@@williamgosvener47 Do you think it's fair to call someone who supports, praises, defends, and associates with white supremacists, a white supremacist?
Said the Furry. Its funny how you notice when its a cop being arrested leftist say "Not guilty" but when its a right winger they say "Acquitted" I wonder why that is. Ps 1/6th was a riot not an insurrection and Trumps innocent. Kthxs.
I was thinking the same thing! Though obviously plenty of people see through these "opinion" pieces as manipulative, but the fact that far too many people fall for it is definitely concerning. From the standpoint of the law it may not be actionable, but if that's what you're using as a defense, that you were just using hyperbole and no one should take you seriously, then we should stop taking those people seriously and assume they are constantly engaging in hyperbole.
@@youwouldntclickalinkonyout6236 1/6 was morally and historically equivalent to the Beer Hall Putsch. Both were pathetic attempts to overthrow the government. Hopefully the parallels stop there.
@@youwouldntclickalinkonyout6236 IDK, but I would say that trying to violently overturn the results of a lawful election and keep your preferred party in power - remember, if Trump remained in office as president then most of his sycophants would have also stayed in power - qualifies as an insurrection.
Kyle Rittenhouse aside, we should have some laws that protect people from media slander. I'm specifically thinking about people who are reported for crimes that they are being charged with, but when they are found not guilty, there is little to no coverage of it and their reputations are forever tainted by false allegations.
Ye, it’s a sticky wicket. Essentially, the media used to be limited but when the “Washington Papers Case” as well as the FEC one in the early 2000s, the media has been able to fall under the first amendment freedom of speech. Couple that with the line between figurative and literal diction has become so grey that it looks like a cloud, it is very hard to prove defamation nowadays.
I would recommend a mini-series called 'The Lost Honour of Christopher Jefferies' which was a very famous case here in the UK. Long story short, a woman was murdered in her apartment, and it appeared to be a regular murder which usually disappears from the news quickly. A media outlet then ran an article on her landlord, who was a very eccentric looking guy with an odd manner, and then the rest of the media pretty much had him convicted of the murder. It turned out he was just eccentric and a genuinely nice guy, and they caught the real murderer after the media had ruined this guys life. It's one of the best mini-series I've ever seen, and it sticks very closely to the facts, with something of a happy ending considering the horrible crime that it's about.
I am confused how he is a public figure in purpose for the lawsuit? Has he tried to become a celebrity by working in some media? Because otherwise it would seem his fame is just linked him defending himself in court and in public opinion and other people commenting about him in media. But maybe after he has tried to become a celebrity after a trial. I just don’t feel defending yourself in media should make you a public figure in sense that makes it more difficult for you to defend yourself in civil cases.
@@sarasamaletdin4574 Aye, it's a mess. I've seen people complain that he's done too much media, but the fact that some idiots are still claiming he crossed state lines with an 'assault rifle' just shows he hasn't done enough. That said, if people don't know even the basic facts of this case without spouting off their nonsense, no amount of media will help at this point.
I'm Ok with news corps hiding behind "no reasonable person would believe what we say to be factual"... on the condition that if that argument is ever used, they must surrender any legal privileges associated with being a member of the press.
" no reasonable person would believe what we say to be factual" ?? Yet Throughout Europe people noted being shocked to discover the " facts about Rittenhouse. Many stated the facts were nothing like the " media" had led them to " believe" . Yes .normal reasonable people "BElIVED " what the meadow said as if it were factual. All countries need laws to govern misleading media reporting.they have too much voice without little to no accountability.
Agreed. Once they begin spouting opinion and activism for one party over another they are no longer journalists and as such should not have their access or protections.
I think there are situations where hyperbole should be a defense. For example, a statement like “This person is insane” or even “This person belongs in a straitjacket”. Any reasonable person would realize that the commentator doesn’t actually think the the person is clinically insane or belongs in a psychiatric hospital because it is common hyperbole. But the example brought up in the video are different.
@@liamrivers3283 agreed. "Bob is insane!" during a conversation is not remotely the same as "Kyle, a high ranking member of the KKK... " Though to be fair they're calling these people white nationalists, as though being white or being a nationalist is a bad thing. They changed the definitions of words again and now pretend that white patriots are all racists. They can always fall back on "white nationalist doesn't mean racist" as a defense.
Kind of like the self defense laws in Wisconsin ironically enough, except the leniency in the law is working against instead of for him this time around.
I still don’t understand how a reasonable person could think this kid brought an assault rifle to a riot and he *didn’t* have the intent to murder someone.
the court saying that viewers of tucker carlson are unlikely to take his statements literally is in my opinion wrong. Since there is tons of public evidence that many who watch his show take him literally, I have multiple relatives who believe he is the only trustworthy media source.
At least he had to go on record basically asserting that no reasonable person would take him seriously. That is good enough for me, but it is scary that you can lie and lie and lie, then stand up and tell the whole world that you are definitely a liar and anyone who believes you is an idiot, and conservatives will STILL believe everything you say.
Can we agree that news outlets shouldn’t be able to argue that their content isn’t intended to be taken literally? People watch the news to learn facts about what is happening in the world around them. If it really is a hyperbole, opinion or stretching of the truth it’s wrong to tell millions with them assuming it’s factual. Edit- I’m all for freedom of speech but just like how you can’t run into a building and yell fire I don’t think news outlets should be giving uneducated opinions and presenting them as fact. Bring a specialist in get their opinion sure, but enforce the audience that that was an opinion.
Yea.... I don't know how someone can argue no reasonable person would take it literally while the logo 'Fox News' is predominately displayed through the ENTIRE show. It's.... insane.
@@dizzy2020 People had to write that encyclopedia as well. People also had to gather that information and produce studies on them. To act like an encyclopedia is free from bias if your going to be that pragmatic about the news (even if i do agree), is probably a bit disingenuous. At the end of the day the news is known to report facts, and therefore shouldn't be allowed to flagrantly use its label to push propaganda the way it does. If tucker Carlson wants a talk show, that's one thing, but he has a damn news segment. They shouldn't get to give him that, and act like he has no responsibilities.
Yeah. Tucker Carlson isn't a late night comedy show or edutainment host. He proports to be pure news. It's not like John Oliver doing a piece on someone and saying that the subject has rat balls. Then he could reasonably say that part was a joke, and the actual substance of his piece was a joke.
Objection: Rittenhouse does not meet the standard for limited purpose public figure. He did not (a) voluntarily participate in a discussion nor did he (b) have access to the media to get his views across during the time period in question. Otherwise it is circular logic. Much like how the word “literally” can not be defined using the word “literally”; Rittenhouse cannot be made a public figure by means of public defamation. His fame was made manifest by the defamation itself. If a private individual is defamed online by another and that media goes viral then the individual does not retroactively become limited purpose public figure. Otherwise there is no such thing as a private individual.
so let me get this straight. the more a tv host exaggerate, the less likely he is to be held liable. so the more extreme he gets, the better it is for him, both in views and in court? so populism has already won then?
