Which would be darned hard to prove here, as they just altered her voice and the speed, you don’t have proof that the creator intended to make her sound like a drunk, maybe they just like playing with voices and video. Just like people used to play 45s at 33 1/3 RPMs and vice versa…
In fact they’re going to dig up Joe McCarthy and put him on the committee
3 Likes
Flagged. I haven’t been seeing spammers for a while and now I’ve seen 2 in 2 days. Have I just been missing them, coming late to threads, or are they getting more prevalent?
6 Likes
You’re not limited to suing the original source of the falsehood. Repeating a defamatory falsehood is just as tortious (although may give rise to a smaller award of damages). That’s why people hastily add “allegedly” when they repeat a statement that is defamatory.
7 Likes
Fraud ® Felony®
You don’t sue the original creator of the video. You sue those who publish the video falsely representing it to be true. There are challenges in bringing such a suit, but the stakes are high enough to think long and hard about taking them on.
7 Likes
Davis asked the parties if they had started discussing a potential settlement.
Is that akin to the judge asking “Are you prepared to give up yet Mr. Lockerby, you barely 1L level idiot?”
4 Likes
Even tho satire uses comical exaggeration, etc, particularly in political applications, a case could be made that the vids intent is not to inspire humorous examination of NP to prove a point, but is actually meant to A) harm her personally, that whoever created the vid B) did so maliciously, and that those redistributing the vid as genuine are doing so knowing A and B to be true. So it falls short of being satire and instead is easily recognizable as propaganda (if you wanna be polite) or (if you dont wanna be polite) ratfucking dirty trickery of the Atwater/ Manafort/ Rove/ Stone sort.
5 Likes
This one isn’t even Prime. Get rid of the cheapskate.
6 Likes
Too bad they aren’t deposing her.
Well, Im sure you mean something like this:
but man, thats really a stretch.
Maybe so, but I had the same knee-jerk as @EricPraline.
This cannot be construed as satire by any means, when the President and his attorney Ghouliani are promoting it as examples of mental incompetence on Pelosi’s part, and is a piece of the Pelosi mental health campaign by the President.
2 Likes
Well, what is the goal here? If the goal is to have a huge number of people watch the video who would otherwise not have watched it, then a lawsuit might be a good idea.
It’s the Streisand Effect. As a practical matter, Pelosi is much better off ignoring the video. If she does so, it’ll fade away within a week. A lawsuit would have it in the public sphere for a year or so.
1 Like
This guys deposition hopefully will be recorded and made available. The one Alex Jones did is quite revealing.
4 Likes
I really like the Ginna Thomas connection, this could get interesting.
4 Likes
Step back from the ledge and look at it how a judge or a prosecutor would.
Sure, you might infer that the creator meant to defame her, but you can’t prove their intent.
And Trump’s just passing on a link he saw, he’s not defaming anyone, he didn’t create it.
Not saying anyone is wrong here at all-- it’s a clear hit-job. Just doubt any prosecutor would touch it with a ten-foot pole.
2 Likes
This is the first one I have seen in a long time.
1 Like
Here you go (the spaces in your URL needed to be converted back to “%20” to work):
https://www.thenewsmanual.net/Manuals%20Volume%203/volume3_69.htm
1 Like
Sweet, thanks!
1 Like
How about when the judge is asking why you haven’t been charged with treason?
6 Likes