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.
That may be an American term that Elijah is using strangely.
No one in the US uses "White National". However, what we do use are words like "American National", "Syrian National", "Sudanese National", "Kurdish National". Basically, using the word "National" to indicate the place where someone is from, either as a state, or as an ethnic group.
Technically, it would be more reasonable to call him an English National. I've heard Black National before, but typically you don't associate Race with Nation in the US.
Tommy Robertson lied about the boy on Facebook and admitted it. Open and shut. Couldn't be clearer.
30 November 2018
"Tommy Robinson has confessed to spreading fake news about five Muslims attacking a boy at the school where a Syrian refugee was filmed being bullied. The former EDL leader said in a Facebook video post on Friday “he had been completely mugged off” by “some leftie”. "
Alright, but this isn't an open, and shut case, is it? Because a woman deliberately lied to Robinson, and in justice there is generally a requirement of "mens rea," i.e., the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime. The woman that lied ought to be the one receiving punishment.
It sure is open and shut. The definition of libel is pretty clear and there's nothing in it about intent: "defamation with a permanent record, such as an email, a radio or TV broadcast, a newspaper, a website posting, etc."
If you're going to go on public record to talk shit about someone you better have your facts straight.
... 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.
...no, he's not.
Note he said "white national" and not "white nationalist". As in he's ethnically white and an English nationalist.
Not the best wording but it's true- they had Tommy because he's a white male who dares to be a nationalist instead of a globalist.
I've never read something like that, so I assumed he meant white nationalist.
Though white nationalists should be treated with fairness as well, Tommy is not one.
That may be an American term that Elijah is using strangely.
No one in the US uses "White National". However, what we do use are words like "American National", "Syrian National", "Sudanese National", "Kurdish National". Basically, using the word "National" to indicate the place where someone is from, either as a state, or as an ethnic group.
Technically, it would be more reasonable to call him an English National. I've heard Black National before, but typically you don't associate Race with Nation in the US.
That was their intent. They're skirting libel laws. They KNOW people will read it the way you did, then turn around and Achtually!
According to his US business manager, after court costs Tommy is looking at $700,000: https://twitter.com/Lisaelizabeth/status/1418295697544187907
The UK fucking sucks.
This is literal grounds for a crusade.
Saracens, in my Europe?
Tommy Robertson lied about the boy on Facebook and admitted it. Open and shut. Couldn't be clearer.
30 November 2018 "Tommy Robinson has confessed to spreading fake news about five Muslims attacking a boy at the school where a Syrian refugee was filmed being bullied. The former EDL leader said in a Facebook video post on Friday “he had been completely mugged off” by “some leftie”. "
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/tommy-robinson-admits-he-shared-fake-news-about-muslims-attacking-boy-at-school-was-syrian-refugee-was-filmed-being-bullied-a4005301.html
Alright, but this isn't an open, and shut case, is it? Because a woman deliberately lied to Robinson, and in justice there is generally a requirement of "mens rea," i.e., the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime. The woman that lied ought to be the one receiving punishment.
It sure is open and shut. The definition of libel is pretty clear and there's nothing in it about intent: "defamation with a permanent record, such as an email, a radio or TV broadcast, a newspaper, a website posting, etc."
If you're going to go on public record to talk shit about someone you better have your facts straight.
It's on him.
If that's the language of the English statute, that statute is garbage (not surprising for modern England, though).
And you know damn well that this law isn't applied in an evenhanded manner, but is instead just a tool for destroying the enemies of the System.
It shouldn't be news that pissing off powerful people can earn you a punch on the nose.
It's not news to anyone here, but you were speaking as if it's not the case, that the standards in the law as written matter.
I'm only speaking about this case.
If the libel laws could be applied universally many of the commenters on .win would be in trouble.