A hazard of echo chambers and a sharply segmentated audience. I have two reasons this isn't the end of civilization it might sound like: 1) I think most people aren't that invested - they want to live their lives and, at least in their personal interactions, not be total asshats. I think most people will tend toward decency and appreciation. I think such people wind up supporting cruel or vindictive policies because the narrative has been reframed to make the cruel and vindictive seem caring and supporting. I think that's where we are with anti-trans laws. I don't think that reframing can go the distance as the harm such laws do invariably comes out. 2) A populist who encourages populist tendencies in their audience is playing with fire. Someone who's been taught to dehumanize can do the same with their leaders once those leaders have been proven no more than human. Recall Trump getting booed when he told his audience that actually getting vaccinated is a good thing.
Let's phrase this differently: the more obvious it is that the statements are not meant as literal truth, the more likely it is that a defamation suit will fail. Making obviously exaggerated statements is just one way of marking them as opinion. Unfortunately it is becoming harder to tell whether a statement is exaggerated or the speaker really believes it to be an extreme fact.
Alex Jones set the precedent that tucker used. Even without being extremist, you can claim that your show is for entertainment purposes and is not an actual representation of news This allows you to talk about the news and report it while saying whatever you want with impunity
Oh the irony of announcing a media accountability organization on Tucker Carlson's show. Let's us not forget Tucker's own lawyer's said his words cannot be trusted.
It was never intended to be an accountability organization. It was always intended to be a settling scores organization. It is a sure bet that this organization won't go after anything published on Fox or OAN.
Regarding the definition of "literally", as a linguist, I have to say this sort of thing is so common we actually have a term for this. This is what linguists call semantic hyperbole. It happens when a word's meaning becomes exaggerated by overstatement. Usually, this change involves the meaning diluting rather than becoming its opposite. A good example of the usual way this process happens is the word "awfully," which used to have a more specific meaning but today is essentially a synonym for "very." Another example that more resembles what happened to "literally" is what happened to "terrific," which until the mid 20th century meant the same thing as "terrible." But then people started using it to refer to things that weren't scary but were exciting, like a "terrific" party, and over time this caused it to diverge into a new meaning. It's the same thing with "literally," but it's unlikely that the original sense of the word will die out, so "literally" will probably become a true contranym, where 2 or more of a word's senses are opposites. But who knows? Maybe because of confusion people will stop saying "literally" to mean "factual" and will use a different word, and then original meaning of "literally" may die out. Language is fun!
@@reh3884 Fortunately the doubt of some rando on youtube doesn't affect my credentialing, but whether you believe me or not a quick google search will confirm my assertion.
This guy must be a great lawyer. He hits all the lawyer points of emphasis. "It is not about right and wrong, it is what you can prove in court" have got to be tattooed on his back.
Video is the witness that doesn’t lie, so a lot of slam dunks. All you need to find is 12 common sense jurors with an IQ above 85. Which would eliminate most democrats.
Correct, and in this case they proved Kyle only fired his gun after he was attacked, everyone who didn't attack Kyle survived. It was a clear cut case of self defense no matter how you look at it. Don't chase people down and attack them and you won't get shot, very simple.
Haha, that's explains why this kind of lawyers are not very respected. They don't care about right or wrong at all. They are just the robots for they legal system.
I think at some point, they're still good to protect non-public figures. If I went to your place of work and told your boss blatantly untrue facts about you in an effort to get you fired and succeeded, you would more than likely have a case to say "Hey, this guy said defamatory stuff about me and it cost me my job!"
What I learned from this video: If you defame people long and often enough, you get away with it cause it's somehow your character. If you're a serious person and do it once, you get the hammer. Long live the USA
@@gholland5840 kyle is a public figure because of blm and the medias attempt to get an innocent man locked up, while also "getting justice" for a pedophile and a domestic abuser, kinda blew up their faces lmao.
@@gholland5840 He is a public figure. The video was released on social media and became popular. People knew who he was within an hour or two. Being a public figure doesn't have to be a choice.
Thinking as a lawyer, here. 1. Sue as many as possible. 2. Negotiate and close with those un-willing to fight. 3. Withdraw from those wanting to fight. 4. Collect a massive payday. Lawyers win.
I don't think you know how the legal process works in this regard. Almost every single company will fight it to some extend. What I hope you mean is those willing to actually take it to trial. Although the problem with your premise is the second someone tries to take it to trial and they back down every single other firm will realize they backed down when it came to trial and all will then just file for motions to sent it to trial.
That may be beneficial for easy money, but it’s not the money that this is about. It’s about the outright lies and how they ought to be punished to keep it from continuing.
that only works if the person you sue never even talks to a lawyer and assumes they actually did something wrong. All they need to do is talk to a lawyer and they will say "ya, you didn't break the law and here are all the ways I can prove it in a court room" If you have no claim and make a baseless accusation, the lawyer will highly encourage the client not to settle out of court, because it's a free win for that lawyer, and you save money in the process.
the destruction of the english language when the secondary meaning of a word means the opposite of that word. At least most other contranyms have to be used in a different way.
@@davidokinsky114 I believe in living languages should change and grow but this habit is so fuckinh annoying. Sarcasm isn't actual language use! It only works if everyone knows the correct definition and is in on the joke!
When close to half of elected official constantly dumb down the population to stay in power, as well as using slippery slope to fear monger their base, and changing the law/make ruling to protect themselves.
Well it happens to a lot of words, over time, similar to people saying "xerox" instead of "copy". Language erodes almost like rocks, exaggerations ("killer party") and slang (like "cool") become common and accepted at face-value.
@@davidokinsky114 It's slang. You people gonna cry "cool" doesn't actually relate to temperature in some cases? Was it destruction of language when your grandpa used his own slang? Get a grip.
Generally, I lean very heavilly towards freedom of speach, but with large media organizations and their comentators/journalists, I feel they should be held to a higher standard due to them being often viewed as authorities when it comes to disemination of facts and their ability to reach a very large audiance.
If you are presenting yourself as a objective teller of truth, you better be telling the objective truth to the best of your ability. When you put yourself into that position you take up the responsibility of truth to your audience.
@@benjaminhoyt1421 I'm not disguising anything. I don't care what is being said and I think opposing viewpoints are important and I think people are entitled to say anything they want reguardless of how I feel on the matter. Media organisations are basically the only instance that has pushed my tolerance to the limit, because of how many people they can reach and how an average person can never have sufficient reach or clout to argue against them. I'm not saying media shouldn't be able to talk freely, but I do think that if they are taken to court by someone, then the reach they have should be taken into consideration when they make hyperbolic and exagerated statements that could be damaging to a person, as their reach can have a much greater effect compared to a regular person.
As I told everyone at the time the media that was addicted to using "alleged" or "suspect", never used those words when talking about Rittenhouse. Those words are a hedge against a defamation claim.
You know, we should be holding media to a higher standard of telling the truth over reporting genuine misinformation and claiming someone who has been proven innocent in a court of law is, somehow, still the thing that he was accused of than your random citizen - not a lower one. They have the reach to ruin lives far easier than a single person and yet the standards for them to be convicted of defamation are so impossibly high that they can act with utter impunity.
Rittenhouse was not "proven innocent." The jury in his case simply found that the prosecution had not met its burden, based upon the evidence they were allowed to present. The only way you can arguably be "proven innocent" is if a court of law makes a legal finding of innocence in your case. No court has made a legal finding of innocence on Rittenhouse's behalf. The idea that he's innocent just because he was acquitted....sorry, but that's not the law. Plenty of people have been acquitted only for new evidence to surface later that proves their guilt. But they can't be retried because of double jeopardy. That could conceivably happen, not just in Rittenhouse's case but in any case.
