racism defamation law

[KingScorpio]

why is there now law in the usa, that allows someone who has been accused of racism, to sue the defamer, if he is absolutely not racist?

many big american tv and newspapers like cnn nyt, washington journal constantly defame others of racism. why can't they be sued, easier

regards

[1715061308]

1715061308

[darkangel11]

Every group uses this argument to gain something by defaming and shaming their opponents into submission.
-women will use this argument against men
-gays and lesbians against straight people
-black people against white people

We could go on and on. It's one of those paradoxes where calling a black person black can offend them and white people somehow don't feel offended when they're called white... It's the same with Jews. Saying that someone is a Jew, even if it's true, can be taken as insult. It's a jungle out there.

[franky1]

defamation is not just about an insult.
its about a perceived wrongful insult that causes actual financial damage.

if i just called kingscorpio a rapist. its meaningless. but if a romour got around that caused kingscorpio to lose his job or his landlord evicted him. he may have a case.

however he has to show direct linkage that  caused the landlord/employer to act. otherwise kingscorpio can only sue his landlord/employer for their opinion.  as it was their opinion that caused the finaincial loss.

next if its deemed that its true. and the landlord did have the right to evict due to rapes caused by king scorpio. the landlord can then increase the landlords costs of having to attend court and any financially loss related to anything king scorpio for publiciing that his landlord is a bad landlord and a liar.

but again it has to show proper financial loss linked to the defamation

with media. for instance being racist to megan merkle.. megan can sue the news. but the news cant counter-sue her if they proved they are not racist. because they didnt lose anything.. for media even bad news is good profit. plus they have legal insurance so there wouldnt be costs

[KingScorpio]

why is there now law in the usa, that allows someone who has been accused of racism, to sue the defamer, if he is absolutely not racist?

many big american tv and newspapers like cnn nyt, washington journal constantly defame others of racism. why can't they be sued, easier

regards

Did you stop to think about it for one second before posting this thread?

Being racist isn't a crime, that's why.

When did CNN, NYT or Washington Journal defame others of racism? It may very well have happened, but you should at least provide an example before shitposting into the wind.

it is highly offence, and i am not talking about being racist, i am talking about accusing someone publicly of racism, because thats highly damaging for someone's image.

being racist is highly unpopular.

[franky1]

damaging some ones image is not defamation

damaging some ones reputation to such an extent it drastically affects them is..

by this i dont mean just a small negative review that sways a couple customers away from a restaurant. i dont mean saying someone smells and it stops someone getting a date with a woman on one ocassion.
i dont mean media saying one of their stories out of the millions they right are affecting their overall business

defamation has to be a reputation ruining task using lies, where it truly creates true hardship. like proper long term loss of income hardship

[TheCoinGrabber]

What is this specific law you are talking about? Anyway imho there should be harsher punishment for misrepresentation if it's a media company because they have too much power that even a retraction isn't enough to erase any misinformation they have spread.

damaging some ones image is not defamation

snip

defamation has to be a reputation ruining task using lies, where it truly creates true hardship. like proper long term loss of income hardship

The problem though is with today's cancel culture, even being accused of a non-crime such as racism is enough to destroy a person's life. We are seeing this with the poundmetoo movement. Touching someone's hand is not a crime but you can be portrayed as creep. People have actually lost jobs over it. There was one story about a guy who got fired when a female collegue at an out-of work-party overheard them ranking the women at work by looks. Of course the accusation is misogyny, a non-crime but the guy got fired anyway.

[TwitchySeal]

You have to prove that a false statement about someone is actually false.

It's impossible to prove someone is or is not a racist.  

"Joe is a KKK member, he is in charge of bringing bagels and coffee to the weekly meetings, and burns a cross in his yard every year on July 4th" <=== defamation
"Joe is a racist" <=== nope

[Sadlife]

Racism is for snowflake people who can't accept that the world is not equal and if equality actually exist then why some people and children starves to death while on the other hand scums who doesn't deserve anything has everything they need. In reality humans are the most intelligent being in the world, who can't find joy in life without discrimination or violence.

[KingScorpio]

You have to prove that a false statement about someone is actually false.

It's impossible to prove someone is or is not a racist.  

"Joe is a KKK member, he is in charge of bringing bagels and coffee to the weekly meetings, and burns a cross in his yard every year on July 4th" <=== defamation
"Joe is a racist" <=== nope

both is defamation, if jow is not a racist he should be able to sue the defamer, because racism accusations have defaming effekt on people.

regards

[AbelBaricStevenson]

What about you call a KKK as not racist, and it get his friends suspicious? This lead to his house burned down? Who will be the sued one on that case? I think don't mention it at all you may get sued.

