racism defamation 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.

[1715114435]

1715114435

[1715114435]

1715114435

[1715114435]

1715114435

[1715114435]

1715114435

[1715114435]

1715114435

[1715114435]

1715114435

[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