111
Comments (20)
sorted by:
55
Ahaus667 55 points ago +55 / -0

These cunts deem anyone they print about public figures. Remember Sandmann? Their legal defense said because the news made him public he was a public figure.

35
Mpetey123 35 points ago +35 / -0

He was standing there doing nothing, if he didn't want to be a public figure he shouldn't have been doing nothing I guess.

26
Ahaus667 26 points ago +26 / -0

He was clearly smirking with malicious intent.

18
Mpetey123 18 points ago +18 / -0

He could sense that 80 million in his future.

-7
ScutFarkus -7 points ago +2 / -9

It’s estimated he walked with around $50k.

I don’t know if that’s before or after Lin Wood got his yuge slice.

10
yvaN_ehT_nioJ 10 points ago +10 / -0

BuT hE HaS a PuNcHaBlE fAcE

5
wtfppl 5 points ago +5 / -0

It was the smirk that defined the start of e-WWIII, and the persecution of the digital shitlibs.

6
makazolesub 6 points ago +6 / -0

He literally raped a native American veteran with that smirk!!

6
M1919A2 6 points ago +6 / -0

That's not how public figure works in defamation cases. If the press printing about you and an incident is what made someone "famous/infamous" doesn't count when it comes to slander/liable. You had to be well known BEFORE a story is posted to count as a public figure.

10
Ahaus667 10 points ago +10 / -0

In a sane world, yes. As we have seen with numerous judges, sanity and legality are not present.

1
Decrixxx 1 point ago +1 / -0

also, the one who establishes if you are a famous or semi-famous person is the court and nobody else.

43
YesMovement [S] 43 points ago +43 / -0

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1448369629932527617

One could call this the "Taylor Lorenz Syndrome." So many journalists go around casually ruining the lives and reputations of even private, powerless, obscure people, then instantly claim they're the real victim when people object to that and critique their work ("harassment!").

ROFFLEZ

11
Goldsteinbergsky 11 points ago +11 / -0

Look at the typical yellow journalism from Reuters... "rules on attacking public figures." Because criticism, disagreement and calling out fake news/propaganda is an "attack."

8
MGTOWayoflife 8 points ago +8 / -0

I'll just call myself a journalist so I'm on the same level.

6
wtfppl 6 points ago +6 / -0

Problems/solution: Continue using facebook

2
Roadpower 2 points ago +2 / -0

Facebook is a echo chamber. If you are on FB thinking you are fighting the good fight, YOU are the problem.

2
infra 2 points ago +2 / -0

We lose

2
n0n3wn0ri3 2 points ago +2 / -0

Just delete that platform !

1
realerfunction 1 point ago +1 / -0

well, duh! only PEOPLE can be public figures!

1
Decrixxx 1 point ago +1 / -0

when your blue checkmark just level up