posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 12:23 AM
a reply to: sdcigarpig
I could write a really long response to this, but it's late, so I'll keep it short.
Remember, civil law is different than criminal law in that it only requires a preponderance of evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt
(...remember OJ?). So, to this end, your points #1 and #2 are pretty much a slam dunk.
1. There's no question the statements by CNN were false.
2. The "person" (network in this case) was clearly bent on drawing a connection between a child, MAGA (i.e. Trump) and anti-abortion positions. They
wanted to make an example of him as the pinnacle of their hatred of the right. In essense...'all Trump supporters are racists, and see, here's even a
child who has been indoctrinated into this racism, all in support of right wing anti-abortion ideology. Sandman, like Orangeman = bad!'
Emotional distress and suffering is difficult to disprove, and with the weight of items #1 and #2 above there is a preponderance of evidence which
will more than likely sway an unbiased jury to find for your point #3. The larger questions are...
1. Can they find a truly unbiased jury, and...
2. What will the jury award for damages.
edit on 3/13/2019 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)