MSNBC and Rachel Maddow Getting Sued for 10 Million Dollars

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: shooterbrody

Triggered. 🤣

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.

Fairly relevant I'd say.
Take a step back and understand you threw your own mother under the bus because you hate Trump so much.
Don't let anything else pollute that "equation" and see it for what it is. To let yourself get to that level of hatred means you have a problem that you should face up to and deal with.
With that baggage in your history, no one with any real perspective is going to take you seriously - but there is always the opportunity to move on and do better.

In this discussion, Maddow is accused of defaming OANN. Your response was to defame OANN. Not a very vaild argument and one that highlights your lack of critical thinking when it comes to anything even slightly releated to Trump. 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. Time for you to wake up, don't you think?

I'll lead by example - OANN have no case. It would be a very dangerous precedent to set to allow one news organisation competing with another to punish their competitor based on an opinion. So, despite me liking OANN and despising MSNBC and Maddow for the propagandists they are, I have to side with them in this case. Not in their opinion, but in their right to voice it.

By the way, you said you and your family had moved on from what you said - so I assume your mother knows. I hope you apologised to her.

a reply to: RickyD

No one is taking their free speech...not sure Why your on about government control and all that hoopla

As I said before, politically motivated cases like this would set precedence, and it would just continue to happen on both sides. We would end up with a more sterile environment, something we already have a problem with. While this case may be civil, you can tell that many members, and in society as a whole is all for there being more rules and or retaliation towards the media.

.defamation laws aren't new...they're pretty old man. News sucks reading for yourself is good 👍

I don't watch the news, and if I read the news, I try to read multiple sources and verify things for myself.

To win against a news outlet for defamation, you have to prove the story was an outright lie... Proving someone lied is pretty hard (now if it can be proven in this case, I'm all for media outlets being held accountable so we get a better quality of media since journalism for the most part is dead as it is).

You may say the Russia story was mostly exaggerated, and I'd agree with you, and had thought so the whole time. But there was an investigation into it so I think outlets get the benefit of the doubt. If we just go on what information we have after the fact, and if a story was proven to be false (but not a fabricated lie), it is what it is.... Or else Bush would have likely gone after CBS for the most likely fake Air Force National Guard document, and Obama would have gone after Trump since he produced what many experts claim is a legitimate US birth certificate.

a reply to: UKTruth

Threw my mom under the bus? How so? Who is she? Could you point her out in a line up? If not, I didn't throw anyone under the bus. Surely you know what that term actually means? Apparently not.

It's not relevant at all, my family has already moved past the incident. Not sure what you guys don't get about that? If I had posted pictures and given away someone's identity then sure, you could say I threw her under the bus, but I didn't.

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. I love my family even though they mostly support Trump. I have coworkers who like Trump, we go out for beers every few weeks. So what are you going on about? Lol! You are a hoot. Politics never comes up with my coworkers except casually, and even then it doesn't go past a certain point. So what were you saying about me seeing anyone who didn't hate Trump as an enemy? Bahaha! You're so wrong it's hilarious! That's what you get for assuming though. Sad part is is that you'll probably continue believing I hate anyone who doesn't hate Trump because that is what the media's coverage has conditioned you to believe. What can you do though? I'll keep pointing it out regardless.

I'm so sick of having this tired ass discussion every couple of weeks. But when you can't go after the ball attack the player, right? Seems to be y'alls motto. Lol. My mom apologized for how she acted, not sure why she would do that if she was somehow in the right? But whatever. Keep harping on about that irrelevant thread, it's all you guys have at this point.

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: 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.

I think they were implying they didn't cover it because they lean right... Just like MSNBC over covered it and ran bad stories because of the inverse.

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.

The media are not discussing you.

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.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
no
you were told you were a hypocrite
when you asked why the reason was given

no one is as biased as you, and self admittedly so
no one destroyed your social fabric but you

funny to see you attempt to blame others for such

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.

so they made you do such?
lol
you "go with that"
put your own stamp on it

my god how hillaryious

a reply to: shooterbrody

So you're still stuck on that one thread from a year ago? It's time to move on like everyone else has. 🤣

Let me know how much I owe you in rent. I'd hate to live in your head rent free old man. 😎

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?

Nah it just comes natural now.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
you're still calling others hypocrites for actions you, yourself documented here?
no rent is due as the only time I think about it is when you make silly posts calling others hypocrites

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 “maliciously and recklessly” smeared the network as a Russian state propaganda outlet.

wonder how the lawsuit will turn out?

They should also be brough up in charged and face jail time.

How can people physically watch that Rachel dude and not get nauseous?

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.

I really don't know where you get your opinions from or your hatred of the President from.
You seem so passionately opposed to division in your post, yet I read your first response in the thread and I see you as part of the problem.

I mean, this was you, right:

$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.

Wouldn't a person so wary of division and against those that propagate it, if they really wanted to contribute, have discussed MSNBC blatant smear job of OANN and then considered whether they had a case to answer for defamation?
NOt really sure what all the 'tick tock', 'suckers' and calling out other posters was all about...especially as you don't seem to appreciate it when you yourself are called out.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

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 the U.K. and Canada. 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.

Source

The 1964 case 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 the Internet.

Source

So as long as they meet the necessary standards for defamation they are good to go. I agree it is usually pretty difficult to win a defamation case against the media because they do enjoy more protections in the US than most places. To me that says their legal team feel pretty confident about it...they are assuredly a smaller organization with less capital to blow on such things. Guess we Will find out...but funny enough defamation laws in the US offer the media more protections than most other western countries that use common law or have laws based on common law.

Lawsuit will go no where, thats why its for 10 mil. They are hoping for a settlement to get easy money.

OANN is fake news so it makes sense.

a reply to: shooterbrody

wonder how the lawsuit will turn out?

What happened to that little racist that tried to sue CNN for pointing out he was racist?
Oh yeah he got laughed out of court, had to pay legal fees and is forever correctly labelled thus.

Same thing here, lets trumptards shout fake news media for five minutes before they go back to look at gateway pundit for their actual fake news.

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?

a reply to: shooterbrody

Maybe the same way the whole MAGA hat kid lawsuit went? Wouldn't surprise me, there's no such thing as justice anymore.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa


ROFLMAO, had to be you claiming that OANN is anti-freedom of speech... Defamation of character, and lying about a source doesn't equal to freedom of speech... But as long as only conservative or independent sources are demonetized, blacklisted and shut down you are okay with it...

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?

Your posts make me think that. Seems like it goes beyond a mere dislike, but whatever. Whether you hate or dislike is really up to you.

Now, I do get your other point. For example, I am not in the slightest bit interested in anything CNN have to say other than to laugh at them. They've so soiled themselves, that they can never have any credibility on any subject. It takes a heck of a lot of BS and propaganda to get that far, though. But CNN got there and went way way beyond.
Generally speaking, for 99% of people/sources, I will listen to any good argument. Those arguments are thin on the ground, though. All we get are 'orange man bad' articles and parroting of gotcha news stories that invariably turn out to be fake.