OT: Rittenhouse shot \"three black men\" - apparently!...

Raving Fucking IDIOT bill....@ieee.org wrote:
======================================
Simon S Aysdie wrote:

I don\'t know why the law is as it is, I just know it is.
In effect, it is much easier to get away with slandering a public figure than a private one in the US.

** Politicians expect to be disliked by some or many and have to cop it.
But that has nothing to do with *defaming* them with deliberate lies.

As in Donald Trump\'s defamation of Joe Biden, in claiming that Biden suffers from senile dementia?
Click to expand...

** FFS the whole world knows that claim is 100% TRUE !!!!

ONLY the craziest, lefty loonies think he is OK.

Like IEEE Bill

....... Phil
 
Raving Fucking IDIOT bill....@ieee.org wrote:
======================================
Simon S Aysdie wrote:

I don\'t know why the law is as it is, I just know it is.
In effect, it is much easier to get away with slandering a public figure than a private one in the US.

** Politicians expect to be disliked by some or many and have to cop it.
But that has nothing to do with *defaming* them with deliberate lies.

As in Donald Trump\'s defamation of Joe Biden, in claiming that Biden suffers from senile dementia?
Click to expand...

** FFS the whole world knows that claim is 100% TRUE !!!!

ONLY the craziest, lefty loonies think he is OK.

Like IEEE Bill

....... Phil
 
Raving Fucking IDIOT bill....@ieee.org wrote:
======================================
Simon S Aysdie wrote:

I don\'t know why the law is as it is, I just know it is.
In effect, it is much easier to get away with slandering a public figure than a private one in the US.

** Politicians expect to be disliked by some or many and have to cop it.
But that has nothing to do with *defaming* them with deliberate lies.

As in Donald Trump\'s defamation of Joe Biden, in claiming that Biden suffers from senile dementia?
Click to expand...

** FFS the whole world knows that claim is 100% TRUE !!!!

ONLY the craziest, lefty loonies think he is OK.

Like IEEE Bill

....... Phil
 
Raving Fucking IDIOT bill....@ieee.org wrote:
======================================
Simon S Aysdie wrote:

I don\'t know why the law is as it is, I just know it is.
In effect, it is much easier to get away with slandering a public figure than a private one in the US.

** Politicians expect to be disliked by some or many and have to cop it.
But that has nothing to do with *defaming* them with deliberate lies.

As in Donald Trump\'s defamation of Joe Biden, in claiming that Biden suffers from senile dementia?
Click to expand...

** FFS the whole world knows that claim is 100% TRUE !!!!

ONLY the craziest, lefty loonies think he is OK.

Like IEEE Bill

....... Phil
 
On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 3:38:57 PM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
==========================================


** That is a problem for the defamer - to prove their claim is true.
Truth is a defense in defamation law.

Not necessarily, \"The greater the truth, the greater the libel\".

** That is a truism - not a legal prohibition.
Click to expand...

To the extent that it is true, it undercuts your claim.

It you are revealing stuff that doesn\'t need to be public knowledge,

** The so called \"public interest\" defense was knocked out of the law decades ago.
Click to expand...

Where? Cite the relevant precedent.

Truth is a complete defense in all cases now.

Google it FFS you rabid fuckwit.
Click to expand...

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLRS/2008/54.txt/cgi-bin/download.cgi/download/au/journals/UNSWLRS/2008/54.pdf

Of course you have to have published the whole truth, and not just the selected bits that makes the defamed person look worse than the whole truth would.

Fat chance of getting enough column inches to do that.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 3:38:57 PM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
==========================================


** That is a problem for the defamer - to prove their claim is true.
Truth is a defense in defamation law.

Not necessarily, \"The greater the truth, the greater the libel\".

** That is a truism - not a legal prohibition.
Click to expand...

To the extent that it is true, it undercuts your claim.

