The Honesty of Transgender Identity

[Gameface]

nah, you haven't given up on that. You just gave up on posting your extensive file of actual relevant news CNN does, because it's too much trouble sifting through all the trash to find some that aren't.

Nah, I find stuff every day. I've never once sifted through it, I pick stuff from the front page of their website.
You're a joke and this stupid *** response to my post is a perfect example of what kind of joke you are.

 

[Siro]

Here's a rational view on the subject:

http://theconversation.com/falsehoods-sandy-hook-and-suing-alex-jones-97056

I should sue you for falsely implying, online, that I said something relevant or supportive of Jones' questions about Sandy Hook being staged and the characters in the drama being "actors". I saw a lot of stuff fer an' agin online back when Sandy Hook was news. I understood Jones' evidence was weak, but I thought it worth looking at for a few minutes. Some folks can discuss stuff they don't know without being malicious, deliberately lying, or hating anyone. A lot of things get suspected of being political "False Flag" events run by psy-op units of guvmint, so I guess in your world nobody gets to talk about any of that.

Transgendered or whatever folks should sue everyone in this thread for questioning or discussing stuff that could hurt their feelings too.

So, you are a bit perturbed that I said something about your enthusiasm for AI technology and the possibilities for the future? You do know people with enough money to access cutting edge medical applications are doing stuff to their bodies, right? So sue me for talking about you. It's a lot more effective than just discussing stuff online when somebody says something wrong.

People like the Sandy Hook parents have gone online to push for political results. Anyone who cares whether their kids are alive can do about three clicks to get enough information to settle the question in their minds about the realities of the case.

It will be interesting to see what happens in court, but I suspect the case will be settled outta court.

Stuff like fb or Google taking actions to limit Jones' access is also going to be interesting, legally. At some point in time, when private online enterprises act arbitrarily or without evidence to suppress free speech, the Courts will make them eat the damages in million-dollar bites.

If you don't find harassing parents of murdered children in order to drive up the profits from his ignorant audience malicious, then you're too far lost in your dogma to have a meaningful conversation with. Sorry.

 

[Gameface]

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html

"Defamation of character" is a catch-all term for any statement that hurts someone's reputation. Written defamation is called "libel," while spoken defamation is called "slander." Defamation is not a crime, but it is a "tort" (a civil wrong, rather than a criminal wrong). A person who has been defamed can sue the person who did the defaming for damages.
Defamation law tries to balance competing interests: On the one hand, people should not ruin others' lives by telling lies about them; but on the other hand, people should be able to speak freely without fear of litigation over every insult, disagreement, or mistake. Political and social disagreement is important in a free society, and we obviously don't all share the same opinions or beliefs. For instance, political opponents often reach opposite conclusions from the same facts, and editorial cartoonists often exaggerate facts to make their point.

What Does the Victim Need to Prove to Establish Defamation?

The law of defamation varies from state to state, but there are some generally accepted rules. If you believe you are have been "defamed," to prove it you usually have to show there's been a statement that is all of the following:

• published
• false
• injurious
• unprivileged

Let's look at each of these defamation claim elements in detail.

1. First, the "statement" can be spoken, written, pictured, or even gestured. Because written statements last longer than spoken statements, most courts, juries, and insurance companies consider libel more harmful than slander.

2. "Published" means that a third party heard or saw the statement -- that is, someone other than the person who made the statement or the person the statement was about. "Published" doesn't necessarily mean that the statement was printed in a book -- it just needs to have been made public through social media, television, radio, speeches, gossip, or even loud conversation. Of course, it could also have been written in magazines, books, newspapers, leaflets, or on picket signs.

3. A defamatory statement must be false -- otherwise it's not considered damaging. Even terribly mean or disparaging things are not defamatory if the shoe fits. Most opinions don't count as defamation because they can't be proved to be objectively false. For instance, when a reviewer says, "That was the worst book I've read all year," she's not defaming the author, because the statement can't be proven to be false.

4. The statement must be "injurious." Since the whole point of defamation law is to take care of injuries to reputation, those suing for defamation must show how their reputations were hurt by the false statement -- for example, the person lost work; was shunned by neighbors, friends, or family members; or was harassed by the press. Someone who already had a terrible reputation most likely won't collect much in a defamation suit.

5. Finally, to qualify as a defamatory statement, the offending statement must be "unprivileged." Under some circumstances, you cannot sue someone for defamation even if they make a statement that can be proved false. For example, witnesses who testify falsely in court or at a deposition can't be sued. (Although witnesses who testify to something they know is false could theoretically be prosecuted for perjury.) Lawmakers have decided that in these and other situations, which are considered "privileged," free speech is so important that the speakers should not be constrained by worries that they will be sued for defamation. Lawmakers themselves also enjoy this privilege: They aren't liable for statements made in the legislative chamber or in official materials, even if they say or write things that would otherwise be

 

[babe]

If you don't find harassing parents of murdered children in order to drive up the profits from his ignorant audience malicious, then you're too far lost in your dogma to have a meaningful conversation with. Sorry.

you've got nothing to be sorry about. You still get to think and say what you want. Me being here means I'm open to comments and should not be too sensitive about stuff people think. Same with anyone who goes online with political opinions or advocacy. Even when you're using your child's death to push your cause. It's called free speech.

 

[babe]

Nah, I find stuff every day. I've never once sifted through it, I pick stuff from the front page of their website.
You're a joke and this stupid *** response to my post is a perfect example of what kind of joke you are.

I didn't say you didn't believe CNN is good news. I supported my barb about CNN with a little objective reporting from elsewhere. It's a matter of opinion since CNN's reporting is objectively one-sided, whether you believe it or not.