[franky1]

both is defamation, if jow is not a racist he should be able to sue the defamer, because racism accusations have defaming effekt on people.

both are an accusation. the important parts are HOW THE ACCUSATION EFFECTS people
in america they love to put a price on 'mental stress' which makes it easy in america that the harm/loss caused has a financial value.
other countries however think only true financial loss should be valued. eg loss of income, shelter

theaccusation alone is not that unlawful. its the impact that accusation caused.
lying. by itself in public is not a crime. if it was then there would not be a special custom to when in court ned to swear on a bible and commit to a contract of telling the truth or be punished when standing in court.
again if lying by itself was a crime there would be no need for the special perjury condition

using certain words is not a crime in of itself
for instance i as a white man have good friendships with people of other ethnic backgrounds. if i called one of them the N word. well thats just being part of the banter.. yet if i said it to a stranger and said it in a derogatory way that then caused someone negative affect that can be proven as some form of harm/loss. then that can lead to trouble
saying the N word in of itself is not a crime.. who, how, why and what impact it caused. could be a crime

[KingScorpio]

both is defamation, if jow is not a racist he should be able to sue the defamer, because racism accusations have defaming effekt on people.

both are an accusation. the important parts are HOW THE ACCUSATION EFFECTS people
in america they love to put a price on 'mental stress' which makes it easy in america that the harm/loss caused has a financial value.
other countries however think only true financial loss should be valued. eg loss of income, shelter

theaccusation alone is not that unlawful. its the impact that accusation caused.
lying. by itself in public is not a crime. if it was then there would not be a special custom to when in court ned to swear on a bible and commit to a contract of telling the truth or be punished when standing in court.
again if lying by itself was a crime there would be no need for the special perjury condition

using certain words is not a crime in of itself
for instance i as a white man have good friendships with people of other ethnic backgrounds. if i called one of them the N word. well thats just being part of the banter.. yet if i said it to a stranger and said it in a derogatory way that then caused someone negative affect that can be proven as some form of harm/loss. then that can lead to trouble
saying the N word in of itself is not a crime.. who, how, why and what impact it caused. could be a crime

if you accuse someone of being racist in an egalitarian minded society, you can literally destroy his image and career, happened often in germany especially to celebrities and politicians.
if that person is racist, it is not a defamation but if he is not racist, like for example trump, then it is massively defamatory.

[franky1]

both is defamation, if jow is not a racist he should be able to sue the defamer, because racism accusations have defaming effekt on people.

both are an accusation. the important parts are HOW THE ACCUSATION EFFECTS people
in america they love to put a price on 'mental stress' which makes it easy in america that the harm/loss caused has a financial value.
other countries however think only true financial loss should be valued. eg loss of income, shelter

theaccusation alone is not that unlawful. its the impact that accusation caused.
lying. by itself in public is not a crime. if it was then there would not be a special custom to when in court ned to swear on a bible and commit to a contract of telling the truth or be punished when standing in court.
again if lying by itself was a crime there would be no need for the special perjury condition

using certain words is not a crime in of itself
for instance i as a white man have good friendships with people of other ethnic backgrounds. if i called one of them the N word. well thats just being part of the banter.. yet if i said it to a stranger and said it in a derogatory way that then caused someone negative affect that can be proven as some form of harm/loss. then that can lead to trouble
saying the N word in of itself is not a crime.. who, how, why and what impact it caused. could be a crime

if you accuse someone of being racist in an egalitarian minded society, you can literally destroy his image and career, happened often in germany especially to celebrities and politicians.
if that person is racist, it is not a defamation but if he is not racist, like for example trump, then it is massively defamatory.

if there is no harm caused. then it is just a lie.. inwhich a retraction/correction should be made. if there is harm then costs can be reimbursed.

has trump lost his job or felt a change in his income due to accusations..
has media incurred any substantial loss due to lies.

a lie in of itself is not a crime

[inanilujimi]

Sometimes the media does not present the news but instead confuse the atmosphere.
Small problems should be brought up to make it look attractive to air. Ironic indeed but that's a fact that is happening now.

[franky1]

Sometimes the media does not present the news but instead confuse the atmosphere.
Small problems should be brought up to make it look attractive to air. Ironic indeed but that's a fact that is happening now.

thats why its called media now and not news.
news had some integrity and some editorial control of what was presented.
media however is just about entertaining and clickbait

[TwitchySeal]

both is defamation, if jow is not a racist he should be able to sue the defamer, because racism accusations have defaming effekt on people.

both are an accusation. the important parts are HOW THE ACCUSATION EFFECTS people
in america they love to put a price on 'mental stress' which makes it easy in america that the harm/loss caused has a financial value.
other countries however think only true financial loss should be valued. eg loss of income, shelter

theaccusation alone is not that unlawful. its the impact that accusation caused.
lying. by itself in public is not a crime. if it was then there would not be a special custom to when in court ned to swear on a bible and commit to a contract of telling the truth or be punished when standing in court.
again if lying by itself was a crime there would be no need for the special perjury condition

using certain words is not a crime in of itself
for instance i as a white man have good friendships with people of other ethnic backgrounds. if i called one of them the N word. well thats just being part of the banter.. yet if i said it to a stranger and said it in a derogatory way that then caused someone negative affect that can be proven as some form of harm/loss. then that can lead to trouble
saying the N word in of itself is not a crime.. who, how, why and what impact it caused. could be a crime

if you accuse someone of being racist in an egalitarian minded society, you can literally destroy his image and career, happened often in germany especially to celebrities and politicians.
if that person is racist, it is not a defamation but if he is not racist, like for example trump, then it is massively defamatory.