Tucker Carlson on Fox calling out CNN as "unreliable fake news" is the pot calling the kettle black. The only difference between the two is political leaning.
Kind of makes me think why so many people go crazy with the "allegedly" when reporting things. Looks like you can call a person pretty much whatever you want and almost nothing is actionable.
Yeah, the law is kept broad in scope so that people don't just sue anyone who says mean stuff about them... Legal eagle gave an example of an actionable statement too
yeah. That's how freedom of speech works. Unless you can prove someone knowingly provides false facts about you, or unless you can prove they violated some contractual obligation, a person is not subject to legal retaliation. Otherwise any rich asshole with enough lawyers can sue anyone who calls him an asshole.
Especially leading up to trials, actual news agencies (ie, NOT Tucker Carlson) have to be wary of crossing the line into libel/slander/defamation, as well as impacting potential juries. Sources lie, video & photos can be altered, & so on...if a journalist just says "Joe shot Bill," they can quickly get into hot legal water, & legit news agencies have repeatedly lost lawsuits or had to settle when they cross the line. Saying "Joe allegedly shot Bill" mitigates that risk. An example is the ongoing cases against Fox News by Dominion for repeatedly claiming that Dominion had actually committed crimes, rather than merely reporting that Trump et al allege that Dominion had committed crimes.
I watched this trial. Evidence clearly showed Rittenhouse being approached and pursued in an agressive manner by those that he shot. He could reasonably believe that they intended him significant physical harm. Video evidence supported that. That is why he self defense defense led to his acquittal.
Juries never come to the wrong conclusion and there's no such thing as a biased judge. Plus evidence of motive and intent never gets excluded from a trial.
@@leeartlee915 The trial DID indeed show that Rittenhouse was an immature idiot who panicked - when someone came at him in an aggressive manner. The videos clearly showed all of the ones the kid shot were coming for him, with clear intent to physically touch him, or in one case, had a gun themselves. I do not think that kid should have been anywhere near that situation, and definitely shouldn't have been armed, but they were able to prove that Rittenhouse did not shoot unprovoked. Each shot could be reasonably considered self defense.
@@foreveryoungsiberianhuskie6771 I never argued otherwise. But just imagine the same situation minus Rittenhouse having a gun. If you do that, I don’t see anyone dying in that scenario. Him having a gun, him panicking, him being a afraid little bitch, that’s what led to people dying. Legally, he was found not guilty. Doesn’t mean that the laws aren’t whack. If Rittenhouse had done the exact same thing in, say, Massachusetts, he likely would have been found guilty. Another thing of note. When Rittenhouse was “attacked” when he was fleeing the scene and had been killed by those men, it’s very likely they would have been found not guilty because it was “reasonable” for them to believe Rittenhouse was a danger to themselves and others (as he was an active shooter). Hell, there’s a good chance they wouldn’t have even been indicted.
After watching this in full, I feel that the law for defamation needs to be changed. It currently seems that public figures, who have access to large audiences, can make defamatory statements about individual people and neglect the facts of situations in regards to those individuals. However, the court of law will not punish these people because it was presented as a public statement based on public events. This prevents people from being held accountable for any actions that they take which can lead to the destruction of people's lives. Kyle Rittenhouse was banned from attending ASU because of the statements made from these public figures. To say that publics statement don't have consequential actions is blatantly untrue, whether the they were intended or not.
That is complete misinformation. Whoopi Goldberg does not dictate who can study at ASU 🤣 ASU took no steps to prevent Kyle Rittenhouse from attending. His course was mostly online and he was a student there for a short period. What could've influenced his decision to quit was the fact a bunch of students protested his attendance, which is completely within the bounds of free speech - many people believe what he did constituted murder, or at the very least illustrated the race disparity in legal judgement, i.e. there is simply no way a black man would've got off had he been running round Kenosha with a gun and shot multiple people. For those who don't view him as a folk hero, and there are many, he is an extremely repulsive character. I think the gun lobby need to come to terms with this.
It's not the law that needs to change, it's the idea news stations do not need to be help accountable for stating fact. FACT is, a reasonable person SHOULD believe news stations are providing facts to them. Problem is the news stations are so damn untrustworthy that a reasonable person would actually assume they are being lied to when they turn on the news in todays day and age which is a MASSIVE problem. People are right to assume the news is lying, because it's all they do.
Rittenhouse was not banned from attending ASU. He was enrolled in online classes at ASU for a few months but was no longer enrolled by the time of the trial. At no point did ASU take any action against Rittenhouse. Even if ASU had taken action against Rittenhouse there is no reason to believe it would be because of the influence of media. Universities are private institutions and association with them is a privilege that they have the right to remove for any reason they see fit. If a university decides that they don't want students attending public protests with firearms and publicly stating affiliation with the university then it is completely in their right to do so. If Rittenhouse were expelled from ASU because of this incident it would be a result of his public statement claiming to be a student at ASU and nothing else. They would have very little reason to expel him if he was not publicly associated with ASU. A great example to point to is that time an ASU student was expelled for posting pornographic photos where she was wearing an ASU shirt. You can post nudes, you can shoot people in self defense, you can't post nudes in an ASU sweatshirt, you can't shoot people in self defense in an ASU sweatshirt. I'm not sure why I'm trying to explain this though, he wasn't expelled at all.
@@CrypticCobra I support Rittenhouse , but I don't think the law needs to be changed . Because defamation is already itself an infringement of the first amendment & we don't want any more intrusion from the government in our Freedom of Speech . This is the slippery slope through which the government gradually creates law to censor speech & people see the short time dynamic but not the long term effects
@@addymant I think the difference is that, in this case, it is literally arguable. Saying someone has an STI/STD can be proven false with a simple test. Kyle Rittenhouse had to argue his case in court, against all of the opinions from before it even got there. Now, initially, I believed what was said, due to lack of information. Only when the footage from the case came out, widely, did I actually start to believe him innocent of murder and instead decide it was self defense in my opinion. So yeah. The actual need/ability to argue the point to different conclusions makes it "arguably", and, therefore, an opinion.
Short answer to video's title: Yes. Longer answer: You can sue anyone for anything, up to and including God. Doesn't mean you'll win or you'll win money. Slightly longer answer: Rittenhouse had a lot of personal information that wasn't allowed at trial that he wouldn't want to be subject of a lawsuit.
@@elizabethhenning778 that is funny as has has multiple high end lawyers that saw otherwise and people calling him a white supremacist, murderer, and terrorist are all easy to show is false so those calling him that are clearly guilty.
We need to hold the media accountable exactly the same way we hold police. In NYC, we have CCRB for the NYPD. Why don't we have a committee like that for the media?
I know it irks people, but in English, common usage IS correct usage. It's a very fluid and quick to evolve language. I'm a grammar pedant every day of the week, but you have to roll with these things.
@@tigerofdoom I know people commonly use it that way. I'm generally okay with the evolution language. I just dont like that this word evolved to mean the opposite of what it means. And I will die on this hill. Everyone is wrong. Literally does not mean figuratively. All the goobers who use it wrong can fight me!
