It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: shooterbrody
Triggered. š¤£
I'm sitting here amused at your irrelevant rant about a year old thread that has absolutely nothing to do with the here and now.
Your medicine, did you take it? Because you seem to be under the impression that it's still 2018.
No one is taking their free speech...not sure Why your on about government control and all that hoopla
.defamation laws aren't new...they're pretty old man. News sucks reading for yourself is good š
You clearly see anyone (including your own mother) who doesn't hate Trump as much as you do as being your enemy or wrong by default.
originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: xuenchen
Yeah well firstly, its pretty clear that this network aren't exactly the pinnacle of ethical non-biased journalism themselves... further more, I think a lot would need to depend on whether this MSNBC journalist was reporting it as fact that OANN was a "Russian state propaganda outlet", or whether she was just voicing her personal opinion on OANN's known reputation for blatantly and deliberately not reporting on news that involved Russian interference in the 2016 election.
I mean, filing a 10 million dollar law suit against a 'political analyst' for simply stating there opinion (which doesn't appear to be so far from the truth anyway), kind of feels a little anti-freedom of speech to me... so for that reason, I'm not really convinced this law suit has a good chance of succeeding.
originally posted by: Flesh699
originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: xuenchen
Yeah well firstly, its pretty clear that this network aren't exactly the pinnacle of ethical non-biased journalism themselves... further more, I think a lot would need to depend on whether this MSNBC journalist was reporting it as fact that OANN was a "Russian state propaganda outlet", or whether she was just voicing her personal opinion on OANN's known reputation for blatantly and deliberately not reporting on news that involved Russian interference in the 2016 election.
I mean, filing a 10 million dollar law suit against a 'political analyst' for simply stating there opinion (which doesn't appear to be so far from the truth anyway), kind of feels a little anti-freedom of speech to me... so for that reason, I'm not really convinced this law suit has a good chance of succeeding.
Lol so when they say whomever is working for Russia you just believe it?
Air tight logic right there. Air tight.
originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: UKTruth
You clearly see anyone (including your own mother) who doesn't hate Trump as much as you do as being your enemy or wrong by default.
Bahaha! Says who? You? I'm sure the media has convinced you that that's the case, but it's not.
Maybe that's the entire point of their biased coverage, to destroy the social fabric of our country so that reasoned discussion is no longer an option and we are hopelessly divided over petty inconsequential bull#? Yeah, I think I'll go with that.
originally posted by: SailorJerry
a reply to: Subaeruginosa
I mean, filing a 10 million dollar law suit against a 'political analyst' for simply stating there opinion (which doesn't appear to be so far from the truth anyway
Really? Wheres your proof?
Another question
Does it physically hurt when you have to mentally twist things so hard to squeeze into your warped narrative?
The owner of right-leaning cable news channel One America News Network (OANN) has filed a defamation lawsuit against Rachel Maddow and others claiming that the 46-year-old liberal commentator āmaliciously and recklesslyā smeared the network as a Russian state propaganda outlet.
originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: UKTruth
Yet for some reason almost every time I express an opinion on here I'm told I got it from CNN or the Democrats. Why do you think that is? You don't think it could be because the media's blatant bias has been attributed to any and everyone who doesn't support Trump in the eyes of Trump supporters? Seems like it. Maybe that's the entire point of their biased coverage, to destroy the social fabric of our country so that reasoned discussion is no longer an option and we are hopelessly divided over petty inconsequential bull#? Yeah, I think I'll go with that.
$10 million? That's a drop in the bucket, more than a fair price for spreading their intentionally divisive propaganda. Repeat after me guys: "Be emotional and angry! The media said something we don't like. AGAIN! Let's keep giving them the reactionary BS their propaganda was designed for! Let's keep giving them what they want! Thanks xue for continuously providing us with our two minutes of hate!"
Suckers.
Meanwhile not a single person has gone to jail. "Tick tock... tick tock... tick tock..." Keep holding your breaths guys! The arrests are coming any day now, I can feel it in my soul!"
Lol.
In the United States, federal defamation law is closely tied to the First Amendment. As a result, federal slander and libel laws are more defendant-friendly in the U.S. than those in common law countries, like theĀ U.K.Ā andĀ Canada.Ā In short, opinion is not considered defamation in the U.S. That being said, false statements of fact that harm the reputation of an individual or business, aren't protected under Constitutional Free Speech provisions.
The 1964 caseĀ New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew either that the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases barred strict liability for libel and forbid libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous as to be patently false. Recent cases have added precedent on defamation law and theĀ Internet.
wonder how the lawsuit will turn out?
originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: UKTruth
Why do you think I "hate" the president? Is there no such thing as "dislike" in your vocabulary? Because I don't hate Trump, I just don't like him. I don't hate anyone.
By the way, I tried to be diplomatic to start with but there's only so many insults someone can take before they give up on diplomacy and being nice.
I'm pretty sure you know exactly what I mean, the media and Democrats have done the same thing to you guys, pushed you to the point where you don't care about diplomacy or discussion.
Like I said, that's the point of their propaganda, to do away with any semblance of mutual respect. Surely you can see that?