Sliming A 12 Year Old over SCHIP.

[Knife]

Adopt the legal system of a country that doesnt have things arse backwards on defamation, then sue...other than that, in the US...not really...lying is a first amendment right after all...

Hey thanks for that realistic bit of advice and your stereotypical anti-US crap. Worth about as much bandwith as this post.

Feel free to point out what's wrong with it...that america wont do it isnt a fucking answer btw.

What to change it's fundelmental system to reflect yours? You think this is trival? You could just as easily say why the UK isn't more like the US? What we all wave a magic wand and vote for Liberal canadate and everything falls into place?

Your post was meaningless as it proposed no answer other than 'haha- my system is better than yours' shit. Or worse yet, a call for revolution; as if that was the answer to our meager problems.

.that america wont do it isnt a fucking answer btw

It sure the fuck is when we're talking about REALISTIC answers.

[Keevan_Colton]

Given the issue is with lying about people (defamation) and there is a legal precedent in the US that lying in the media is a first amendment right it rather seems you're buggered with anything else...if a system is fundamentally broken, like the US laws regarding defamation, the solution is to change them.

[Kanastrous]

There's a ruling that defamatory speech is protected by the First Amendment?

Can you point us to which ruling that is?

[Punarbhava]

Note that he said LYING was protected under the First Amendment. Not 'defamatory speech'. Don't try and strawman him, now. C'mon.

[Keevan_Colton]

There's a ruling that defamatory speech is protected by the First Amendment?

Can you point us to which ruling that is?

The exact ruling is that lying in the media is a first amendment right, it was in relation to a FOX News affiliate in Florida and a documentary on a particular hormone treatment for cattle. The ruling was that there was nothing illegal about them lying about the effects and evidence relating to it in their documentary in order to please advertisers and shareholders.

The defamation law in the US is fundamentally broken on top of this though, the burden of proof lies with the person being defamed. It is neccesary to prove that someone knew that what they were saying was untrue, not just that it is actually untrue. There is a world of difference in there...it can be impossible to prove a negative at times, nevermind trying to prove what someone else knew. It is trivial by comparison to show that something is true if it is, which is the primary defence in defamation cases under the law here.

[Knife]

The defamation law in the US is fundamentally broken on top of this though, the burden of proof lies with the person being defamed. It is neccesary to prove that someone knew that what they were saying was untrue, not just that it is actually untrue. There is a world of difference in there...it can be impossible to prove a negative at times, nevermind trying to prove what someone else knew. It is trivial by comparison to show that something is true if it is, which is the primary defence in defamation cases under the law here.

I have no problem with fixing the defamation laws as suggested. It was your typical and stereotypical assualt on all things american that was distasteful.

Edit: before you go off on another rant; it was a general assualt with your quote...

Adopt the legal system of a country that doesnt have things arse backwards on defamation,

Which is a bit different than just saying change your defamation laws to be more like ours or some such.

[Keevan_Colton]

The American system for defamation requires the proof of a negative, which as anyone familiar with debating here can tell you is an ass backwards way of approaching it.

[Knife]

The American system for defamation requires the proof of a negative, which as anyone familiar with debating here can tell you is an ass backwards way of approaching it.

I don't dispute that, however that wasn't your first argument. Your first post was nothing more than a typical Keevan hates America post where you wanted us to adopt the legal system of somewhere that you don't find so offensive as the US.

[Keevan_Colton]

The American system for defamation requires the proof of a negative, which as anyone familiar with debating here can tell you is an ass backwards way of approaching it.

I don't dispute that, however that wasn't your first argument. Your first post was nothing more than a typical Keevan hates America post where you wanted us to adopt the legal system of somewhere that you don't find so offensive as the US.

No, that was exactly what I said and what you took umbrage about: that the system is arse backwards.

It is the inverse of the other systems in the world which offer the proof of a positive as a defensive strategy, while the US model requires the proof of a negative as an offensive strategy.

[Knife]

No your fist post that I responded to said:

Adopt the legal system of a country that doesnt have things arse backwards on defamation,

Which I took offense at and responded to with;

Hey thanks for that realistic bit of advice and your stereotypical anti-US crap.

You wanted to know what was wrong with your witty one line stab and I replied with how changing the legal system of the US was nuts. It is not my fault you did your stereotypical hate everything in the US rant in this thread but if you think you can strawman me into not agreeing with changing this particular bit of law that you've backpeddaled to, you're out of your fucking mind.