You can't prove that anyone isn't a racist though.  And even if you could, you'd also have to prove that the person calling someone a racist didn't actually believe they were racist.

At least that's how the law works in America.

[KingScorpio]

both is defamation, if jow is not a racist he should be able to sue the defamer, because racism accusations have defaming effekt on people.

both are an accusation. the important parts are HOW THE ACCUSATION EFFECTS people
in america they love to put a price on 'mental stress' which makes it easy in america that the harm/loss caused has a financial value.
other countries however think only true financial loss should be valued. eg loss of income, shelter

theaccusation alone is not that unlawful. its the impact that accusation caused.
lying. by itself in public is not a crime. if it was then there would not be a special custom to when in court ned to swear on a bible and commit to a contract of telling the truth or be punished when standing in court.
again if lying by itself was a crime there would be no need for the special perjury condition

using certain words is not a crime in of itself
for instance i as a white man have good friendships with people of other ethnic backgrounds. if i called one of them the N word. well thats just being part of the banter.. yet if i said it to a stranger and said it in a derogatory way that then caused someone negative affect that can be proven as some form of harm/loss. then that can lead to trouble
saying the N word in of itself is not a crime.. who, how, why and what impact it caused. could be a crime

if you accuse someone of being racist in an egalitarian minded society, you can literally destroy his image and career, happened often in germany especially to celebrities and politicians.
if that person is racist, it is not a defamation but if he is not racist, like for example trump, then it is massively defamatory.

You can't prove that anyone isn't a racist though.  And even if you could, you'd also have to prove that the person calling someone a racist didn't actually believe they were racist.

At least that's how the law works in America.

so how is it then allowed to defame someone to be racist if it can't be proven? it is clear defamation to use the "r word",
it would be complete against the spirit of martin luther king and nelson mandela that demanded that people are supposed to be judged on their character and not on their skin color.
trump was judged and defamed a racist based on his skin color, by the democrats. that was clearly an abuse of power.

[TwitchySeal]

both is defamation, if jow is not a racist he should be able to sue the defamer, because racism accusations have defaming effekt on people.

both are an accusation. the important parts are HOW THE ACCUSATION EFFECTS people
in america they love to put a price on 'mental stress' which makes it easy in america that the harm/loss caused has a financial value.
other countries however think only true financial loss should be valued. eg loss of income, shelter

theaccusation alone is not that unlawful. its the impact that accusation caused.
lying. by itself in public is not a crime. if it was then there would not be a special custom to when in court ned to swear on a bible and commit to a contract of telling the truth or be punished when standing in court.
again if lying by itself was a crime there would be no need for the special perjury condition

using certain words is not a crime in of itself
for instance i as a white man have good friendships with people of other ethnic backgrounds. if i called one of them the N word. well thats just being part of the banter.. yet if i said it to a stranger and said it in a derogatory way that then caused someone negative affect that can be proven as some form of harm/loss. then that can lead to trouble
saying the N word in of itself is not a crime.. who, how, why and what impact it caused. could be a crime

if you accuse someone of being racist in an egalitarian minded society, you can literally destroy his image and career, happened often in germany especially to celebrities and politicians.
if that person is racist, it is not a defamation but if he is not racist, like for example trump, then it is massively defamatory.

You can't prove that anyone isn't a racist though.  And even if you could, you'd also have to prove that the person calling someone a racist didn't actually believe they were racist.

At least that's how the law works in America.

so how is it then allowed to defame someone to be racist if it can't be proven? it is clear defamation to use the "r word",
it would be complete against the spirit of martin luther king and nelson mandela that demanded that people are supposed to be judged on their character and not on their skin color.
trump was judged and defamed a racist based on his skin color, by the democrats. that was clearly an abuse of power.

Are we talking the legal definition of defamation (in America), or your opinion of what the legal definition of defamation should be?

[KingScorpio]

both is defamation, if jow is not a racist he should be able to sue the defamer, because racism accusations have defaming effekt on people.

both are an accusation. the important parts are HOW THE ACCUSATION EFFECTS people
in america they love to put a price on 'mental stress' which makes it easy in america that the harm/loss caused has a financial value.
other countries however think only true financial loss should be valued. eg loss of income, shelter

theaccusation alone is not that unlawful. its the impact that accusation caused.
lying. by itself in public is not a crime. if it was then there would not be a special custom to when in court ned to swear on a bible and commit to a contract of telling the truth or be punished when standing in court.
again if lying by itself was a crime there would be no need for the special perjury condition

using certain words is not a crime in of itself
for instance i as a white man have good friendships with people of other ethnic backgrounds. if i called one of them the N word. well thats just being part of the banter.. yet if i said it to a stranger and said it in a derogatory way that then caused someone negative affect that can be proven as some form of harm/loss. then that can lead to trouble
saying the N word in of itself is not a crime.. who, how, why and what impact it caused. could be a crime

if you accuse someone of being racist in an egalitarian minded society, you can literally destroy his image and career, happened often in germany especially to celebrities and politicians.
if that person is racist, it is not a defamation but if he is not racist, like for example trump, then it is massively defamatory.