Making a judgment call on what is hyperbolic, what is rhetorical, and whether their use of "literally" meant "literally" or "not literally" seems like a hell of a slippery slope to me. What's stopping anyone from phrasing LITERALLY anything in a way that can be considered hyperbolic, and therefore can't be considered defamation? What CAN be sued then? Is anyone allowed to say anything from now on, because even facts can be considered opinion, even 'literally' can be considered not literally, everything can be considered rhetorical/hyperbolic, etc...
Good point. Could someone give an example of what would constitute defamation against Rittenhouse? It sounds like it would be completely legal to say on your TV show: "he's literally a Nazi. That's a fact. He wants to commit genocide against the Jews"
Problem is, this swings both ways. How to decide when hyperbole is meant seriously and when jokingly? The problem is that either everyone and their dog gets convicted for making jokes or nearly nobody (as it is now). As law seeks to not punish the not guilty, it will always choose the definition that lets some guilty people free over convicting innocent people. What surprises me more is that public figures are not held to a higher standard. Like Goldberg said that he is a murderer in her opinion. I think such clarification is reasonable to expect, considering the wide audience they have. Either through clearly stating it is an opinion or through the format of the show. A comedian doesn't need to say that it is his opinion, because the format of his public presence makes it clear. A news show however should have to always state when it is opinion and not researched fact (i.e by saying "alleged murderer" or "one can assume he is a murderer"). I find it especially shocking that the white house/the president can post things that clearly ruin someones reputation. Again, the statement would be different if he said that they disavow someone who is allegedly a white supremacist. I don't think that it is asked too much of experienced public figures to clearly state what is opinion and what fact, especially in social media or speeches or prepared shows. Because many people will believe their words and take it for fact otherwise. Only exception I would make is for live content where you can't prepare every word or a reasonable amount of what you will say.
@@denidale4701 I think the difference between a joke, and a claim, is rather obvious. I'll say it right now, not ONE person who called Kyle a murderer/white supremacist/terrorist on the air, was 'joking' about it. They all believed he was all these things, and so they claimed it.
I'm looking at these situations from a purely moral, and not legal, perspective. From a purely moral perspective, there are key differences. I would point out that the media made tons and tons of money off of the deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, and the media never had to pay their families a dime as much of it delighted in their murders. There are other differences: 1) O.J. is extremely rich, although not from lawsuits. 2) O.J. was a public figure before the double-murder trial and intentionally sought publicity by trying to flee from justice. 3) O.J. was found liable for the deaths of the people in question. 4) O.J. has not had experienced a significant backlash even after being convicted of a different violent offense from a different incident than the infamous one: O.J. is still allowed and encouraged on Twitter, is welcome at universities, and has had no school administrators speak out against his acquittal in a professional capacity. O.J. was even rewarded with a show on MTV after the civil trial for wrongful death. Honestly, OJ emerged from that double-murder trial as a real-life version of Pennywise the Clown from the first It movies with Tim Curry.
@@teh-maxh Yep. OJ is probably worth about $100,000,000. For practical purposes, after being released from prison for armed robbery, OJ finds himself in a far more envious position socially than Kyle Rittenhouse. For example, OJ is encouraged to be active on Twitter, and no university has banned him.
Objection: The word 'false' is misspelled in defamation requirement number 2 at 3:32. Thus, all information built upon this requirement must be considered unreliable and removed from evidence.
That’s what happens when an entire political demographic wants you imprisoned or dead based on irrationality. Had left wing outlets and people just waited for the trail to finish and reach out to him all of the right wing spin could have been avoided
@@lustrazor44 if he was a black man, cops would have shot him dead the minute he walked towards them in Kenosha with a rifle. That was why people were protesting. Unequal justice and unequal rights. He killed people and probably he enjoyed it.
I love people on Twitter who say one of the witnesses ruined everything by admitting he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse. If they'd said no, they would've been guilty of perjury.
Didn't he point the gun at him after Rittenhouse already shot someone? That's self defense right? The only thing this trial taught me was to always pull the trigger first. Seems like a bad lesson but idk.
@@Vexas345 rittenhouse was on the ground when the guy pointed an illegal gun at rittenhouse. This means that the guy was about to essentially execute someone who is on the ground while kyle didnt point his firearm at tge guy
@@thewhitewolf58 I mean you don’t run at someone with a gun with your own gun and hope to live, weather or not he went there with the purpose to kill he was ran at by people with firearms
@@jonahclark7442 Anyone who asserts that Kyle Rittenhouse is a murderer falls into one of two categories: 1) They never saw the footage of the incident 2) They saw the footage of the incident, but they don't believe in the right to self-defense
Out of curiosity, what is the definition of a "Public Figure"? While Rittenhouse certainly fits that definition now, he didn't make the initial choice to become one (the social media storm regarding his case did that for him). I'm just curious if the public can essentially transform someone against their will INTO a public figure thus necessitating the highest standard of actual malice or if that person needs to choose to engage. Further, is the actual malice standard applied based on the time the statements were made or the time of the defamation lawsuit? I'm not from the US so US law isn't my strong suit.
I don’t believe you get to choose to become a public figure or not in this case with how big it all got. Just sort of fact of what happens with something like that.
@@adamgribble3936 So my feelings on that is it all kind of depends on the starting point. In this case it is his actions that bring that spotlight so I would think that negates it. If they just picked ransoms guy and made fake stories and made it a big deal out of nothing that would likely be different.
I am laughing so hard at fox news essentially being like "you listen to this guy?" About tucker Carlson. "Oh he's just making stuff up and everyone should know that bc that's like his whole show. It's all making stuff up. His reputation is shit too. Seriously"
I feel like as funny as that is, it’s still kind of messed up that that works as a defense. Because a lot of people actually take Tucker Carlson at his word. He can basically say whatever he has said, and then go “I didn’t mean it.” And avoid legal repercussions for Slander. With a bunch of his audience either never knowing about it, or understanding that he only said “I didn’t mean it.” To get out of hot water. Yes he has no integrity, but that’s because neither he, nor his audience, care.
@@samkeiser9776 To be fair, Carlson does frequently look like he's really, really confused. Perhaps this is because he cannot understand why any sane person would take him at his word.
9:55 - "I refuse to accept that 'literally' now means 'figuratively.'" Testify! I understand that language needs to evolve, and I generally agree that definitions should be descriptive, not proscriptive, but I draw the line at contranyms. No word's accepted usage should include two mutually contradictory meanings. "Sanction" is bad enough. We don't need more contranyms.
@@RabblesTheBinx Cancer is an accepted part of medical science, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say we don't need more cancer, either. As for inferring meaning from context, that isn't always clear, and words like "literally" allow the speaker to impart clarity to an otherwise possibly ambiguous statement. Or, at least, they used to.
@@RabblesTheBinx Eh, context doesn't always help in this case. Sure, if someone says, "I literally jumped out of my skin!" you know they're most likely exaggerating, particularly if you can't actually see any of their bone or muscle. But if someone says, "I was out running and I literally hit the wall," you'd have to hear more of the story before determining whether they actually meant "literally" or just didn't know how to properly use words.
