I did. If you could point to the part you struggled with, I'll be happy to walk you through.
Is it time to re-think free speech?
- Thread starter BartenderElite
- Start date
Monad Portal
Was it me?
you want to make it easier to sue.
How?
would you be opposed to a "sue this creator" button?
FreeSpeech1789
Banned
A domestic terrorist charge you say? For engaging in protected speech? It seems all you do on here is spew impotent rambling nonsense totally unrelated to the topic at hand. Go goosestep off a f-ing cliff bootlicker.
I explained exactly what I was calling for: (1) a default of the prevailing party collecting reasonable legal costs, and (2) a minimum statutory level of damages for the prevailing party. Which part of that did you get confused about and think was talking about a button? If you could be specific, we can get to work understanding how your reading skills let you down and remedying those deficiencies. Then you'll be less likely to embarrass yourself this way in the future. Just let me know.
Monad Portal
Was it me?
It's an attempt to give private individuals better tools to punish those who cause them harm with lies, without having to put the government in the role of speech-police.
Monad Portal
Was it me?
policing is the role of the government.
if you have a case, it must go through courts.
privatizing censorship doesn't make it free speech.
you want defacto censorship by increased ease of nuisance ligitation.
that's how i see it.
Monad Portal
Was it me?
can an a.i. be an officer of the court?
That's my prediction. Obviously it would be on the lower end of the scale since you only support mass murder from your keyboard. The precedent is there with convictions of people who advocated others to commit suicide. All it takes is for the Congressional will to make it happen. A dozen or two dead babies from a White Supremacist Extremist bomb would provide the will from the outrage of the American people.
You know, just like after Pearl Harbor and 9/11. While some aspects of the first Patriot Act were proved unConstitutional and removed, that took years. How many years would you like to go without Internet access? No contact with extremist organizations? Unable to vote or own a firearm?
Sure, you can play the game of "I lost my guns fishing" but if anyone** ever sees you with a gun in your hands, the game is over....soooo those guns better stay buried deep.
Rots o' Ruck, GI.
**even a "friend" who was busted on his second DUI and decides to give up a bigger fish or just an ex or a grown relative. LOL
Yes, and I'm preserving that. I haven't suggested changing any standards about what constitutes libel or slander. The burden of proof would remain identical to today. I've just suggested rule changes that would even the economic playing field, so that such suits are a practical option for regular people, not just for the elite. And it could well REDUCE the amount of nuisance litigation, since wealthy folks used to abusing our court systems to intimidate their critics, like Nunes and Trump, would know that when their half-baked suits inevitably fail, they'll wind up having to pay their target's litigation costs. As it currently stands, that often isn't the case, meaning a scumbag vexation litigant like Trump can eat the losses of case after case, knowing that the legal costs hit his targets harder than him, relative to their respective incomes. If it costs $50k for each of them, that's going to be nothing for a millionaire like Trump, but potentially ruinous for the regular folks he preys on.
Monad Portal
Was it me?
not every defendant will be a billionaire.
you want regular people who say things you don't like to be easily mired down in litigation by funding plaintiffs?
It's already the case that winners can get legal fees.
True... nor a millionaire, like Trump. But the point of my reform is to create a more level playing field, where even if you're poor, you can realistically be a plaintiff (and also realistically stick to your guns when you're a defendant, rather than being intimidated into settling by way of a wealthy plaintiff overwhelming you with expensive legal process that you'll never be able to recover even when you win).
The general rule in the US is that each party bears its own legal costs. Awarding legal fees to the winner is the exception to the rule. Read up on it:
http://www.wgmorrislaw.com/Marco-Island-Law-Blog/2020/June/ATTORNEY-FEES-AND-THE-AMERICAN-RULE.aspx
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/attorney-fees-does-losing-side-30337.html
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/94-970.html
That's been the situation for decades. SLAPP suits are how rich people or corporations buy justice....mostly by stalling for time. The system is honest, but it's war of attrition with money being the primary resource for battle. Those who can last the longest win by default. Which is why rich people/corporations often outlast their accusers.
You're anti-union which defaults to pro-corporation, Fredo. You're real problem here, not me. I support individualism with an umbrella to protect my rights from aggressors, be they singular or larger in number, foreign or domestic.
Monad Portal
Was it me?
Im actually pro union.
she wants to allow even pooor people to silence speech with litigation.
that's the wrong solution, diptardo montalban. yea and verily, it is no solution at all.
People are who read our posts are free to decide who is a true patriot of freedom and who is a corporate lackey.Im actually pro union.
she wants to allow even pooor people to silence speech with litigation.
that's the wrong solution, diptardo montalban. yea and verily, it is no solution at all.
God bless America!
Monad Portal
Was it me?
People are who read our posts are free to decide who is a true patriot of freedom and who is a corporate lackey.
God bless America!
I agree.