You can't prove that anyone isn't a racist though.  And even if you could, you'd also have to prove that the person calling someone a racist didn't actually believe they were racist.

At least that's how the law works in America.

so how is it then allowed to defame someone to be racist if it can't be proven? it is clear defamation to use the "r word",
it would be complete against the spirit of martin luther king and nelson mandela that demanded that people are supposed to be judged on their character and not on their skin color.
trump was judged and defamed a racist based on his skin color, by the democrats. that was clearly an abuse of power.

Are we talking the legal definition of defamation (in America), or your opinion of what the legal definition of defamation should be?

western legal traditions are pretty much the same, defaming someone to be a racist, although it has not been proven weather he is racist, is absolutely wrong, and can be highly destructive discriminatory and defaming for that person.

there is something called, innocent till proven guilty, trump was continuously defamed being a racist, although he was just trying to be a president/administer of a piece of land.

[TwitchySeal]

there is something called, innocent till proven guilty

To successfully sue someone for defamation, you need to prove they are guilty of defamation, meaning you have to prove their statement was false.

You can't prove Trump isn't racist, and even if you could, you'd still have to prove that the person calling him racist didn't believe he was racist.

If you think Trumps a racist, it's not defamation to call him a racist.

[KingScorpio]

there is something called, innocent till proven guilty

To successfully sue someone for defamation, you need to prove they are guilty of defamation, meaning you have to prove their statement was false.

You can't prove Trump isn't racist, and even if you could, you'd still have to prove that the person calling him racist didn't believe he was racist.

If you think Trumps a racist, it's not defamation to call him a racist.

so why is it then allowed to insult trump to be racist then, if it could be a lie, targeting to destroy him?

shouldn't "racist" then not become an illegal word similar like the "n word"

[TwitchySeal]

there is something called, innocent till proven guilty

To successfully sue someone for defamation, you need to prove they are guilty of defamation, meaning you have to prove their statement was false.

You can't prove Trump isn't racist, and even if you could, you'd still have to prove that the person calling him racist didn't believe he was racist.

If you think Trumps a racist, it's not defamation to call him a racist.

so why is it then allowed to insult trump to be racist then, if it could be a lie, targeting to destroy him?

shouldn't "racist" then not become an illegal word similar like the "n word"

"n word" isn't illegal.  There are no illegal words in America, you can say what you think.

I do agree with you there should be consequences for someone who just makes shit up to hurt someone else's reputation, but I don't think calling someone a racist is a good example of that.  There are lots of people that truly believe Trump is a racist, and I think they should be able to say so.

[KingScorpio]

there is something called, innocent till proven guilty

To successfully sue someone for defamation, you need to prove they are guilty of defamation, meaning you have to prove their statement was false.

You can't prove Trump isn't racist, and even if you could, you'd still have to prove that the person calling him racist didn't believe he was racist.

If you think Trumps a racist, it's not defamation to call him a racist.

so why is it then allowed to insult trump to be racist then, if it could be a lie, targeting to destroy him?

shouldn't "racist" then not become an illegal word similar like the "n word"

"n word" isn't illegal.  There are no illegal words in America, you can say what you think.

I do agree with you there should be consequences for someone who just makes shit up to hurt someone else's reputation, but I don't think calling someone a racist is a good example of that.  There are lots of people that truly believe Trump is a racist, and I think they should be able to say so.

nope trump is not a racist, he is a strict christian capitalist.

[iRaMMuS34]

There's one thing that can put this kinda defamation to an end, it's called freedom of speech. Apparently it's in serious danger in today's western world

[TwitchySeal]

there is something called, innocent till proven guilty

To successfully sue someone for defamation, you need to prove they are guilty of defamation, meaning you have to prove their statement was false.

You can't prove Trump isn't racist, and even if you could, you'd still have to prove that the person calling him racist didn't believe he was racist.

If you think Trumps a racist, it's not defamation to call him a racist.

so why is it then allowed to insult trump to be racist then, if it could be a lie, targeting to destroy him?

shouldn't "racist" then not become an illegal word similar like the "n word"

"n word" isn't illegal.  There are no illegal words in America, you can say what you think.

I do agree with you there should be consequences for someone who just makes shit up to hurt someone else's reputation, but I don't think calling someone a racist is a good example of that.  There are lots of people that truly believe Trump is a racist, and I think they should be able to say so.

nope trump is not a racist, he is a strict christian capitalist.

I totally respect your opinion on Trump not being a racist.  It is just an opinion though, you can't know that he isn't racist.  Your perception of him is a combination of what he wants you to see, and what other people want you to see.  Unless you've had a personal relationship with him for a long period of time, I don't think you have enough info to conclude he's not racist.

Also, I imagine there are many racists that are also strict Christian Capitalists.  To become a member of the KKK, for example, you have to swear to uphold American values and Christian morality.

