Nunes' lawsuit against Maddow and MSNBC moves forward

[struth]

People love to use the threat and nuisance of these lawsuits to prevent people from speaking freely about them.

It’s absolutely a disrespect of the freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the right to lie and slander someone's reputation.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the right to lie and slander someone's reputation.

he knows he doesn't mind when liberals do it just when conservatives might

 

[WEATHER53]

So much for free speech.

Free speech and defamatory untruthful speech are Not the same

 

[struth]

Free speech and defamatory untruthful speech are Not the same

that poster highlights how little he knows, daily…i actually am embarrassed for him often

 

[Marener]

Free speech and defamatory untruthful speech are Not the same

So you agree with Alex Jones having to pay parents a billion then.

 

[Marener]

Do you believe that it is not okay for Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to remove posts from their web sites because it is a disrespect for free speech?

Why wouldn’t it be? No one is being punished for speaking.

 

[Marener]

I would win. Adams Apple is a leftist wacko.

That’s your opinion, not a fact.

But her show isn’t 24/7 anything. It’s on for one hour a day, five days a week. That’s a lie.

You should be sued.

 

[Marener]

Maddow falsely said, without qualification or any evidence whatsoever, that Nunes kept important interference information from his colleagues on the U.S. House Intelligence Committee. Unless she can prove that he did that, to say that on national television is absolutely malicious slander.

That’s not true. You are required to prove your claims in court. It is the burden of proof of the adjuster that the person said it was false and that the speaker was aware it was false.

 

[Foxfyre]

That’s not true. You are required to prove your claims in court. It is the burden of proof of the adjuster that the person said it was false and that the speaker was aware it was false.

I didn't say anything different other than if she has no evidence of any kind that he did that, then he has a good case that she made it up intentionally to smear him. Given the content of her show, she cannot show absence of malice.

I cannot go on national television and say as fact a falsehood that you, Marener, did whatever to whomever in a way that damages your credibility, reputation, or otherwise is harmful to you. It gets in a gray area and most likely wouldn't rise to the level of slander if I said Marener has no chance to *** or Marener is thought of as a ***. Vagueness & ambiguity most often protects the slanderer, but accusation of a specific act does not.

 

[WEATHER53]

So you agree with Alex Jones having to pay parents a billion then.

Alex Jones was wrong with what he said

 

[Concerned American]

Unless she can prove that he did that, to say that on national television is absolutely malicious slander.

Unless it is true or she stated that it was "her opinion." In either case she would prevail. Without proving it was true or if she did not qualify it as her opinion--she loses.

 

[Marener]

Alex Jones was wrong with what he said

What’s the difference between being wrong and defamation?

 

[Papageorgio]

Why wouldn’t it be? No one is being punished for speaking.

So not being allowed to voice your opinion is okay, however slandering or libeling someone would be okay?

 

[struth]

So you agree with Alex Jones having to pay parents a billion then.

i have no problem with that

 

[Concerned American]

What’s the difference between being wrong and defamation?

Look it up Einstein, you've been spreading your misinformation all morning.

 

[Marener]

I didn't say anything different other than if she has no evidence of any kind that he did that, then he has a good case that she made it up intentionally to smear him. Given the content of her show, she cannot show absence of malice.

I cannot go on national television and say as fact a falsehood that you, Marener, did whatever to whomever in a way that damages your credibility, reputation, or otherwise is harmful to you. It gets in a gray area and most likely wouldn't rise to the level of slander if I said Marener has no chance to *** or Marener is thought of as a ***. Vagueness & ambiguity most often protects the slanderer, but accusation of a specific act does not.

For starters, you do not know what Maddow has or doesn’t have.

Second, Nunes has to prove it’s a lie.

Third, he has to prove Maddow knew it was a lie.

You can’t be sued for being mistaken. If that were the case, everyone on national television would be sued.

 

[Foxfyre]

Unless it is true or she stated that it was "her opinion." In either case she would prevail. Without proving it was true or if she did not qualify it as her opinion--she loses.

Well, let's say she SHOULD lose. If the defense is successful in sitting an anti-Trump jury, don't bet on a verdict going Nunes' way. You can count on them getting Trump into the content. I'm too jaded to believe there is such a thing as justice in modern American politics these days.

 

[Marener]

So not being allowed to voice your opinion is okay, however slandering or libeling someone would be okay?

You have a right to voice your opinion in public spaces and your own property. That’s it.

I cannot come and place a sign in you front lawn and whine when you take it down because you’re “not allowing me to voice my opinion”. It’s your right to manage your property as you see fit.

 

[Marener]

Well, let's say she SHOULD lose. If the defense is successful in sitting an anti-Trump jury, don't bet on a verdict going Nunes' way. You can count on them getting Trump into the content. I'm too jaded to believe there is such a thing as justice in modern American politics these days.

There’s a difference between justice and just getting what you want.

 

[Foxfyre]

For starters, you do not know what Maddow has or doesn’t have.

Second, Nunes has to prove it’s a lie.

Third, he has to prove Maddow knew it was a lie.

You can’t be sued for being mistaken. If that were the case, everyone on national television would be sued.

"I believed it was true" when you have no evidence to believe is not a defense in a slander or libel suit. Repeating a rumor by somebody who is not in a position to know is not a defense in a slander suit. At least if hearsay evidence is still disallowed in court. Please reread my argument. I said nothing about what evidence she does or does not have or that I have any knowledge of how she came up with that information.