It you are revealing stuff that doesn\'t need to be public knowledge,

** The so called \"public interest\" defense was knocked out of the law decades ago.
Click to expand...

Where? Cite the relevant precedent.

Truth is a complete defense in all cases now.

Google it FFS you rabid fuckwit.
Click to expand...

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLRS/2008/54.txt/cgi-bin/download.cgi/download/au/journals/UNSWLRS/2008/54.pdf

Of course you have to have published the whole truth, and not just the selected bits that makes the defamed person look worse than the whole truth would.

Fat chance of getting enough column inches to do that.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
IEEE Bill the Rabid Nutter
======================
** That is a problem for the defamer - to prove their claim is true.
Truth is a defense in defamation law.

Not necessarily, \"The greater the truth, the greater the libel\".

** That is a truism - not a legal prohibition.

To the extent that it is true, it undercuts your claim.
Click to expand...

** Drivel - truth is a complete defense.
No matter how defamatory.


It you are revealing stuff that doesn\'t need to be public knowledge,

** The so called \"public interest\" defense was knocked out of the law decades ago.
Truth is a complete defense in all cases now.

Google it FFS you rabid fuckwit.

Of course you have to have published the whole truth,
Click to expand...

** The claim has to be substantially true, it must not imply a serious falsehood.


...... Phil
 
IEEE Bill the Rabid Nutter
======================
** That is a problem for the defamer - to prove their claim is true.
Truth is a defense in defamation law.

Not necessarily, \"The greater the truth, the greater the libel\".

** That is a truism - not a legal prohibition.

To the extent that it is true, it undercuts your claim.
Click to expand...

** Drivel - truth is a complete defense.
No matter how defamatory.


It you are revealing stuff that doesn\'t need to be public knowledge,

** The so called \"public interest\" defense was knocked out of the law decades ago.
Truth is a complete defense in all cases now.

Google it FFS you rabid fuckwit.

Of course you have to have published the whole truth,
Click to expand...

** The claim has to be substantially true, it must not imply a serious falsehood.


...... Phil
 
IEEE Bill the Rabid Nutter
======================
** That is a problem for the defamer - to prove their claim is true.
Truth is a defense in defamation law.

Not necessarily, \"The greater the truth, the greater the libel\".

** That is a truism - not a legal prohibition.

To the extent that it is true, it undercuts your claim.
Click to expand...

** Drivel - truth is a complete defense.
No matter how defamatory.


It you are revealing stuff that doesn\'t need to be public knowledge,

** The so called \"public interest\" defense was knocked out of the law decades ago.
Truth is a complete defense in all cases now.

Google it FFS you rabid fuckwit.

Of course you have to have published the whole truth,
Click to expand...

** The claim has to be substantially true, it must not imply a serious falsehood.


...... Phil
 
On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 5:12:58 PM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
IEEE Bill the Rabid Nutter
======================

** That is a problem for the defamer - to prove their claim is true.
Truth is a defense in defamation law.

Not necessarily, \"The greater the truth, the greater the libel\".

** That is a truism - not a legal prohibition.

To the extent that it is true, it undercuts your claim.

** Drivel - truth is a complete defense.
Click to expand...

The whole truth might be. If what was published was substantially true it can serve as a defense, but news stories tend to emphasise the sensational bits which does lead to defamatory distortions.

<snip>

Of course you have to have published the whole truth,

** The claim has to be substantially true, it must not imply a serious falsehood.
Click to expand...

But newspapers need to suck in readers, and can\'t bore them exculpatory detail.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 5:12:58 PM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
IEEE Bill the Rabid Nutter
======================

** That is a problem for the defamer - to prove their claim is true.
Truth is a defense in defamation law.

Not necessarily, \"The greater the truth, the greater the libel\".

** That is a truism - not a legal prohibition.

To the extent that it is true, it undercuts your claim.

** Drivel - truth is a complete defense.
Click to expand...

The whole truth might be. If what was published was substantially true it can serve as a defense, but news stories tend to emphasise the sensational bits which does lead to defamatory distortions.

