You can. It's just that the first amendment is very biased toward freedom of speech. Rightfully so. It also requires very deep pockets. Media outlets can exhaust your life savings with motions and delay tactics without breaking a sweat. It's totally rigged in that sense.
I'm just finishing the book Conspiracy by Ryan Holiday about Peter Thiel & Hulk Hogan vs. Gawker media. They won, but it took a lot of money and conspiring.
IMO this is the one place our forefathers dropped the ball. The onus should always be on the publisher to prove they didn’t act maliciously, rather than the person who was harmed having to prove they did.
Mostly because trying to prove intent is extremely difficult, almost like proving a negative, and without a confession or secret recording it’s almost impossible to prove they acted maliciously just to harm you. “It’s just an opinion, man” is the common defense.
The Hulk Hogan case was easy, they had a court order and Gawker still refused to remove the video. That’s obvious malicious conduct to cause harm. That shouldn’t be the bar that has to be reached for redress, especially if you’re fighting against false allegations, because you’re forced to revictimize yourself in the court of public opinion to seek justice.
Yeah, it's already hard enough to prove that someone was negligent in publishing a falsehood, because when there's a lot of facts and hearsay out there it can be easy to overlook critical information. Proving malice is nearly impossible.
"People reached out to you and you ignored them / refused to publish a retraction" should be enough evidence if it can be shown that 1) the correct information could have been confirmed and 2) a reasonable amount of time passed since the demand for retraction and filing the lawsuit.
Several years ago, I had a blog post accuse me of being behind an Internet personality. While the personality was not criminal in actions, the blog did bring unwarranted and uncomfortable attention toward me.
I was not the person they posted. I spoke with my attorneys and they advised me to contact the author and explain they needed to publicly retract the statement as a first and cheaper tactic. The author caved. They were just guessing and had no proof. I guess I had written some things in a public sphere that reminded them of that person and attributed it to me.
It's a great quick read. I literally just finished it a few moments ago and I'm heading to the library now to return it.
There's some mild TDS in there because of Thiel's endorsement of Trump at the RNC, but it's always fun to relive the 2016 election regardless of who is telling the story.
Also, I've said it before and I'm going to keep saying it, this site needs a book club badly. There is so much great material out there. We don't have to keep sharing the same Breitbart and Gateway Pundit links. Books go deep and can be very inspiring towards our cause.
Some of the early conservative talk radio shows were book author interview shows. Was a good thing that got us listeners to read a lot. Everyday conservatives knew more Soviet history than most state department staff and more about Marxism than most self proclaimed communists.
It’s only difficult Obummer signed an EO, or this was passed as part of a Defense Authorization Act, reclassified most media as entertainment and un-outlawed propaganda in the US. Fix that shit and these traitors would be crushed in any non-treasonous court. (Obviously that last is a problem too but, yah know, one problem at a time).
We need to be able to sue for this sort of thing.
You can. It's just that the first amendment is very biased toward freedom of speech. Rightfully so. It also requires very deep pockets. Media outlets can exhaust your life savings with motions and delay tactics without breaking a sweat. It's totally rigged in that sense.
I'm just finishing the book Conspiracy by Ryan Holiday about Peter Thiel & Hulk Hogan vs. Gawker media. They won, but it took a lot of money and conspiring.
IMO this is the one place our forefathers dropped the ball. The onus should always be on the publisher to prove they didn’t act maliciously, rather than the person who was harmed having to prove they did.
Mostly because trying to prove intent is extremely difficult, almost like proving a negative, and without a confession or secret recording it’s almost impossible to prove they acted maliciously just to harm you. “It’s just an opinion, man” is the common defense.
The Hulk Hogan case was easy, they had a court order and Gawker still refused to remove the video. That’s obvious malicious conduct to cause harm. That shouldn’t be the bar that has to be reached for redress, especially if you’re fighting against false allegations, because you’re forced to revictimize yourself in the court of public opinion to seek justice.
Yeah, it's already hard enough to prove that someone was negligent in publishing a falsehood, because when there's a lot of facts and hearsay out there it can be easy to overlook critical information. Proving malice is nearly impossible.
"People reached out to you and you ignored them / refused to publish a retraction" should be enough evidence if it can be shown that 1) the correct information could have been confirmed and 2) a reasonable amount of time passed since the demand for retraction and filing the lawsuit.
Several years ago, I had a blog post accuse me of being behind an Internet personality. While the personality was not criminal in actions, the blog did bring unwarranted and uncomfortable attention toward me.
I was not the person they posted. I spoke with my attorneys and they advised me to contact the author and explain they needed to publicly retract the statement as a first and cheaper tactic. The author caved. They were just guessing and had no proof. I guess I had written some things in a public sphere that reminded them of that person and attributed it to me.
Amen
Exactly.
Yep; and it is worth repeating often. A lot of people think lack of a lawsuit means guilt... when that is completely wrong in the US.
Thank you for the recommendation. I will check that out.
It's a great quick read. I literally just finished it a few moments ago and I'm heading to the library now to return it.
There's some mild TDS in there because of Thiel's endorsement of Trump at the RNC, but it's always fun to relive the 2016 election regardless of who is telling the story.
Also, I've said it before and I'm going to keep saying it, this site needs a book club badly. There is so much great material out there. We don't have to keep sharing the same Breitbart and Gateway Pundit links. Books go deep and can be very inspiring towards our cause.
Some of the early conservative talk radio shows were book author interview shows. Was a good thing that got us listeners to read a lot. Everyday conservatives knew more Soviet history than most state department staff and more about Marxism than most self proclaimed communists.
I would be all in for a book club
It’s only difficult Obummer signed an EO, or this was passed as part of a Defense Authorization Act, reclassified most media as entertainment and un-outlawed propaganda in the US. Fix that shit and these traitors would be crushed in any non-treasonous court. (Obviously that last is a problem too but, yah know, one problem at a time).
If that's all it is, why didn't Trump tear up that Executive Order. It's more than that.
Probably half is EO, other half is part of a DAC. Can’t rip up the DAC part, and other problem is DACA got blocked by courts early on.
Sometimes you just sue.... Get the publicity to further expose the lie but only go so far and then let it die on its own