Every Trump Supporter in Nevada should sue someone - any Lawyers out there that can pull together a class-action law suit? - the Defendant can be the MSM & any Democrat that has run for office, both locally and federally....
Nah, there's certain legal contexts where your reputation is so bad that you are literally considered "libel proof". That is to say that no matter what someone says about you it could not meaningfully make your reputation any worse than it already is (from a legal standpoint). You should look it up if you haven't heard about it before, it's an interesting read, and pretty much everyone that's been labeled as "libel proof" in the US have stories behind them that will make your head spin for just how awful they are as people. I recall one baseball player for example that is such an awful piece of shit that a judge officially ruled him as being libel-proof.
Interesting, will look that up. So one of these libel-proof people could make any accusation they want, no matter how false, without getting in trouble because everyone knows they're are just too much of a shit head to be worth listening too.
No, it's the other way around. If you're libel-proof it means that anyone can say anything they want about you and you can't sue them for libel because your reputation is so bad that nothing anyone says about you could possibly make your reputation worse.
Effectively if someone has been judged as libel-proof by a court of law that person can no longer bring libel or defamation cases against other people.
As an example if Bob is libel-proof and Tom calls Bob a sick pedo commie animal fucker that enjoys having people shit on his face and that Bob also likes to rob people, Bob cannot sue Tom for defamation or libel because Bob's reputation is already so bad that nothing Tom says can cause damage to Bob's reputation because it's already so bad that it can't be made worse.
If someone states they think someone's motivation for something could be racism then that would be a context where it's not libel.
I'd assume it's libel in the same respect as where calling someone a paedophile might be libel.
If you say you think someone is a paedophile it's not going to be libel but if you say someone is a paedophile then it is usually.
Though different areas have different rules on libel. Some it's only if it's disprovable or clearly false. Others it's enough if it's just not provable.
If a police officer arrests someone who happens to be black, then a journalist says that's racism then that's open and shut libel. If the journalist were so retarded they didn't see the error in that then they would not be a journalist, they would be under special constant care, effectively perpetually a child. That's libel open and closed. The logic that it's racism because one's black and one is white while the white one is simply fulfilling their duty is clearly malicious because that's retarded and it's well below the level of the journalist to discern that. Bing bang wallop.
Because the libel targets not just the individual but the department and their race the scope as to who can sue may potentially widen depending on law though this may be poorly tested.
However for the accusations of racism they fill a unique category where they typically include their reasoning which is provably flawed setting themselves up.
Calling someone a racist (or accusing them of engaging in racism) has NEVER been specifically excluded from libel laws from what I know so this ruling is actually pretty bizarre.
Most of the time it's malicious rather than stupid.
That means basically that their presented reasoning for branding someone as racist is flawed in nearly all cases yet not beyond their intellectual capacity to determine the reasoning as flawed making most cases open and closed.
Time to sue my sister
haha, they will only use this to hurt trump supporters and conservatives. will not apply to libshits and dems.
Every Trump Supporter in Nevada should sue someone - any Lawyers out there that can pull together a class-action law suit? - the Defendant can be the MSM & any Democrat that has run for office, both locally and federally....
"in certain contexts"
How about in all contexts. But at least that's something.
Nah, there's certain legal contexts where your reputation is so bad that you are literally considered "libel proof". That is to say that no matter what someone says about you it could not meaningfully make your reputation any worse than it already is (from a legal standpoint). You should look it up if you haven't heard about it before, it's an interesting read, and pretty much everyone that's been labeled as "libel proof" in the US have stories behind them that will make your head spin for just how awful they are as people. I recall one baseball player for example that is such an awful piece of shit that a judge officially ruled him as being libel-proof.
Interesting, will look that up. So one of these libel-proof people could make any accusation they want, no matter how false, without getting in trouble because everyone knows they're are just too much of a shit head to be worth listening too.
Almost comical in a way.
No you've got it backwards.
No, it's the other way around. If you're libel-proof it means that anyone can say anything they want about you and you can't sue them for libel because your reputation is so bad that nothing anyone says about you could possibly make your reputation worse.
Effectively if someone has been judged as libel-proof by a court of law that person can no longer bring libel or defamation cases against other people.
As an example if Bob is libel-proof and Tom calls Bob a sick pedo commie animal fucker that enjoys having people shit on his face and that Bob also likes to rob people, Bob cannot sue Tom for defamation or libel because Bob's reputation is already so bad that nothing Tom says can cause damage to Bob's reputation because it's already so bad that it can't be made worse.
If someone states they think someone's motivation for something could be racism then that would be a context where it's not libel.
I'd assume it's libel in the same respect as where calling someone a paedophile might be libel.
If you say you think someone is a paedophile it's not going to be libel but if you say someone is a paedophile then it is usually.
Though different areas have different rules on libel. Some it's only if it's disprovable or clearly false. Others it's enough if it's just not provable.
If a police officer arrests someone who happens to be black, then a journalist says that's racism then that's open and shut libel. If the journalist were so retarded they didn't see the error in that then they would not be a journalist, they would be under special constant care, effectively perpetually a child. That's libel open and closed. The logic that it's racism because one's black and one is white while the white one is simply fulfilling their duty is clearly malicious because that's retarded and it's well below the level of the journalist to discern that. Bing bang wallop.
Because the libel targets not just the individual but the department and their race the scope as to who can sue may potentially widen depending on law though this may be poorly tested.
However for the accusations of racism they fill a unique category where they typically include their reasoning which is provably flawed setting themselves up.
Calling someone a racist (or accusing them of engaging in racism) has NEVER been specifically excluded from libel laws from what I know so this ruling is actually pretty bizarre.
In most cases it's slander or libel.
It's nearly always stated as fact but get this...
Most of the time it's malicious rather than stupid.
That means basically that their presented reasoning for branding someone as racist is flawed in nearly all cases yet not beyond their intellectual capacity to determine the reasoning as flawed making most cases open and closed.
Shit's gonna go dowwwwwwn at Christmas dinner with some fams.
Oh fuck yes. I am going to have a field day with this.
Proving a negative is extremely hard, and in a libel case?
What about falsely claiming to be president-elect?
haha, they will only use this to hurt trump supporters and conservatives. will not apply to libshits and dems.