559
this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
559 points (98.9% liked)
politics
30994 readers
1828 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Thanks for your law degree!
I think you are getting confused as telling the truth is generally not considered defamation. Telling a lie that causes a tort (or an injury, now that you have lost your license) is the definition of defamation.
Please just stop with your opinion nonsense.
Exactly my point. Telling a lie (something that can be factually true or false, and isn't merely an opinion) is an element of defamation (clearly not the entire definition of defamation, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you knew that much at least).
Don't even play, your original statement was nonsensical to defining defamation.
While defamation is hard to prove in some circumstances, in this case it is pretty cut and dry.
"prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence ; and 4) damages , or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement."
We have three of the conditions already. The plaintiff would need to prove harm for the last. With an actual tort I think this case could be successful, but there are a lot of variables.
What do you think?
What's the false statement purporting to be fact, and not simply an opinion?
I am not sure this is going to be looked at this way by a jury or judge in the case of a summary judgement. I think the operational word here is purporting.
""Purport" focuses on the substance or essence of a legal document, rather than its literal wording. "
Was he saying something meant to be considered factual in an attempt to defame. I think most reasonable people would agree with this statement.
Also, you must consider this will be a civil trial not a criminal one. The don't need to prove mens rea here so instead of beyond a shadow it is what side is more believable.
On a personal level, I find it disturbing that for one, an aid to the POTUS talks to the media to begin with. Two, that this aid likes to freak the fuck out and make an ass of himself on national broadcast media. Three, that he is clearly a Neo-Nazi.
Any one of these things would have prevented someone from being part of our government in the past...yet here we are discussing whether or not he is defaming. Just seems odd.
Haha, no. Nobody's going to think that hurling insults is meant to be factual statements. Find me any defamation case where insults were considered to be factual statements and someone was found liable for defamation.
Sure, Stephen Miller is an awful gremlin, and it's if the presidency had any dignity, sending out someone like that as a spokesman would destroy it. But, Trump's white house has done away with integrity, dignity, even good manners.
Still, it's insults, insults aren't defamation, they're opinion not fact.
You ignore the fact that it is a senior adviser to the President. His words have a lot of weight to them and he is definitely setting himself up to be sued. Why these people are so stupid is beyond me
He also accused them of a crime. Hardly just a run of the mill insult. Accusing someone of a crime of moral turpitude when in a position of authority is a criminal act in some jurisdictions.
You really lose that it doesn't matter what the fuck I say when you are in a position like he is. But he don't care and so far not enough people do I guess. It is past time for the other two branches to check these clowns.
Of course I do, because that's not relevant.
No he didn't.
What you say when I'm in a position? WTF are you talking about.
It is very relevant, you can't even consider what he says without the context of who he is and his position.
He definitely accused them of aiding and abetting murderers and rapists.
The last bit was in reference to the fact that when you are a senior official you can't just say whatever the fuck you want without consequences.
I am going to go ahead and block you because I don't really care for the whole devil's advocate bullshit and you seem pretty unhinged to begin with.
You're going to block me because you know your argument is wrong and don't want to risk being exposed further.