<snip>

Of course you have to have published the whole truth,

** The claim has to be substantially true, it must not imply a serious falsehood.
Click to expand...

But newspapers need to suck in readers, and can\'t bore them exculpatory detail.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
IEEE Bill the Rabid Nutter
======================
** That is a problem for the defamer - to prove their claim is true.
Truth is a defense in defamation law.

Not necessarily, \"The greater the truth, the greater the libel\".

** That is a truism - not a legal prohibition.

To the extent that it is true, it undercuts your claim.

** Drivel - truth is a complete defense.

The whole truth might be.
Click to expand...

** Drivel.

( snip massive red herring)

** The claim has to be substantially true, it must not imply a serious falsehood.

But newspapers ....
Click to expand...

** Not the subject - you fuckwit red fish monger .


..... Phil
 
IEEE Bill the Rabid Nutter
======================
** That is a problem for the defamer - to prove their claim is true.
Truth is a defense in defamation law.

Not necessarily, \"The greater the truth, the greater the libel\".

** That is a truism - not a legal prohibition.

To the extent that it is true, it undercuts your claim.

** Drivel - truth is a complete defense.

The whole truth might be.
Click to expand...

** Drivel.

( snip massive red herring)

** The claim has to be substantially true, it must not imply a serious falsehood.

But newspapers ....
Click to expand...

** Not the subject - you fuckwit red fish monger .


..... Phil
 
IEEE Bill the Rabid Nutter
======================
** That is a problem for the defamer - to prove their claim is true.
Truth is a defense in defamation law.

Not necessarily, \"The greater the truth, the greater the libel\".

** That is a truism - not a legal prohibition.

To the extent that it is true, it undercuts your claim.

** Drivel - truth is a complete defense.

The whole truth might be.
Click to expand...

** Drivel.

( snip massive red herring)

** The claim has to be substantially true, it must not imply a serious falsehood.

But newspapers ....
Click to expand...

** Not the subject - you fuckwit red fish monger .


..... Phil
 
On 20/11/2021 17:26, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 20/11/2021 14:35, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 12:16:10 +0000 (GMT), \"Dave Plowman (News)\"
dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

In article <snan38$9t1$1@dont-email.me>,
   Jim GM4DHJ ... <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 20/11/2021 11:20, Cursitor Doom wrote:
The usual impartial, truthful reporting from the usual, impartial
sources: the MSM:

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2021/11/19/fact-check-false-uk-publication-claims-kyle-rittenhouse-shot-three-black-men/

   --

\"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in
the single
   sentence: abolition of private property.\"

    - The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels.

he should sue Biden

Biden\'s lawyers would simply state that since Biden suffers from
advanced dementia, he cannot be held accountable for his words or
actions.

Interesting that Doom links to an article which gives the history of
those
killed, but not the history of the killer. Wonder why that would be?

I hadn\'t even read that far into the article, Dave. Why don\'t you tell
us what Rittenhouse\'s history is? I admit I\'m not aware of any so do
tell us. Give us the benefit of your superior intellect (I won\'t be
holding my breath).

how much history can you have at 17 ? ...
Click to expand...

With nearly 50,000 juveniles incarcerated in the USA, more than half of
them white, quite a lot it seems.

--
Colin Bignell
 
On 20/11/2021 17:26, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 20/11/2021 14:35, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 12:16:10 +0000 (GMT), \"Dave Plowman (News)\"
dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

In article <snan38$9t1$1@dont-email.me>,
   Jim GM4DHJ ... <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 20/11/2021 11:20, Cursitor Doom wrote:
The usual impartial, truthful reporting from the usual, impartial
sources: the MSM:

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2021/11/19/fact-check-false-uk-publication-claims-kyle-rittenhouse-shot-three-black-men/

   --

\"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in
the single
   sentence: abolition of private property.\"

    - The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels.

he should sue Biden

Biden\'s lawyers would simply state that since Biden suffers from
advanced dementia, he cannot be held accountable for his words or
actions.