I think there are plenty of issues where the US could mimic or copy other countries laws that make more sense than ours. Doesn't mean that adopting the legal system of another country is a viable solution, especially to do so for one or two, or hell even a dozen or so, matters of law.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Ok, we need to decriminalize dueling fast, that should put an end to those swift boaters.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The exact ruling is that lying in the media is a first amendment right, it was in relation to a FOX News affiliate in Florida and a documentary on a particular hormone treatment for cattle. The ruling was that there was nothing illegal about them lying about the effects and evidence relating to it in their documentary in order to please advertisers and shareholders.

Your head is up your ass. The reporters sued Fox under the whistleblower act; it only protects firing people who're committing a crime, and squashing a story you don't like, even if its true, isn't a crime. It wasn't a defamation case. While I dislike the outcome, I don't have the legal knowledge or familiarity with the details of the case to know how shitty the outcome was, and I doubt you do either.

[Darth Wong]

The exact ruling is that lying in the media is a first amendment right, it was in relation to a FOX News affiliate in Florida and a documentary on a particular hormone treatment for cattle. The ruling was that there was nothing illegal about them lying about the effects and evidence relating to it in their documentary in order to please advertisers and shareholders.

Your head is up your ass. The reporters sued Fox under the whistleblower act; it only protects firing people who're committing a crime, and squashing a story you don't like, even if its true, isn't a crime. It wasn't a defamation case. While I dislike the outcome, I don't have the legal knowledge or familiarity with the details of the case to know how shitty the outcome was, and I doubt you do either.

I don't see where Keevan said it was a defamation case. He said the ruling stated that it's not a crime for a news organization to deceive the public, which is pretty much the same thing you're saying. The whistleblower act did not protect the reporters who were fired because they only blew the whistle on FOXNews deceiving the public, not on an actual crime. Ergo, the judge effectively ruled that it is perfectly legal for a purported news organization to deceive the public.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Also the US highest court has concluded that outright lying and defaming an individual is perfectly ok in politics, not to mention a tradition.

[Crown]

Hey thanks for that realistic bit of advice and your stereotypical anti-US crap. Worth about as much bandwith as this post.

Feel free to point out what's wrong with it...that america wont do it isnt a fucking answer btw.

Err ... beside the fact that we can't get America to adopt 'the health system of a country that doesnt have things arse backwards on insurance', so how the hell would we get them to adopt 'the legal system of a country that doesnt have things arse backwards on defamation'?

It's kind of a pointless, un-realistic, cart before the horse post really.


(Or is it horse before the cart? You know I never get that saying right)

[Keevan_Colton]

Hey thanks for that realistic bit of advice and your stereotypical anti-US crap. Worth about as much bandwith as this post.

Feel free to point out what's wrong with it...that america wont do it isnt a fucking answer btw.

Err ... beside the fact that we can't get America to adopt 'the health system of a country that doesnt have things arse backwards on insurance', so how the hell would we get them to adopt 'the legal system of a country that doesnt have things arse backwards on defamation'?

It's kind of a pointless, un-realistic, cart before the horse post really.


(Or is it horse before the cart? You know I never get that saying right)

Just because they wont do it, doesnt make it a bad idea, it just means they're stupid.

[Keevan_Colton]

The exact ruling is that lying in the media is a first amendment right, it was in relation to a FOX News affiliate in Florida and a documentary on a particular hormone treatment for cattle. The ruling was that there was nothing illegal about them lying about the effects and evidence relating to it in their documentary in order to please advertisers and shareholders.

Your head is up your ass. The reporters sued Fox under the whistleblower act; it only protects firing people who're committing a crime, and squashing a story you don't like, even if its true, isn't a crime. It wasn't a defamation case. While I dislike the outcome, I don't have the legal knowledge or familiarity with the details of the case to know how shitty the outcome was, and I doubt you do either.

The initial whistleblower case went the way of the reporters, finding that they were dismissed for refusing to lie to the public. They had the threats from FOX management in writing and a whole load of other evidence that backed them up (god bless stupid beuracrats)...however, FOX appealed on the grounds that it isnt illegal to lie and is in fact protected under the first amendment. I didnt say it was a defamation case you fucking moron, merely that it showed how lying is legally regarded as a first amendment right in america.

Plus I'd hope you'd realize the difference between spiking a story and doctoring it...

[Crown]

Err ... beside the fact that we can't get America to adopt 'the health system of a country that doesnt have things arse backwards on insurance', so how the hell would we get them to adopt 'the legal system of a country that doesnt have things arse backwards on defamation'?

It's kind of a pointless, un-realistic, cart before the horse post really.


(Or is it horse before the cart? You know I never get that saying right)

Just because they wont do it, doesnt make it a bad idea, it just means they're stupid.

Stop fanning the flames. You know what I mean, and you know I'm right.