[KingScorpio]

there is something called, innocent till proven guilty

To successfully sue someone for defamation, you need to prove they are guilty of defamation, meaning you have to prove their statement was false.

You can't prove Trump isn't racist, and even if you could, you'd still have to prove that the person calling him racist didn't believe he was racist.

If you think Trumps a racist, it's not defamation to call him a racist.

so why is it then allowed to insult trump to be racist then, if it could be a lie, targeting to destroy him?

shouldn't "racist" then not become an illegal word similar like the "n word"

"n word" isn't illegal.  There are no illegal words in America, you can say what you think.

I do agree with you there should be consequences for someone who just makes shit up to hurt someone else's reputation, but I don't think calling someone a racist is a good example of that.  There are lots of people that truly believe Trump is a racist, and I think they should be able to say so.

nope trump is not a racist, he is a strict christian capitalist.

I totally respect your opinion on Trump not being a racist.  It is just an opinion though, you can't know that he isn't racist.  Your perception of him is a combination of what he wants you to see, and what other people want you to see.  Unless you've had a personal relationship with him for a long period of time, I don't think you have enough info to conclude he's not racist.

Also, I imagine there are many racists that are also strict Christian Capitalists.  To become a member of the KKK, for example, you have to swear to uphold American values and Christian morality.

you are speculating, and with your accusation of him being racist you only defame him, racism defamation has become a big part of american western culture.

if it will not stop many white people will simply stop taking "racism" allegations serious, and will ignore you, and you will even be ignored when you need the attention the most.

[TwitchySeal]

you are speculating

There's nothing wrong with speculating.

Unless you have absolutely all information that could possibly be available (almost never the case, especially when it comes to what a public figure actually thinks), you have two options: speculate || stop thinking about it.  

When you say 'Trump is not a racist' you are speculating.

Of course, I'm also speculating that you aren't one of Trumps closest confidants, family members, or Donald Trump himself.

[KingScorpio]

you are speculating

There's nothing wrong with speculating.

Unless you have absolutely all information that could possibly be available (almost never the case, especially when it comes to what a public figure actually thinks), you have two options: speculate || stop thinking about it.  

When you say 'Trump is not a racist' you are speculating.

Of course, I'm also speculating that you aren't one of Trumps closest confidants, family members, or Donald Trump himself.

well white people are also speculating on potential racism of nonwhite people.

can't be the case forever that only black people are allowed to defame others or speculate on racism

[TwitchySeal]

you are speculating

There's nothing wrong with speculating.

Unless you have absolutely all information that could possibly be available (almost never the case, especially when it comes to what a public figure actually thinks), you have two options: speculate || stop thinking about it.  

When you say 'Trump is not a racist' you are speculating.

Of course, I'm also speculating that you aren't one of Trumps closest confidants, family members, or Donald Trump himself.

well white people are also speculating on potential racism of nonwhite people.

can't be the case forever that only black people are allowed to defame others or speculate on racism

There's nothing wrong with speculating.

Unless you have absolutely all information that could possibly be available (almost never the case, especially when it comes to what a public figure actually thinks), you have two options: speculate || stop thinking about it.

[KingScorpio]

you are speculating

There's nothing wrong with speculating.

Unless you have absolutely all information that could possibly be available (almost never the case, especially when it comes to what a public figure actually thinks), you have two options: speculate || stop thinking about it.  

When you say 'Trump is not a racist' you are speculating.

Of course, I'm also speculating that you aren't one of Trumps closest confidants, family members, or Donald Trump himself.

well white people are also speculating on potential racism of nonwhite people.

can't be the case forever that only black people are allowed to defame others or speculate on racism

There's nothing wrong with speculating.

Unless you have absolutely all information that could possibly be available (almost never the case, especially when it comes to what a public figure actually thinks), you have two options: speculate || stop thinking about it.

well then white people today can say, they dont want immigrants from africa/asia and other regions of the world because those are not diverse and the poplation there could be racist.

why else should white countries be open for everyone and all other countries only for the ethnicities living there.

[TwitchySeal]

well then white people today can say, they dont want immigrants from africa/asia and other regions of the world because those are not diverse and the poplation there could be racist.

If they are in America then yeah, they can say that - and it doesn't matter what race they are.  Freedom of speech is vigorously defended here.

[KingScorpio]

well then white people today can say, they dont want immigrants from africa/asia and other regions of the world because those are not diverse and the poplation there could be racist.

If they are in America then yeah, they can say that - and it doesn't matter what race they are.  Freedom of speech is vigorously defended here.

freedom of speech is pointless if a violent mob around you will limit it.

[franky1]

freedom of speach is still freedom of speach.. it only becomes defamation (yet again i have to tell you this) if that 'speach' is directed at a person. AND that person has received harm due to it directly caused.


your free to say what you like. but expect repercussions if what you say or do negatively affects anyone.
its like the dumdum called badecker thinks his 'freedom to trave' means he can tresspass..
no.
he can walk. but that does not mean there is no consequences to his action from being on property that has rules and limitations on who/why someone should be on it.

say what you like but if their are consequences to your actions. accept the consequences.

media did not get hurt and neither did trump by the drama your trying to bait about racism.

and yes me saying badecker is a dumdum doesnt mean i commited a crime nor mean i have to prove it.

