Canada will soon. They'll have hate crime payouts. If you offend the feeling of some haji, they'll make you pay them money directly. Without court involvement.
Canada will soon. They'll have hate crime payouts. If you offend the feeling of some haji, they'll make you pay them money directly. Without court involvement.
Already happened. A comedian had to pay some boy money for literally telling a joke. Canada is full of retards.
Yep, and by the time people are finally willing to address the problem the worst offenders would have probably already fled to China or other countries. That's what happens when you have a near monopoly on news and media.
Maybe so, but the US version could still stand to be upgraded.
Why is it so hard for public figures or politicians to sue for damages?
Why is someone excused for relaying defamatory/slanderous rumors about someone just because they heard it from someone else? No responsibility to double-check sources?
Why is there no protection against evil journalists who create the idea of a "harmful group" in the public eye, and then associate a person with that group? It completely short-circuits libel protections.
Why is it so hard for targets that the legacy media paint as public figures to sue for damages. You could be a nobody high-school kid one day and a "public figure" the next.
Right, another short-circuit of the law. I assume Nick Sandman is a public figure now because they made him one, so he'd have trouble suing if something like that happened again.
... once again demonstrating why nobody else uses Britain's version of libel.
Canada will soon. They'll have hate crime payouts. If you offend the feeling of some haji, they'll make you pay them money directly. Without court involvement.
Already happened. A comedian had to pay some boy money for literally telling a joke. Canada is full of retards.
The censors are doing their best to prevent people from even identifying them.
Yep, and by the time people are finally willing to address the problem the worst offenders would have probably already fled to China or other countries. That's what happens when you have a near monopoly on news and media.
Maybe so, but the US version could still stand to be upgraded.
Why is it so hard for public figures or politicians to sue for damages?
Why is someone excused for relaying defamatory/slanderous rumors about someone just because they heard it from someone else? No responsibility to double-check sources?
Why is there no protection against evil journalists who create the idea of a "harmful group" in the public eye, and then associate a person with that group? It completely short-circuits libel protections.
Why is it so hard for targets that the legacy media paint as public figures to sue for damages. You could be a nobody high-school kid one day and a "public figure" the next.
Right, another short-circuit of the law. I assume Nick Sandman is a public figure now because they made him one, so he'd have trouble suing if something like that happened again.