Interesting that Doom links to an article which gives the history of
those
killed, but not the history of the killer. Wonder why that would be?

I hadn\'t even read that far into the article, Dave. Why don\'t you tell
us what Rittenhouse\'s history is? I admit I\'m not aware of any so do
tell us. Give us the benefit of your superior intellect (I won\'t be
holding my breath).

how much history can you have at 17 ? ...
Click to expand...

With nearly 50,000 juveniles incarcerated in the USA, more than half of
them white, quite a lot it seems.

--
Colin Bignell
 
On 20/11/2021 21:34, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 20:57:40 +0000, \"Jim GM4DHJ ...\"
kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote:

On 20/11/2021 17:54, Jack Harry Teesdale wrote:
On 20/11/2021 11:20, Cursitor Doom wrote:
The usual impartial, truthful reporting from the usual, impartial
sources: the MSM:

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2021/11/19/fact-check-false-uk-publication-claims-kyle-rittenhouse-shot-three-black-men/

  --

\"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the
single
  sentence: abolition of private property.\"

   - The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels.

Surely the issue is he did not shoot 3 \'black men\' because
inconveniently for the Independant the 3 men were white!
haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa true

We got a sharp one \'ere, Jim! :)
--

\"Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous
proposal of the Communists.\"

- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels
Click to expand...
totly
 
On 20/11/2021 21:34, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 20:57:40 +0000, \"Jim GM4DHJ ...\"
kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote:

On 20/11/2021 17:54, Jack Harry Teesdale wrote:
On 20/11/2021 11:20, Cursitor Doom wrote:
The usual impartial, truthful reporting from the usual, impartial
sources: the MSM:

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2021/11/19/fact-check-false-uk-publication-claims-kyle-rittenhouse-shot-three-black-men/

  --

\"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the
single
  sentence: abolition of private property.\"

   - The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels.

Surely the issue is he did not shoot 3 \'black men\' because
inconveniently for the Independant the 3 men were white!
haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa true

We got a sharp one \'ere, Jim! :)
--

\"Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous
proposal of the Communists.\"

- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels
Click to expand...
totly
 
On 20/11/2021 21:34, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 20:57:40 +0000, \"Jim GM4DHJ ...\"
kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote:

On 20/11/2021 17:54, Jack Harry Teesdale wrote:
On 20/11/2021 11:20, Cursitor Doom wrote:
The usual impartial, truthful reporting from the usual, impartial
sources: the MSM:

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2021/11/19/fact-check-false-uk-publication-claims-kyle-rittenhouse-shot-three-black-men/

  --

\"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the
single
  sentence: abolition of private property.\"

   - The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels.

Surely the issue is he did not shoot 3 \'black men\' because
inconveniently for the Independant the 3 men were white!
haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa true

We got a sharp one \'ere, Jim! :)
--

\"Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous
proposal of the Communists.\"

- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels
Click to expand...
totly
 
On 20/11/2021 21:34, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 20:57:40 +0000, \"Jim GM4DHJ ...\"
kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote:

On 20/11/2021 17:54, Jack Harry Teesdale wrote:
On 20/11/2021 11:20, Cursitor Doom wrote:
The usual impartial, truthful reporting from the usual, impartial
sources: the MSM:

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2021/11/19/fact-check-false-uk-publication-claims-kyle-rittenhouse-shot-three-black-men/

  --

\"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the
single
  sentence: abolition of private property.\"

   - The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels.

Surely the issue is he did not shoot 3 \'black men\' because
inconveniently for the Independant the 3 men were white!
haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa true

We got a sharp one \'ere, Jim! :)
--

\"Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous
proposal of the Communists.\"

- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels
Click to expand...
totly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top