[KingScorpio]

media did not get hurt and neither did trump by the drama your trying to bait about racism.

and why live with constantly being accused of racism, by people that want to destroy you?

[franky1]

media did not get hurt and neither did trump by the drama your trying to bait about racism.

and why live with constantly being accused of racism, by people that want to destroy you?

if your talking about trump again (i know your a foolish superfan).. then trump is not being destroyed.
take it like an employment contract. his impeachment is just a employment reprimand that could lead to him having to resign.

and after wards. he will be more successful than ever for showing off he has had the top seat and america didnt burn under his watch. so investors will happily invest in his future ventures.

if you want to rebut that his reputation is tarnished. well im afraid to tell you this but his own words tarnished his own reputation. media just reported it.
so trump overal wont make any impactful financial loss due o things said about him. and media wont make a loss due to the opposite. so there is no civil case of defamation.

oh and by the way. if you dont want to constantly be accused of being racist. stop acting like one.
USA has the statue of liberty that quotes wanting to take in people of other countries. but trumps own words wants to buid a wall to keep foreigners out.

its HIS ACTIONS that caused the drama. and he should accept the consequences of HIS ACTIONS and not blame media for just talking about HIS ACTIONS

[KingScorpio]

media did not get hurt and neither did trump by the drama your trying to bait about racism.

and why live with constantly being accused of racism, by people that want to destroy you?

if your talking about trump again (i know your a foolish superfan).. then trump is not being destroyed.
take it like an employment contract. his impeachment is just a employment reprimand that could lead to him having to resign.

and after wards. he will be more successful than ever for showing off he has had the top seat and america didnt burn under his watch. so investors will happily invest in his future ventures.

nope you are wrong, only the election is a legitimate impeachment, everything else is simply deep state lobby trash.

democrats know exactly that they can't win an election against trump thats why they are desperate trying to impeach him

[Blockchayne]

there is something called, innocent till proven guilty

To successfully sue someone for defamation, you need to prove they are guilty of defamation, meaning you have to prove their statement was false.

You can't prove Trump isn't racist, and even if you could, you'd still have to prove that the person calling him racist didn't believe he was racist.

If you think Trumps a racist, it's not defamation to call him a racist.

so why is it then allowed to insult trump to be racist then, if it could be a lie, targeting to destroy him?

shouldn't "racist" then not become an illegal word similar like the "n word"

"n word" isn't illegal.  There are no illegal words in America, you can say what you think.

I do agree with you there should be consequences for someone who just makes shit up to hurt someone else's reputation, but I don't think calling someone a racist is a good example of that.  There are lots of people that truly believe Trump is a racist, and I think they should be able to say so.

nope trump is not a racist, he is a strict christian capitalist.

You say that as if his “Christian” Religion and the fact that he currently lives under capitalist economic policies  - is somehow proof that he is not racist. There are millions and millions of both racist Christians and also racist capitalists.  The KU Klux Klan is both Christian and Capitalist.

Now don’t confuse this for me saying Trump is a racist.  I am not at all saying that. I’m just poking a hole in your use of the Christian ideology and capitalist economy as proof of  some moral high road which inherently nullifies the possibility of hatred and ignorance. It does not.  In fact, I am
Inclined to think quite the opposite. But I’ll keep that to myself.

Racist or not racist? Does it matter? Well, i don’t believe it should. Mostly because “race” is (according to what I have researched) a social construct rather than A biological or genetic occurrence. ALL of the information that I could find from leading academic institutions seem to indicate that race is a social creation based off of perception rather than anything of a scientific basis.

With that idea in mind, now ask the question of whether he is racist or not? —— well “race” is mostly just a fabrication based on differences that we previously had no way of explaining - just like uhhhhh - religion....

Modern science can help put these outdated beliefs and ideologies to rest if we simply look at the research and let go of the rhetoric.

[KingScorpio]

Racist or not racist? Does it matter? Well, i don’t believe it should. Mostly because “race” is actually a social construct rather than I biological or genetic occurrence. ALL of the information that I have previously researched seems to indicate that race is a social creation based off of perception rather than anything of a scientific basis.

With that idea in mind, now ask the question of whether he is racist or not? —— well “race” is just a social fabrication - just like uhhhhh - religion... so no it doesn’t really make
A difference. In my opinion.  

jes it does matter because racism is wrong, we where told that in the west long time.

christians aren't allowed to be racist actually. they still appropriated ideals like beauty, in various kingdoms.

the devil was considered ugly,
light and brightess as good and holy and darkness as evil, from that racism manifasted itself

[Blockchayne]

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/

The concept of “race” is built on false pretenses.  Racism is not morally wrong because the existence of race is  scientifically inaccurate.

Religion is built upon similarly structured false pretenses. Socially accepted falsehoods and mythological folklore.

[franky1]

seems kingscorpio wants to make this topic into some trump superfan showboat of how loyal he is to trump.

rather than discussion the ethics and rules and reality of racist dafamation law.

