Paramount Agrees to pay Trump $16 million in CBS 60 Minutes lawsuit

[Marener]

I'm not sure a judge did.

A judge didn't dismiss it.

He should have, but they managed to shop the lawsuit to a total hack in the middle of the Texas panhandle that loves to ignore precedent and law.

 

[buckeye]

The topic is a lawsuit and you keep brining up some concept of election interference which is a legal issue and does result in compelling behavior.

Election interference is not "some concept". It's real and it has consequences. When a network tries to engage in that, it must be recognized and punished via a lawsuit and/or public shaming.

CBS got both. Right on.

 

[Marener]

Election interference is not "some concept". It's real and it has consequences. When a network tries to engage in that, it must be recognized and punished via a lawsuit and/or public shaming.

CBS got both. Right on.

It’s real in what way? Is it codified into law or part of some precedent?

Can you define it and provide a source?

Don’t networks have free speech rights?

 

[Rambunctious]

I do. Because it shows that the government now is defending into authoritarianism with their attack on free speech.

You sound like a bumper sticker... do you even know what authoritarianism is... because you missed it in both the Obama and Biden presidency's....

 

[Rambunctious]

Do you hold Tucker Carlson or Joe Rogan to that standard?

They are not reporters they are commentators...

 

[Marener]

They are not reporters they are commentators...

So? It’s not like there are different rules they have to follow. Right?

 

[Rambunctious]

So? It’s not like there are different rules they have to follow. Right?

They can be sued for defamation... they can't libel someone... so what have they done that has your panties in a bunch?...

 

[Marener]

They can be sued for defamation... they can't libel someone... so what have they done that has your panties in a bunch?...

Sure. Defamation has a longstanding history with case law, legislation and precedent.

This has nothing to do with defamation. CBS didn’t defame Harris. They didn’t defame Trump.

Doesn’t Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan have the “responsibility” to get it right? You claimed CBS does.

 

[Rambunctious]

Sure. Defamation has a longstanding history with case law, legislation and precedent.

This has nothing to do with defamation. CBS didn’t defame Harris. They didn’t defame Trump.

Doesn’t Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan have the “responsibility” to get it right? You claimed CBS does.

CBS inserted themself into a campaign and acted like Harris's media team by editing her words and then passed it on to us to fool us...
Commentators can tell it as they see it... if they get it wrong they they should say so... but they don't have to like news agencies do...
Reporters are fact finders... commentators are opinion pushers...

 

[Marener]

CBS inserted themself into a campaign and acted like Harris's media team by editing her words and then passed it on to us to fool us...
Commentators can tell it as they see it... if they get it wrong they they should say so... but they don't have to like news agencies do...
Reporters are fact finders... commentators are opinion pushers...

So you’re saying that news agencies have to follow more rules than “commentators”, because you said the opposite earlier.

 

[Rambunctious]

So you’re saying that news agencies have to follow more rules than “commentators”, because you said the opposite earlier.

Reporters have a responsibility to be truthful... commentators give their opinion about issues and events...
Big difference...
For decades left wing news reporters have been morphing into commentators and inserting themselves into the news... now they have to play it straight or get sued...

 

[Marener]

Reporters have a responsibility to be truthful... commentators give their opinion about issues and events...
Big difference...
For decades left wing news reporters have been morphing into commentators and inserting themselves into the news... now they have to play it straight or get sued...

So you do think that reporters have to follow extra rules. Why did you change your mind?

 

[Rambunctious]

So you do think that reporters have to follow extra rules. Why did you change your mind?

Not extra rules... extra responsibilities to be honest and unbiased... there is a difference... they can't be punished for accidentally getting something wrong but they can be sued for purposely trying to aid one side of a political campaign... and that is what CBS did...

 

[Marener]

Not extra rules... extra responsibilities to be honest and unbiased... there is a difference... they can't be punished for accidentally getting something wrong but they can be sued for purposely trying to aid one side of a political campaign... and that is what CBS did...

Rules, responsibilities, you’re just playing semantics now. It’s the same thing. You’re just trying to do some acrobatics because you’re position is bullshit and changing.

You think there is a legal responsibility to be “unbiased”? Why?

 

[Rambunctious]

Rules, responsibilities, you’re just playing semantics now. It’s the same thing. You’re just trying to do some acrobatics because you’re position is bullshit and changing.

You think there is a legal responsibility to be “unbiased”? Why?

Not a legal responsibility an ethical responsibility... you keep trying to twist this into a legality issue... I don't know why you keep trying to do that... reporters must be honest and ethical... don't you want them to be?... if these reporters can just lie their asses off what good are they to society...

 

[Marener]

Not a legal responsibility an ethical responsibility... you keep trying to twist this into a legality issue... I don't know why you keep trying to do that... reporters must be honest and ethical... don't you want them to be?... if these reporters can just lie their asses off what good are they to society...

If you can be sued for not living up to this “responsibility”, then it is a legal responsibility.

 

[Rambunctious]

If you can be sued for not living up to this “responsibility”, then it is a legal responsibility.

No its not... if a law was broken an arrest must take place not a private lawsuit... did you go to college?...

 

[Marener]

No it’s not... if a law was broken an arrest must take place not a private lawsuit... did you go to college?...

A contract represents a legal responsibility but if you break it then you are subject to a private lawsuit.

If you can be successfully sued for something, it represents a legal responsibility.

Yes, I went to college and I reason and engage in critical thinking better than you.

 

[buckeye]

It’s real in what way? Is it codified into law or part of some precedent?

You're the one who cried out, "Russia, Russia, Russia!!!!" for four years and refuses to believe that Mueller was unable to find collusion between Trump and Russia in getting elected.

If you're now unable to understand election interference, you are too stupid to exchange posts with.

Don’t networks have free speech rights?

LOL!!!! Of course, but when they operate only presenting one sided news and manipulate an interview to protect an extremely poor candidate they support, they're stuck with the consequences.

 

[Rambunctious]

A contract represents a legal responsibility but if you break it then you are subject to a private lawsuit.

If you can be successfully sued for something, it represents a legal responsibility.

Yes, I went to college and I reason and engage in critical thinking better than you.

No it doesn't.... A contract is a legally binding agreement between two or more parties... if one breaks the contract he or she is not subject to arrest they are risking a lawsuit... not incarceration....