As you say, likelihood. The more I work with judges the more I realize Judges don't always follow laws, facts, or procedures. Some just make decisions on what they feel like.
One thing that might vary in the lawsuit is what people said about Kyle Rittenhouse BEFORE he was a bit of public figure vs what people said AFTER he became a public figure. Same thing with who media outlets said when he was still technically a minor vs what media outlets said when he was an adult.
I don't know if this is a legal argument in favor Kyle but: Didn't the MSM and the justice system in Waukesha cause him to become a public figure with a trial and all the public exposure that the trial brought before and during the trial?
“Literally” has been hyperbolic for centuries, maybe always. In the Adventures of Tom Sawyer in 1876 it says “And when the middle of the afternoon came, from being a poor poverty-stricken boy in the morning, Tom was literally rolling in wealth.”
Even earlier than that, John Dryden, England's first Poet Laureate and the father of modern literary criticism, was using it hyperbolically in the early 1700s.
Should have scrolled down, I was just posting the same, but with the example of Charles Dickens in 1839 (“his looks were very haggard, and his limbs and body literally worn to the bone…” - Nicholas Nickleby). Linguistically, the argument 'literally' cannot be used to mean 'figuratively' was lost literally two centuries ago.
Are you taking about the word rolling on its own, the word wealth on its own, or the idiom 'rolling in wealth'? Tom was not physically rolling in something. Tom did not possess actual money. Tom had obtained things of relative value as established by the other boys exchanging items to then be allowed to paint. In the world of those youths Tom amassed wealth between morning and noon.
How is "literally rolling in wealth" not literal? Are you confusing the definition of the word "rolling"? He's not on the ground rolling in his wealth, but, the word "rolling" has more than one definition. One of those definitions is "done or happening in a steady and continuous way". Tom WAS literally rolling in wealth. (not figuratively)
Worth noting, if I’m remembering the wording correctly, that the Rittenhouse sentence didn’t even require them to think he _was_ engaged in self-defense, more that they could not unanimously conclude that he had acted _“beyond a reasonable doubt”_ in alignment with the charges. Any amount of reasonable doubt would mean the charges hadn’t been proven according to necessary standards. Acquitted doesn’t always mean “proven innocent;” sometimes it means “failed to prove guilty” and there’s some nuance in meaning there between the legal and literal definitions. Also, that all is before you get into bad practices by prosecutors, defense attorneys, etc. which can result in deliberate or accidental mistaken guilty verdicts. Edit: added "between the legal and literal definitions" to second paragraph
"Acquitted" is the same as innocent. By default all people are innocent until proven beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty. There is no need to "prove innocent", because a person is inherently innocent. Isn't that one of the main principles of criminal law not only in the US, but in most democratic countries?
Still, a person who hasn't been proven guilty of a crime can't be recklessly accused of the crime. In law if a person hasn't been proven guilty he is considered innocent.
@@Temo990 THe point being raised is that sometimes someone OBVIOUSLY in the wrong that is acquitted is still guilty in actuality. They are only innocent BEFORE THE LAW. innocent until proven guilty is a LEGAL standard, applied by our government, not us.
@@Temo990 He is guilty, the trial was a clown show and key evidence was witheld which pointed to a trend of criminality and vigilante behaviour, therefore if all the actual facts were taken into account I really doubt a reasonable person would find his ass "innocent", he is guilty, the court and the judge helped him get away with murder literally (not figuratively)
Hey, the 'literally' thing already has happened to the word 'terrific'. It originally related to 'terrible' like 'horrific' to 'horrible'. Now people in the USA use 'terrific' to mean the exact opposite of its literal meaning.
Words change meanings over time. The word "thing" 2000-2500 years ago used to mean a meeting, then later it came to mean a topic discussed at those meanings up until the modern meaning of any object. Are we going to complain about people misusing the word "thing"?
The timescale here is crucial, especially because those shifts in meaning happen at different pace (and sometimes direction) in different parts of the world. Try doing internet search on "terrific accident" in Singapore or Malaysia or Pakistan for example. That is a difference between current ongoing shifts, and shifts from hundreds of years ago.
I honestly don't feel too comfortable with the integrity of journalism or anything for that matter, if "no reasonable person..." can be used as a valid defense against liability for wrongdoing, as if reasonable people aren't in short supply and less than reasonable people don't deserve the same rights, not to mention how nebulous the distinction between reasonable and otherwise really is.
This case presents an interesting conundrum. At the outset, Rittenhouse was not a public figure. He became one because of the nature off the media coverage of his case. The very material at issue in any potential defamation suit. So your analysis implies that the media can make it harder for private citizens to sue them for defamation by simply choosing to treat that person as a public figure and making them so via the news coverage. He's not a public figure by choice, and in large part any damages he claims are going to be the result of how he was made into a public figure. I'm not sure what the answer is here. But I'm not convinced that the case is as clear cut as your analysis implies.
Not a public figure by choice? Not sure about that since he is choosing to do all these interviews with the media. This seems like he's trying to have his cake and eat it too.
Yup, plus multiple media outlets outright lied about facts of the case. Whether Kyle has a defamation suit or not isn't clear to me but it's absolutely atrocious that there seems to be no reprocussions for these outlets outright lying. There was even the instance of the New York Times reporter (I forget which one) tweeting out that Rittenhouse shot Gage while Gage had the gun pointing in the air hours after Gage had testified in court that he was pointing the gun at Kyle when he was shot.
@@1EdgarA His interviews occurred after the media made him a public figure. The cat was already out of the bag so he decided to get his side out. You don’t need to like Rittenhouse to agree with OP. Media shouldn’t be able to make someone a public figure to avoid legal penalties.
Being that it is a summary of multiple days worth of trials, potential outcomes, and tried to explain legal nuances is 15 minutes... Yeah... Yeah it's not going to be as clear cut in reality as it is in this segment. 🙄
So my conclusion is you can effectively call someone anything you want and hide behind not being serious and exaggeration. Because I’m not sure how the most powerful man in the world calling you a white nationalist or powerful media figures calling you a murderer when you aren’t doesn’t count as defamation
@VaderxG Sometimes killing someone is okay, self defense laws exist for a reason. Nobody argues he didn't kill those people, he did. People who are right argue it clearly was in self defense and therefore justified.
Came to the comments to say much the same thing. Whoopi is clearly establishing that this is how she reads Brandon's actions from her own moral outlook, and that her opinion is drawn from the uncontested facts of the case (that Brandon took other people's lives, regardless of justification).
You Americans engage in mental gymnastics probably every day I see. Liberals especially. A court ruled that he didn't kill those people unlawfully which means he is not a murderer. A ruling of the court is an established FACT. You cannot oppose fact while protecting yourself with "In my opinion". Her "opinion" publicly defamed Rittenhouse as a murderer for a huge group of viewers on TV. She knew about the ruling of the court, she disagreed with it but did not say that "In my opinion, jury decided wrongfully" but that he IS A MURDER. What's especially funny to me is that LegalEagel included a clip from "King of the hill" where it was ironised about stating something about facts and claiming it as an opinion.
