Strongly disagree. Calling a lawyer because someone libels you is a great thing. It's about time that people faced consequences for falsely accusing others of being Nazis.
Libel in the US: you wrote something that is demonstrably false. You can say anything you want as long as it's clear that it's your opinion and not being presented as fact.
That wouldn't fly in a US libel trial. The plaintiff would have to prove that the person who wrote it intended the reader to understand that she was literally a member of the Nazi party and that it wasn't simply hyperbole.
You needn't preface a comment with "in my opinion", it's sufficient if a reasonable person would interpret your statement as an opinion. Given that whatever version of the Nazi party still exists is an extremely fringe group and that it's a common internet insult to call someone a Nazi, you would have to pretty much explicitly state that you are in fact saying someone is a member of the Nazi party for this to get any traction in a US court.
Absolutely not. It's a matter of great importance. Claiming that it's fighting fire with fire, as you said, is saying that it's an unjustified means of fighting back, while in reality it is something completely justified.
I have no interest in trapping myself in your usual sophistic dialogues.
Ooooh, we're in the Third Sophistic, aren't we? You sound full of confidence in your ability to answer objections, which is why you want to back out while you imagine you are ahead.
Again...trapping yourself in leftist framing and dialectic: no.
Sophistic, dialectic. Did you just have a crash course on the history of Western philosophy from Plato to Hegel? And you just had to use your brand new terms, eh? But you forgot that labeling stuff is not enough. You have to demonstrate it.
you seem to have no interest in explaining yourself, either. I'm interested in what you're actually trying to say. what about this is "trapping yourself in leftist framing"? say what you actually mean.
In order to refute the slander you must explain how false political accusations work. This is not "trapping yourself in leftist framing and dialectic." It is the explication of how the framing and dialectic function.
Letting such false accusations stand is capitulation.
Strongly disagree. Calling a lawyer because someone libels you is a great thing. It's about time that people faced consequences for falsely accusing others of being Nazis.
-J.K. Rowling
Was the troon actually committing libel though? I know Britain is a socialist hellscape, but are they actually that cucked?
> Oi M8! YOU GOT A LOISCENCE FOR THAT COMPARISON?!?
Libel in the US: you wrote something that is demonstrably false. You can say anything you want as long as it's clear that it's your opinion and not being presented as fact.
Libel in the UK: you wrote something mean.
'JK Rowling is a Nazi' IS demonstrably false, though.
That wouldn't fly in a US libel trial. The plaintiff would have to prove that the person who wrote it intended the reader to understand that she was literally a member of the Nazi party and that it wasn't simply hyperbole.
You needn't preface a comment with "in my opinion", it's sufficient if a reasonable person would interpret your statement as an opinion. Given that whatever version of the Nazi party still exists is an extremely fringe group and that it's a common internet insult to call someone a Nazi, you would have to pretty much explicitly state that you are in fact saying someone is a member of the Nazi party for this to get any traction in a US court.
Anything that hurts those parasites is good
Does it count as libel when queers on the internet call you a stormcuck for thinking we shouldn’t send Israel more MISSILES?
If it does you better watch out
"Of course you should fight fire with fire. You should fight everything with fire."
Rowling is a leftist
No... I'd say using libel laws is fighting fire with water.
Because they like to say 'you have freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences'? Now that is fighting fire with fire.
Absolutely not. It's a matter of great importance. Claiming that it's fighting fire with fire, as you said, is saying that it's an unjustified means of fighting back, while in reality it is something completely justified.
Ooooh, we're in the Third Sophistic, aren't we? You sound full of confidence in your ability to answer objections, which is why you want to back out while you imagine you are ahead.
Sophistic, dialectic. Did you just have a crash course on the history of Western philosophy from Plato to Hegel? And you just had to use your brand new terms, eh? But you forgot that labeling stuff is not enough. You have to demonstrate it.
So when the choices are Take Action or Take it Like a Bitch,
which one are you espousing?
you seem to have no interest in explaining yourself, either. I'm interested in what you're actually trying to say. what about this is "trapping yourself in leftist framing"? say what you actually mean.
In order to refute the slander you must explain how false political accusations work. This is not "trapping yourself in leftist framing and dialectic." It is the explication of how the framing and dialectic function.
Letting such false accusations stand is capitulation.
or their honor, if they declined, and society enforced that decision.
Our present society does not.