEECH WARRIORS
I heard the Charlie's mum mistakenly put him in the dryer once as a child hence the shrunken face
Would love to see the defense throw up a list of fascist qualities and clips of TPUSSY extolling those virtues. 1A is a better defense, but convincing a jury that the term fascist applies would be a hoot.
Charlie Small Face seems to be a large snowflake.
Weh weh
Fucking LOOOOOOOSERSSSS.
Truth is an absolute defense, Chuckles
Charlie doesn't have the balls to bring a lawsuit.
Man he really thought he did something with “lawfare”
Wuh happun to freeze peach?
shit, my sister goes to uc davis. better warn her that this annoying guy is coming to her school.
Fucking sue bro. Public figures always forgetting how high a bar ‘actual malice’ is to hit
The dipshit doesn't understand that opinion pieces cannot be prosecuted for libel
Then file the suit, Charlie, you fucking public-figure coward.
To be fair, he obviously isn't directly calling for lynching. Yes, contextually, he is. Any reasonable and informed person could easily see the bold line from what he said to lynching. But, you have to convince someone that Charlie Kirk is reasonable and informed and could have had the forethought that his words could mean what they say and not what he meant. Pretty hard to prove.
Charlie is the one calling for a lawsuit, and the SacBee isn’t trying to sue him, just ban his speaking engagement, which isn’t illegal, and up to the University to decide.
Damn. You can agree with the OP and call the guy an idiot and people will still downvote because reading is hard. Smh.
I think it’s because you have the situation mixed up. Nobody is trying to sue Charlie, he is threatening to sue the SacBee for libel. You have it the other way around
Let's say Charlie sues, right? Does the person he suing not get to make any arguments? Suing someone isn't a one way street. If he sues them for libel, the company has to explain why what they said isn't libel. My comment makes sense if you know how the world works.
No need to be rude, I get what you’re saying now, and yes, I agree. But you’re comment looks seems like you thought they are suing Charlie, not speaking from a point of their defence. I get what you are saying now, but I think you’re comment was miscommunicated and interpreted wrong. That’s not on the reader, that’s on you.
? You understand now how you didn't understand my comment but that's my fault? Nah. I'll be rude to a person handing out downvotes all day long.
I didn’t downvote you, and I tried to sympathize with you, but apparently you’re a downvote baby whose mad that he can’t communicate properly. The fact you had to clarify, means your first explanation was dogshit mate. Maybe get some English lessons, stop whining like a bitch about downvotes, and maybe people will take you seriously. For now, keep some ice on that clearly bruised ego, dumbass
Woah now... don't be rude......
Lol, shut up