As a non-American, the whole Rittenhouse case is just jaw-dropping. I just don't understand the positions Americans have adopted on this issue. On one side you have a group (the right) that see a hero in a teenager that grabbed some guns and went play vigilante to a protest when he should be playing Minecraft with fantasy swords. On the other side you have another group (the """left""") that instantly called him a murderer even though the videos shown from the very first day show that the men that died went after him with the obvious intention to hurt him, giving him a perfect excuse to actually kill them in self-defense. No one there was a hero, there's no one there to side with. It was a beyond ridiculous situation involving people that glorify violence and were very clearly out there to get into fights. It is a complete failure of society and both sides should be ashamed that incident happened, because both sides WANTED it to happen. edit: 9:52 I fully agree with you haha. Here in Spain people have ruined the world "literally" in _literally_ the same way, by using it to mean "figuratively".
I agree they both used this as a weapon for politics and weren’t actually focused on how the situation would’ve come about and how u can stop future situations from happening in the future
@@azaria_phd Defending yourself from attacks by a convicted child rapist, a serial domestic abuser, and a felon isn't "increasing violence," no matter how many dullards say it is.
He will not - he’ll just accept donations from right wing idiots and then slink off with the money. He probably knows that the people cheering him on are idiots.
@@scifisyko not what the Covington kid did. If anything that sets precedent, or at least it may set, for the suit to be brought to an actual court. The pockets of these companies are very deep, why make off with 100,000 and a reputation you can never live down, when you could make 5 or 10 million just in settlements. At least bringing the lawyers to the table with the allowance to make the case would easily make that hundred or so thousand increase ten fold. He’s been on multiple shows post verdict, would you stomach those “idiots” for what amounts to 2-5 years of an average salary, knowing you’ll likely never work again with that name?
@@Duhbaby2348h no, I'm a social democrat and I completely agree with Kenneth. Kyle was forced out of college because of the news coverage. His biggest mistake was inserting himself into a dangerous situation that could have been avoided. We have to keep in mind he was 17 at the time, he had a good 8 years before his pre-frontal cortex finished developing and already needs to cope with the complex emotions of taking a life, and being on trial for life in prison for self defense. The news media absolutely contributed to making his life much more difficult than it had to be.
@@Duhbaby2348h I do believe in the freedom of speech, and the freedom of the press, but "news" is supposed to be the truth, or at least an attempt at the truth. Anything less is false advertizement.
@@bobDotJS he was forced out by other students personal viewpoints on what happened. His own actions gave many people plenty of ammo to paint him as a racist.
Thing is defamation works very differently in the UK. Where in the USA it's up to the prosecution to prove that what the defendant said is objectively false, in the UK it's up to the defendant to prove that what they said is objectively true.
@@cyborgninjamonkey Yeah, I'd recommend watching the film "Denial" based on the Irving vs Penguin Books & Lipstadt case in London High Court to show what that lawsuit is like.
@@JS-wp4gs Defamation Act 2013 (c 26) § 2.(1) "It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true." It is. You also could have looked it up.
Can he, yes. Can he do it successfully, no. Good luck getting past anti-SLAPP when he tries to sue LeBron in California. Sincerely, An attorney who does Legal Malpractice, defamation, and Malicious Prosecution defense.
Just a guy trying to stay relevant in the public eye is what I see from Kyle here. Did you see how much money he wants in damages? That number is ludicrous lol
@@davidhochstetler4068 I mean... he isn't not that. I would have approached his crime differently, I would have prosecuted the gun crimes first, the straw sale by his buddy, the open carry under age. etc. Instead the judge in this trial chose to not allow those basic tenents. So starting here a 17 year old is not allowed to open carry a loaded rifle in city limits. The judge basically said well what if he was hunting? Which he was not.
My law school professor would have answered this in a few seconds. Yes. You can sue anyone for anything. You might not succeed but you can still sue. In this case, the analysis is whether he would make more money in appearance fees and donations than he'll lose in attorney's fees and penalties for filing frivolous lawsuits. If he can get more money from being in the press again then it would make sense to file the lawsuits even if he knows he'll lose.
it should also be noted that the kid himself, well, isn't that bright. the professional grifters around him though are. I suspect this isn't really his idea and he is just enjoying the fame/attention.
@@oru8612 That is what is referred to as a foundational statement that leads into the rest of the comment that you didn't read before making this one. Well done.
@@neeneko 💯. I kind of fell into lawyerspeak. Lawyers don't ever take credit for their strategy. They always say that the client did this or the client did that when referring to decisions in cases. I'll bet you are right and none of this was really his idea.
I'm with the Eagle here on literally. I am literally disgusted with how communication is constantly being eroded by lazy use. Perhaps this could be solved with some old-school decimation.
Your use of literally here doesn't make sense as an example. One would struggle to point out the differences between being "literally" discussed and "figuratively" disgusted. lol
@@aircraftcarrierwo-class Which is weird since it goes back to at least the 1700s and was even used by big names like Charles Dickens ("There ain't no teacher like Fagin!" - Oliver Twist). And similar "incorrect" contractions predate it, like the spiritual precursor "amn't" in the 1600s, and all the way back to Geoffrey Chaucer with other contractions considered "vulgar" at the time for their inconsistency with 'preferred' grammar.
I would contend that Rittenhouse does not count as a 'Limited Purpose Public Figure' because the entirety of his presence in the media has been due directly to, or in response to, political partisan attacks against him. He would be as unknown to the general public as he was in 2019, if not for the concerted, partisan, and aggressive effort to defame him over his self defense.
No, he's a murderer who got away with murder specifically because domestic terrorists support him, and corrupt officials denied the murdered people their due process rights in favor of defending a provable murderer specifically because of his political affiliation.
The thing is, yea he can sue, winning said lawsuits though, is another thing altogether. Defamation suits are also very very notoriously hard and expensive to win =7= ;;; .
You can only be used for telling the truth like Mike Lyndell Sydney Powell and Rudi Juliany. Not Pushing A big lie . Like Whoopi Goldberg Kent Uygar and Joe Biden
If the definition of murderer is a human who kills another person through direct action than I don't know that calling him a murderer is false. If you use a separate definition perhaps, such as a murderer is someone convicted of murder than in this case he is not. That's not how I define murder though. Also, I feel like this dude's hella trolling but all people lie sometimes, just not usually about news that affects millions of people directly like names in your first list. Lyndell may not be accountable for his actions though since he's probably jusfiably insane.
So totally agreed about "literally". The word serves a useful and unique function; it de-metaphors a metaphor, and no other word does it nearly as well. We shouldn't let dullards define words for us.
@@svenjorgensenn8418 I just don't think it's a good idea to redefine a word because dumb people don't understand the traditional meaning. Dumb people could always try learning a thing and becoming a little less dumb.
@@CoL_Drake That ... doesn't make sense - how it happens absolutely should matter, since it can happen willingly and unwillingly IMO that is a distinction that is necessary.
@@CoL_Drake Actually it very much does. Being a public figure due to the claims you are suing for actually makes his case a lot more solid. So claiming Rittenhouse is now a public figure will actually help his case,
What about seeking restitution from a media agency such as CNN or MSNBC? One could argue that by parading out pundits and "experts" whom continue to put forth the narrative that Kyle is a murderer, while the individuals themselves may be giving their opinions, the Agencies are using those like minded opinions to impart a belief among their viewership that can and likely will cause some form of damages to Mr. Rittenhouse. Rather than going after each individual, take the group from each channel and use their words to convey a directed attack on Kyle by the ones employing them.
