Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 17 of 22     «   Prev   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   Next   »
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,081
Reply with quote  #241 
Michelle Malkin on the whole SPLC/CAIR hotel episode:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/malkin-surrendering-to-splcs-lazy-media-lemmings?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro

This includes a partial list of groups and individuals who have been defamed and in some cases endangered by the SPLC's dishonesty.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,081
Reply with quote  #242 
Meanwhile, the Left turns on Mark Zuckerberg for apparently meeting with Tucker Carlson:
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/facebooks-mark-zuckerberg-defends-dinners-conservatives-tucker-carlson-lindsay-graham-2019-10?r=US&IR=T
Queenslander

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 644
Reply with quote  #243 
Well as they say "Pop will eat itself"; and nobody dines out on that better than the left.
__________________
Yours Sincerely Queenslander
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,081
Reply with quote  #244 
The Family Research Council has been smeared as a "hate group" when it in fact champions freedom of religion:
https://www.frc.org/updatearticle/20191018/barbed-wire
https://www.frc.org/updatearticle/20191018/cease-fire

That doesn't sound like a "hate group" to me.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,205
Reply with quote  #245 
That's why identity politics is nonsense: 
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/19/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-bernie-sanders-endorsement

DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,081
Reply with quote  #246 
Excellent news. How many more lawsuits against the SPLC are in the pipleline? It's well overdue.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,081
Reply with quote  #247 
The latest departure from the SPLC is a big one:
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/howdy-hater/

The reckless industrial scale defamation the SPLC has engaged in has damaged American politics and society. Perhaps there will be further trouble ahead for this disgraceful organisation. I hope more lawsuits are in the pipeline.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,081
Reply with quote  #248 
A Center for Security Policy event the SPLC and CAIR failed to shut down!
https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2019/11/25/fake-news-industry-and-cair-fail-to-spoil-centers-mar-a-lago-event/
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,081
Reply with quote  #249 
https://frcblog.com/2019/12/crimes-criminal-state-china/

The Family Research Council was falsely termed a "hate group" by the SPLC. And yet, we see that the American Left have more in common with the regime in China in its desire for total control.

Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,639
Reply with quote  #250 
CNN is not having a good week. First, war with Iran didn't materialise, now they have reached a settlement with Nicholas Sandmann, the Covington Catholic schoolboy most defamed by them early last year:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cnn-settles-defamation-suit-with-covington-teen-nick-sandmann

Some will no doubt say it was just the easiest way for them to get Sandmann to go away, and therefore doesn't mean much, but I don't think a media company would just settle to make such a claim go away: CNN has a reputation (don't laugh!) to protect.

This was funny:

https://babylonbee.com/news/as-part-of-settlement-with-nick-sandmann-cnn-hosts-must-wear-maga-hats-while-on-the-air
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,081
Reply with quote  #251 
Just the same as how the SPLC settled with Nawaz, it won't stop well-warranted lawsuits coming.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,275
Reply with quote  #252 
All of which have failed, since the out-of-court settlement discussed considerably earlier in the thread. There the SPLC had been wrong, as they conceded. In later cases they were right, as the courts have affirmed.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,639
Reply with quote  #253 
Actually, the court doesn't pronounce on whether they are right, but whether they committed defamation. That's quite a different matter, especially in the US, where it is notoriously hard for public figures to win defamation cases. That's why Nawaz's (and Sandmann's) settlement was so noteworthy. If this were Britain, it wouldn't be as significant, given our more robust defamation protections. 
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,275
Reply with quote  #254 
The appellants claimed that calling them a hate group constituted defamation. The court ruled for the defendants, which to me is as good as saying 'Yes, the appellants are a hate group.' Which is certainly what I would have said too.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,639
Reply with quote  #255 
I think that's very much an unwarranted leap. Even in Britain there is leeway for opinion - the court is not agreeing with that opinion, but saying it is a defensible opinion. Furthermore, in the US a public figure has to show, I believe, even more. He has to show malicious intent, knowledge of falsehood, and significant damages. There's simply no way an American court would let a public figure win a defamation case about being called something so contentious and opion-based as hate group. With Nawaz it a more (and ludicrous) accusation.

There's an analogy here with taking not guilty to mean innocent. We all know that's true. Not guilty is not a finding of innocence, just that the burden wasn't reached to find you guilty (assuming a fair trial).
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.