[Kanastrous]

Note that he said LYING was protected under the First Amendment. Not 'defamatory speech'. Don't try and strawman him, now. C'mon.

Keevan wrote that Given the issue is with lying about people (defamation) and there is a legal precedent in the US that lying in the media is a first amendment right

I'm not strawmanning him.

[Keevan_Colton]

Note that he said LYING was protected under the First Amendment. Not 'defamatory speech'. Don't try and strawman him, now. C'mon.

Keevan wrote that Given the issue is with lying about people (defamation) and there is a legal precedent in the US that lying in the media is a first amendment right

I'm not strawmanning him.

Is it flying past your head? The point there is that there's a logical consistency in the shitty defamation laws in the US, it's in line with the legal precedent set by saying lying is protected by the first amendment.

[SirNitram]

Two mild updates:

1) Malkin's been dropped from the Faux News Network, claiming she left her spot on O'Rly's show over Geraldo, and, you know, the fact she couldn't run hate-ads against him on Fox. More likely? Liability, and got shown the door.

2) National Review has decided to go lower. Because for them, there isn't a bottom. How about a 2 year old?

[Elfdart]

Olbermann had the kids' parents on his show the other night and pointed out that this stalk-and-slime campaign was organized out of the office of Senator McConnell's office. He also pointed out that White House aide Nicholas Thompson went on the neo-Nazi website Red State to gin up opposition to S-CHIP. This after a regular semi-literate, semen-crusted blogger on that site wrote:

Soft hearted old compassionate conservative that I am, I suggested that: 1-if federal funds were required the could die for all I care. Let the parents get second jobs, let their state foot the bill or let them seek help from private charities. And 2-I would hire a team of PIs and find out exactly how much their parents made and where they spent every nickel. Then I'd do everything possible to destroy their lives with that info.

and

Hang 'em. Publically. Let 'em twist in the wind and be eaten by ravens. Then maybe the bunch of socialist patsies will think twice.

Stalking children and making violent threats against them and their families? Forget libel law, how about an Amber Alert? Fucking psychopaths.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Too Catch a Predator comes to Washington DC....

[Elfdart]

Now they're shitting all over a 2-year-old:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/16/bethany-attacks/

Right Wing Gleefully Smears Two Yr-Old SCHIP Recipient Bethany Wilkerson

bethanyYesterday, TrueMajorityAction released an ad of 2-year old Bethany Wilkerson, who was born with a serious heart problem and received health insurance through the SCHIP program. Today, the Wilkerson family will appear with lawmakers on Capitol Hill to rally support for increased funding of the SCHIP program.

Like the Frost family, the Wilkerson family has already become the subject of right-wing attacks. Michelle Malkin — whose baseless smear campaign against 12-year old Graeme Frost was deemed too bogus for even Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) — is now trying to rally the right against Bethany.

Heralding the arrival of a “new toddler-aged human shield,” Malkin writes that “the Wilkersons made a choice” — a seeming reference to the fact that Malkin now believes she has the license to attack the Wilkersons for their public support of SCHIP. “We need more ‘partisan bickering,’ not less,” added Malkin.

Malkin’s not alone in her rage. In a piece entitled “Meet the New Frosts, Same As the Old Frosts,” the National Review’s Mark Hemingway attacks the Wilkersons as irresponsible parents:

While the debate around the Frost family at least initially centered around their relative wealth, the issue really at hand is one of bad behavior. […]

For Dara and Brian Wilkerson, the fact that they don’t have health insurance is less about falling through the cracks than the decisions they’ve made.

Hemingway claims that Bethany’s mother, Dara, “voluntarily left a job at a country club that had good health insurance, because the situation was ‘unmanageable,’” to “take a job at a restaurant with no health insurance.” He mourns the fact that the Wilkersons “went on to have a baby anyway.”

Dara Wilkerson released this statement responding to the attacks on her choice of employment:

We have seen the statement about my previous employment and here is what we have to say: I left my previous place of employment years before Bethany became part of our lives. I am a hard working woman. I have worked at Snappers Sea Grill for over 6 years. It is a good work environment and I am a loyal employee. My husband and I were blessed with Bethany two years ago and we are even more blessed to still have her with us today.

So according to this “pro-life” right-wing logic, the Wilkersons should have sacrificed having a daughter in order to stay in an “unmanageable” job.

Apparently, the Republitards like to go after toddlers now, too.

[Crown]

Apparently, the Republitards like to go after toddlers now, too.

Reminds me of that quote from George Carlin (well it was during his stand up, so I guess you could call it a quote);

'Republicans love you before you're born, and hate you after. They want nothing more to do with you, infact they don't start liking again you until you reach 'Military Age'. Then they think you're alright.'

(paraphrased)