[chaoscoinz]

why is there now law in the usa, that allows someone who has been accused of racism, to sue the defamer, if he is absolutely not racist?

many big american tv and newspapers like cnn nyt, washington journal constantly defame others of racism. why can't they be sued, easier

regards

Simple, because freedom of speech and expression. There would be way too many cases popping up if people sued for every racist little thing. We need to grow up and learn to ignore the race baiting that so often happens today. So would they called you a nasty derogatory word, are we going to moan and cry over everything in society today? Today's generation of society is becoming softer and more PC. Today you can witness the rise of social justice where keyboard warriors feel the right to voice their opinion on someone else's matters and issues, it's toxic and sickening.
  Unless there is some direct threat against you like a group of Nazi's pointing a gun at you, or a African American is about to be strung up a tree by a lynch mob, there is no need to nag and complain about every little racist thing to the courts, especially because of words.
  Racism toward other human beings will come to a slow crawl once automation starts getting the first dibs on Jobs and other statuses. Then everyone will hate robots, ever see the movie "A.I. Artificial Intelligence" by Steven Spielberg? All races will ban together and only direct their racism at the robots.

[KingScorpio]

seems kingscorpio wants to make this topic into some trump superfan showboat of how loyal he is to trump.

rather than discussion the ethics and rules and reality of racist dafamation law.

why i just want a just world where someone can't defame others without proof

today the defamed one has to proof he is innocent and not the defamer

innocent till proven guilty is a foundation in modern law.

[BADecker]

seems kingscorpio wants to make this topic into some trump superfan showboat of how loyal he is to trump.

rather than discussion the ethics and rules and reality of racist dafamation law.

why i just want a just world where someone can't defame others without proof

today the defamed one has to proof he is innocent and not the defamer

innocent till proven guilty is a foundation in modern law.

This is the way that the USA is set up... innocent until proven guilty. Now, before you jump to conclusions, read the rest.

The word "person" is one of the most important words in USA law regarding people. A person is the name on an agreement. It is NOT a human being until a human accepts that it is.

This means that if a person is accused of defamation, and there is court paperwork stating such, nobody knows who the person on the paperwork is until a man/woman accepts that the person refers to him. That's why there are attorneys... to trick a man/woman into accepting that the person named on some court document is him/her. An attorney will never tell you that the person on the court doc is just a made-up person, unless you accept that it is you.

If you say the person is NOT you, there are several easy ways to determine this. One simple way is to poke the doc with a knife. If it bleeds, it might be you... because you bleed when they poke you with a knife. (If its blood type is different than yours, then it is not you.)

The point is (no knife pun intended), in the USA, if a man or woman defames you in a way that damages you somehow, file a claim against the man/woman, and write the word "man" or "woman" in the claim. Standard court docs almost never say the name of the accused, like... "John Doe, a man" or "Jane Doe, a woman." If you do this, and stand in court unrepresented, you can make the "fight" to be between you and another human being. If you win, you get the damages you require in your claim. But, if you lose, you might wind up paying the damages to the other human.

[KingScorpio]

seems kingscorpio wants to make this topic into some trump superfan showboat of how loyal he is to trump.

rather than discussion the ethics and rules and reality of racist dafamation law.

why i just want a just world where someone can't defame others without proof

today the defamed one has to proof he is innocent and not the defamer

innocent till proven guilty is a foundation in modern law.

This is the way that the USA is set up... innocent until proven guilty. Now, before you jump to conclusions, read the rest.

The word "person" is one of the most important words in USA law regarding people. A person is the name on an agreement. It is NOT a human being until a human accepts that it is.

This means that if a person is accused of defamation, and there is court paperwork stating such, nobody knows who the person on the paperwork is until a man/woman accepts that the person refers to him. That's why there are attorneys... to trick a man/woman into accepting that the person named on some court document is him/her. An attorney will never tell you that the person on the court doc is just a made-up person, unless you accept that it is you.

If you say the person is NOT you, there are several easy ways to determine this. One simple way is to poke the doc with a knife. If it bleeds, it might be you... because you bleed when they poke you with a knife. (If its blood type is different than yours, then it is not you.)

The point is (no knife pun intended), in the USA, if a man or woman defames you in a way that damages you somehow, file a claim against the man/woman, and write the word "man" or "woman" in the claim. Standard court docs almost never say the name of the accused, like... "John Doe, a man" or "Jane Doe, a woman." If you do this, and stand in court unrepresented, you can make the "fight" to be between you and another human being. If you win, you get the damages you require in your claim. But, if you lose, you might wind up paying the damages to the other human.

courts in the west increasingly don't work anymore, only thing that works are social sanctions, vigilantism etc. thats sad, but racism defamation have been used for to long without any shame, last important example is the defamation of president trump who is constantly being defamed to be racist, although he is only a republican.

[Boomspeedometer]

Because it will not benefit the lawmakers. Racism is clear and simple! The group that have historically been oppressed cannot really be racist or accused of being racist!