How do we determine when a person qualifies as a public figure? It feels like Rittenhouse was in this category without really choosing to once the trial started
@@hydrolito depends on state if memory serves which is stupid to say the least the legality of defaming someone should be determined state by state but at the federal level. Also I'm not well read on the laws but what about statements made prior to the trial is he automatically a public figure because the incident went viral? So did sandman yet he won. So the laws seem poor to say the least, anything said about Rittenhouse post trial may not be actionable in court given him making the rounds with interviews but pre-trial and during the trial I'd say it would be.
"I refuse to accept that literally now means figuratively." It's not new, it's been around for literally hundreds of years. Dickens, Fitzgerald, and Joyce all used "literally" to mean "figuratively." Context matters.
With it being so hard to hold people accountable for outright lies that do real harm to individuals, I fear there is no way to fix our political discourse in America. The only way to fix such thing seems to be making the government the arbiter of truth. This is even worse than the original problem.
Or don't go as a kid to protests armed with a gun across state lines. It was only a few days before protesters whooped his ass prior when he tried to beat up a girl protester, then he comes back with a rifle and kills people looking for a fight.
That’s literally what happened with the Rachel Maddow suit. “A reasonable viewer viewer would not take the statement as factual” What makes me laugh is that anyone thinks that these are news outlets and not just opinionated propaganda on both sides.
@@PipsqueaQ but it depends who doing the talkig example if it was u people would believe u over a opinionated show like Tucker that purposely spreads hatred and division
The defense was _"given Mr Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of scepticism about the statement he makes"_ and that he _"discusses and engages in non-literal commentary"._ His show is slated as an opinion-based show, not part of their primetime news, and you see this with all opinion-based shows. Rachel Maddow, for example, won her lawsuit by claiming she's not even a real journalist, and the court agreed, claiming her show is one of _"opinion and rhetorical hyperbole"_ and engages in _"exaggeration of the facts"_ .
That being the point. Most lawsuits are for the purpose of bludgeoning a person into compliance by shackling them with so many Attorney Fees that they have to retreat.
Which is why I suspect it is his lawyers that came up with the idea. They have already made millions off him, and his supporters are still willing to keep opening their wallets.
Objection : Literally originally meant figuratively, as in like a poem or work of fiction, as used by the likes of Jane Austen in them olden days. The 'to the letter' definition came later. I don't know if thats very helpful in the case of Maddow's remark but it's a handy factoid to annoy people with at dinner parties.
Wait, are you serious? So people are technically using the word in it's original meaning now when they use it to mean 'figuratively'? Lol that's kinda crazy!
Literally comes from Latin, litteralis, meaning literary or related to letters. The common usage as an intensifier isn't really wrong, but the original was not "figuratively".
Another handy factoid to annoy people with at dinner parties: "factoid" means a bit of information that becomes accepted as true even though (or, rather, regardless of whether) it is false.
What I find fascinating is people like Tucker Carlson saying that this and that is defamatory when he himself has made thousands of statements that could be interpreted as defamatory over the course of his career in his own show. If calling someone a terrorist or white nationalist is defamatory and grounds for a lawsuit, he should prepare himself for the thousands of lawsuits that could stem from every time he called someone a terrorist looter, Marxist etc. (And he applies those labels to people simply for supporting BLM)
how much real estate does tucker hae rent free in your head do you think about him when you go to bed? do you have to havde your mommy check under your bed to sleep well at night
If people tried to destroy or burn my business down or bum rushed my establishment to steal shit because they’re angry would terrify me and most others which in turn by definition makes them terrorists.
The problem I have with this is that these same people are trying to have it both ways. When they’re in trouble, it’s “no reasonable person would believe what we were saying,” but when they want to lecture the rest of us from their ivory towers, it’s how “informed they are on the subject.” Sick of that crap
Most (all?) of the alleged defamation happened either before his trial was complete or in the immediate aftermath of the verdict, when it was a matter of public commentary. For later comments... if Rittenhouse had gone home and stayed away from TV cameras after the trial, maybe. But as the video explains, he went on tour and kept harping about the alleged injustice he suffered. Perhaps this is true, but appearing before the public a lot and rebranding himself as an activist of sorts keeps his status of limited public figure.
Rittenhouse aside news outlets should really be held to a higher standard. So many people will put in zero effort to verify a statement and take it as fact.
Regarding public figure vs private figure: Nearly everyone has at some point or another made a statement in a public forum such as Twitter, Reddit, etc. Any statement made has a real chance of becoming national or even international news due to the unpredictability of internet virality. Additionally, an individual has nearly zero personal control over whether or not they end up the attention of immensely large groups of people on the internet. Usually, a defamation lawsuit has no purpose unless the (alleged) lies have reached a point where they have become very publicly defamatory. Given all this, is anyone a private figure under the current definitions of a public or private figure? And if the only thing a defendant in a potential defamation case needs to do to turn their target into a public figure is be a public figure themselves, is this truly acceptable?
Yes, there are private figures under the current definitions. More likely than not, your or I are private figures. Rittenhouse is not, and he made himself not by going on media tours and talk shows and presenting himself as a public figure. He, essentially, doomed his own defamation lawsuits before they happened by these actions.
To be more charitable than Rittenhouse deserves... he might need the fundraising, I don't know his financial situation but his regular life is now over. If I was at a job with him I'd walk off it, and I'm not sure many corporations would want the baggage of having him around. Even this travesty will only last so long before he's half forgotten and he joins the ranks of Trayvon Martin's killer as another in a sadly long list of people for whom justice did not arrive.
@@jacklindsey8400 Oh, he's probably going to find a job easily enough, I'm certain a lot of his fans/supporters/apologists would have him on board in a flash. But, yeah, in the grand scheme of things his options have become severely limited - not just regarding who but also where. Sincerely, I wouldn't be surprised if he gets elected into a public office in a few years.
The takeaway for me seems like we need a true federal standard for defamation that both adequately protects free speech but also gives these massive media corporations, millionaires, and billionaires with outsize legal and public influence and means relative to the average person’s ability to defend their reputation pause before spewing what are often clearly malicious comments and statements hiding behind legal hurdles.
Sadly too many people take Tucker Carlson seriously. Still more than a year from me the last time and chance I had to spend with my mother. Lost my last two living family members over the past two years, spent hundreds of nights at the hospital with my mom this past year… She’s always been a Christian conservative but she was never an extremist. But after absorbing some of his idiocy, it became almost impossible to talk to her about ANYTHING. Even something simple as the weather could set her off… Reciting the insane fear mongering talking points Tucker gave the evening prior. It made the last year of time I had to spend with my mom miserably worse, ending many of the days pacing up and down the hospital hallways in the middle of the night trying to get a bit of rest, while my mom continued to absorb that madness.
Sadly too many people still take CNN and MSNBC as truthful news when CNN/MSNBC have consistently lied about 100s of topics from Nick Sandman, the Steele Dossier, Hunter Biden's laptop, or anything to do with Trump. They haven't told the truth for years, so when there are this many lies, from so called "news" stations, why would anyone trust them? And they continue telling their own viewers not to trust FOX news while continuing to spread more lies, this shows FOX viewers exactly what they have believed for years. FOX is more trustworthy than CNN or MSNBC.