 

[Siro]

you've got nothing to be sorry about. You still get to think and say what you want. Me being here means I'm open to comments and should not be too sensitive about stuff people think. Same with anyone who goes online with political opinions or advocacy. Even when you're using your child's death to push your cause. It's called free speech.

They wanted better gun control only because their children were murder. How horrible of them. You're being totally reasonable here. You don't come off at all like an ideologue who will defend his heroes regardless of their actions.

 

[Zombie]

Same with anyone Even when you're using your child's death to push your cause. It's called free speech.

With all due respect, go **** yourself with this ****. “Using your child’s death to push your cause”...what an absurd thing to think, much less say.

 

[babe]

They wanted better gun control only because their children were murder. How horrible of them. You're being totally reasonable here. You don't come off at all like an ideologue who will defend his heroes regardless of their actions.

I get it that you're sorta cool with strong ideas of conformity to societal norms, not much like the oldtime American backwoodsmen who felt crowded when someone started chopping a spot in the woods within a day's walk, anxious to move on to where you needn't be bothered by what someone else thinks. Circa the 1790-1820s east if the Mississippi and west of the Appalachians.

Some of those folks would as soon take a scalp as give one, but if anyone wanted to barter they'd look for some advantage in doing so, whether with red, black or white. The Cherokees tried to adopt mainstream values but hey, their lands had some rivers you could pan for gold, so they were marched out west of the Mississippi where nobody cared about those semi-arid sand dunes with grass and buffalo. yet....... and still knew nothing about oil.....

Life has probably always been unjust, and likely will continue to be under your kind of ignorance. You're so full of yourself that you know exactly what everyone else should think or say. Having inviolable human rights like freedom of speech or belief can be a little rough on the tender-hearted. But such strong moral imperatives as yours, driven home with contempt or hate, is no improvement.

I have not defended Alex Jones with one word in this exchange, and the fact is Alex Jones did not murder anyone. He had a guy with some pics taken from news coverage, pointing out inconsistencies in the general story being pushed by the mainstream media.

For all I know, Alex Jones may still think there is reason to doubt the conventional story line. I don't listen to him enough to know.

If I had a show promoting my views of the news, I might get the same guy to come on...… but I'd be a bit slow getting certain about what he says, and I'd be looking to ask questions to see if his view is justified by facts somehow. Then I'd probably get on the horn and call some of the folks who were being filmed by CNN or others, and implore them to come talk to the guy face to face. I might ask some more questions of both groups. Might need some strong bouncers or muscle or security officers of some kind, but I'd insist on courtesy or you don't get paid for showing.

I can understand the natural sympathy people whose kids have been shot by a drugged, psycololgically messed up hollow mesmerized zombie for no reason. I'd probably want to interview the professional psychological professionals who had dealt with him, too. I'd be asking why we don't do something about the medications that are so often in the background of incidents like this.

Don't you know that it is documented science that some drugs do sometimes impair the brain centers responsible for governing choices with feedback about consequences of actions.....

I do seriously believe CNN is responsible for helping, with the assistance of other deranged media outlets, for sensationalizing events like this with the factual consequence of being suggestive to other cognitively, mentally, or decision-impaired younger folks. Not a lot of these shooters are over 40, ya know.

So I will maintain CNN (and others) is just as irresponsible and unworthy of respect as Jones (and others) hell bent on making political hay outta human tragedy.

I call out the media for being wrongly motivated to exploit tragedies, and for putting suffering families in the cross hairs of political debates. What they, and some of the posters in JFC do, is seriously wrong. Just as bad as Alex Jones, bro.

 

[babe]

With all due respect, go **** yourself with this ****. “Using your child’s death to push your cause”...what an absurd thing to think, much less say.

If this case gets to court, there's about a ton of TV footage showing the plaintiffs in front of cameras for the express purpose of making political points. They put themselves in this position, with the assistance of some news crews just as intent on pushing the politics.

I don't really trust courts anymore. too much political utility. But if we lose freedom of speech under a culture of abuse and intolerance of others, as you have exemplified above, it will be your loss as much as mine.

and, btw, the same kinds of abuse and intolerance are what this thread is actually about.

It's kinda hard to tell others what to be, or what to feel. I respect folks who can just make room for others as a matter of principle, even if they are different.

 

[Gameface]

No longer trusts the courts...

Talks about the U.S. Constitution...

America is DEAD if these are the people who think they are saving it.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

No longer trusts the courts...

Talks about the U.S. Constitution...

America is DEAD if these are the people who think they are saving it.

A common trait about the skeptical crowd is they are SKEPTICAL. They cant even trust each other enough to ever organize into anything meaningful. They always splinter and fracture. Babe and James both show that in this thread.

 

[Zombie]

If this case gets to court, there's about a ton of TV footage showing the plaintiffs in front of cameras for the express purpose of making political points. They put themselves in this position, with the assistance of some news crews just as intent on pushing the politics.

I don't really trust courts anymore. too much political utility. But if we lose freedom of speech under a culture of abuse and intolerance of others, as you have exemplified above, it will be your loss as much as mine.

and, btw, the same kinds of abuse and intolerance are what this thread is actually about.

It's kinda hard to tell others what to be, or what to feel. I respect folks who can just make room for others as a matter of principle, even if they are different.

Yes, they put themselves in this position by sending their kids to school, and having them shot to death.

Also you're just being an ***-hole. I have no interest in tolerating or making room for assholes to spew their toxic ****. Not to mention my calling you out, a person who is an ***-hole, for being an ***-hole, is not in any way shape or form curtailing your ability to continue to be an ***-hole. Regardless of whatever you think about the 'culture of abuse and intolerance. ***-hole.