[KingScorpio]

Because it will not benefit the lawmakers. Racism is clear and simple! The group that have historically been oppressed cannot really be racist or accused of being racist!

if course it can, ignoring that fact, is basically making free way for racism.

you are such a retard. especially because of retards like you we need such laws. or the society will continue to be distrusted.

and the word oppession is also a difficult to used, term, as is slavery. slaves where a commodity back then same like todays salary slaves. slaves where bought by black african slave traders,

those slaves labour was then exploited, same like the migrant underclass that was financially excluded after slavery was abolished.

"the oppressed" will always exist" if its not possible to define them with skincolor (which in my oppinion is simply just a trick and a delusion of the truly rich)

white working class is being played against black working class by the white capitalist class. thats what happened after cold war.

regards

[BADecker]

seems kingscorpio wants to make this topic into some trump superfan showboat of how loyal he is to trump.

rather than discussion the ethics and rules and reality of racist dafamation law.

why i just want a just world where someone can't defame others without proof

today the defamed one has to proof he is innocent and not the defamer

innocent till proven guilty is a foundation in modern law.

This is the way that the USA is set up... innocent until proven guilty. Now, before you jump to conclusions, read the rest.

The word "person" is one of the most important words in USA law regarding people. A person is the name on an agreement. It is NOT a human being until a human accepts that it is.

This means that if a person is accused of defamation, and there is court paperwork stating such, nobody knows who the person on the paperwork is until a man/woman accepts that the person refers to him. That's why there are attorneys... to trick a man/woman into accepting that the person named on some court document is him/her. An attorney will never tell you that the person on the court doc is just a made-up person, unless you accept that it is you.

If you say the person is NOT you, there are several easy ways to determine this. One simple way is to poke the doc with a knife. If it bleeds, it might be you... because you bleed when they poke you with a knife. (If its blood type is different than yours, then it is not you.)

The point is (no knife pun intended), in the USA, if a man or woman defames you in a way that damages you somehow, file a claim against the man/woman, and write the word "man" or "woman" in the claim. Standard court docs almost never say the name of the accused, like... "John Doe, a man" or "Jane Doe, a woman." If you do this, and stand in court unrepresented, you can make the "fight" to be between you and another human being. If you win, you get the damages you require in your claim. But, if you lose, you might wind up paying the damages to the other human.

courts in the west increasingly don't work anymore, only thing that works are social sanctions, vigilantism etc. thats sad, but racism defamation have been used for to long without any shame, last important example is the defamation of president trump who is constantly being defamed to be racist, although he is only a republican.

Courts in the West were never meant to work. In the USA, people were meant to work the courts.

When the people understand who/what they are/are-not, then they work the courts. The magistrates are people and can be brought to court just like any other man/woman.

One of the basic keys for working the courts is to recognize that you are not the name on a piece of paper, and that the only way you become such a name is by accepting it. Rather, stand as the man/woman that you are.

[KingScorpio]

seems kingscorpio wants to make this topic into some trump superfan showboat of how loyal he is to trump.

rather than discussion the ethics and rules and reality of racist dafamation law.

why i just want a just world where someone can't defame others without proof

today the defamed one has to proof he is innocent and not the defamer

innocent till proven guilty is a foundation in modern law.

This is the way that the USA is set up... innocent until proven guilty. Now, before you jump to conclusions, read the rest.

The word "person" is one of the most important words in USA law regarding people. A person is the name on an agreement. It is NOT a human being until a human accepts that it is.

This means that if a person is accused of defamation, and there is court paperwork stating such, nobody knows who the person on the paperwork is until a man/woman accepts that the person refers to him. That's why there are attorneys... to trick a man/woman into accepting that the person named on some court document is him/her. An attorney will never tell you that the person on the court doc is just a made-up person, unless you accept that it is you.

If you say the person is NOT you, there are several easy ways to determine this. One simple way is to poke the doc with a knife. If it bleeds, it might be you... because you bleed when they poke you with a knife. (If its blood type is different than yours, then it is not you.)

The point is (no knife pun intended), in the USA, if a man or woman defames you in a way that damages you somehow, file a claim against the man/woman, and write the word "man" or "woman" in the claim. Standard court docs almost never say the name of the accused, like... "John Doe, a man" or "Jane Doe, a woman." If you do this, and stand in court unrepresented, you can make the "fight" to be between you and another human being. If you win, you get the damages you require in your claim. But, if you lose, you might wind up paying the damages to the other human.

courts in the west increasingly don't work anymore, only thing that works are social sanctions, vigilantism etc. thats sad, but racism defamation have been used for to long without any shame, last important example is the defamation of president trump who is constantly being defamed to be racist, although he is only a republican.

Courts in the West were never meant to work. In the USA, people were meant to work the courts.

When the people understand who/what they are/are-not, then they work the courts. The magistrates are people and can be brought to court just like any other man/woman.

One of the basic keys for working the courts is to recognize that you are not the name on a piece of paper, and that the only way you become such a name is by accepting it. Rather, stand as the man/woman that you are.

`

jes and the us government also says, that human rights can only be given by god, the courts in the usa are only meant to channelise the hatred and anger of the violent and protesting mob.

no man courts never worked in no societies at all