@@keefersmotherland1308 You are not remotely smart enough to realize that you are doing the exact same thing! Its the pot calling the kettle black! It has never occurred to you that there are people who's sole interest in life is to steer other people towards their own interest. "Don't listen to that person's opinion over there. Just listen to me. And me alone!" It has NEVER occurred to you, that with the USA having a population of over 330 million, that THERE ARE GOING TO BE SOME DIFFERENCES OF OPINION!
@@Leg1503 not even close to the same. One is an opinion station, the other is Fake news who lie to hide their hypocrisy. How are those kids in cages on the southern border???? Havent heard about them since Biden became president, bunch of hypocrites.
Two points stand out to me. 1) A person or organization who engages in bad inflammatory speech is given a pass because they habitually engage in inflammatory bad speech. 2) the media has a habit of taking a non public figure a public figure than giving themselves permission to attack and defame them. Have to wonder if your companion piece is the adult only version of the show.
1) Congrats, we have free speech. 2) Kyle Rittenhouse is a public figure. People have a right to attack him and you can't assume he's defamed before the defamation trial. That's circular logic.
@@alexdelarge9425 And why is he a public figure? Because the media made him a public figure, which then in a lovely catch 22 also gives them permission to talk all kinds of trash about him. I don't have an opinion on the situation as I don't know nearly enough about the case. But fact is, a non-public figure was turned public outside of his control and now can get slandered (statements counter to the legal decision imo is slanderous even if not actionable) to hell and back by the same people that turned him into a public figure? Doesn't seem right.
Remember how Trump called for making it easier for libel lawsuits during the 2016 election? I am still waiting for somebody to pass that level of irony.
But do you think that other news outlets, like CNN or MSNBC are any better? Those are just propaganda. Remember the whole four years of "Russian collusion" that turned out to just be a giant smear campaign? It used to be that you could trust the media. Now, you just have to assume that everything is a lie.
@@harrkev Yes, they are a lot better. They still suck a lot, since literally ALL of our news in the U.S. sucks (I'm sure everyone can agree on that lol), but that doesn't mean that Fox News isn't SIGNIFICANTLY worse. It's genuinely not even close. The amount of damage done is not comparable. The overall intention is not comparable. The egregiousness of the lies are not [generally] comparable. It just isn't the same at all. On a similar note, your average [U.S.] Republican and your average U.S. Liberal have _vastly_ different levels of capability when it comes to analyzing data and determining fact from fiction. Lastly, the "amount of truth" (if that makes any sense) in any given statement is not comparable. While MSNBC and CNN absolutely lie all the frickin time, there's usually _some_ truth to what they're saying. Not always, but usually. On the other hand, Fox News _routinely_ fabricates issues out of thin air with the sole purpose of enraging/scaring their viewers. I'm not saying that we don't have a very real problem with ALL the news in this country. We absolutely do. That said, Fox News is just so, so, SO much worse than anything else is. There is just no debate to be had here (if you'd like to see this in action, go find a foreigner and show them CNN and Fox News. They'll hate all of it, and rightfully so, but they will be genuinely scared by Fox News. Because it IS actually kinda scary to anyone who hasn't already succumbed to their delusional worldview. The entire Republican platform is devoid of supporting evidence. There's literally almost nothing at all at this point. While the rest of the world has been moving to the left (politically) and have been doing quite well from it (despite what Fox would tell you. Remember the fake "no-go zones" in European cities that only Muslims could go through? Totally fake lol). The solutions this country actually needs are to the left, and yet Republicans keep going further and further right, and it's actually scary. At this point, this just isn't a simple difference in politics. This is living in reality and caring about human rights vs. living in an increasingly delusional fantasy and not caring about anyone else. There just isn't any reason to continue to vote Conservative at this point. While _actual_ Conservatism can serve as a crucial balance to prevent gov't overreach, they've entirely abandoned that platform... now it's purely about "owning the libs". We do not have any real Conservatives left.. what we have now is a purely regressive party that longs to go back to a "better time" that has never actually existed in reality. It's all kinda depressing.
@@harrkev Yes, a 4 year investigation that could have been wrapped up in a few weeks, if "innocent" people didn't act guilty as hell..... Innocent people aren't generally that combative or defensive. Innocent people generally want to prove their innocence as fast as possible.
I find it disturbing that newcasters and journalists are now being said to be giving an opinion, rather than facts, to protect them from being sued for slander or libel. I remember when watching the news was just the newscasters just stating the facts. Sure, it was a bit less entertaining than the news today, but at least you felt what you were hearing was the truth, and not just someone's (potentially skewwed) version of the truth.
nope, so is calling someone a commie, genocide denier, traitor, terrorist and other terms, as long as i say "in my opinion" or have clearly shown that what is being said is opinion.
So before I even watch this, the problem he’s going to face is showing damages. Considering he was acquitted and the resulting media tour that isn’t going to be easy.
showing damages will be incredibly easy, you having media heads, politicians and YT personalities calling him a murderer and a racist and all other slander. its winning in the court that will be hard
Showing damages is insanely easy; his future as a private citizen is over, and it was at the hands of the media that it happened. Future job opportunities are up in smoke for the majority of industries and sectors, narrowing his options severely. Education and training are also likewise impacted if the fiasco surrounding the school he was a student of at the time is any indication. The tough part will be winning in court, but it won't be due to not being able to show damages.
@@burgers4alvn393 The Young Turks should be sued over the comments made about Kyles Mother in particular Cenk said some vile and untrue things about her before and after the trial.
@@aaronlefebre5060 It could be counter argued that, like celebrities, his actions indicated an intent to become a public figure. He certainly didn't shy away from a lot of publicity before, during or after.
@Elitistb616 it could be further counter argued that he was forced to take actions on account that he was dragged into the public sector by the media, and was doing what he could to attempt to have the narrative be in his favor instead of letting the media besmirch him uncontested. You don't have to have intent to be a public figure to attempt to prevent the media from spreading misinformation, but the act of defending yourself against that, by necessity, makes you one.
Yes, however Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty because a preponderance of evidence showed that he acted in self defense. OJ walked away because the prosecution did not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
@@jamessloven2204 if you ask me, I would call that a distinction without a difference. At least not enough of one to matter in the court of public opinion.
@@shylogik Yes, OJ was acquitted for murder.....but lost a wrongful death suit. I've been scratching my head about that one for years. Prosecutors could never actually prove he was even involved in the murders, but he lost a wrongful death suit that should have required it be proven he was responsible for the murders.
What about the people who could have potentially swayed potential jurors opinions by stating he was a murderer before the trial? Lots of people and news stations claimed he was a murderer before the trial which could be “poisoning the water”. Obviously they still came to a not guilty verdict, but the potential harm was there
@@carloschell986 in theory yes. But he wouldn’t be able to sue them for swaying in his favor, and we are talking about HIS ability to sue. If the prosecution wants to sue them, that’s a different question. But the people against him were so off that until the trial, I was under the impression he had shot 3 black men, which isn’t true.
Defamation can also include the damages caused or poential damages by what someone said publicly. Fact or not, a public statement about someone can be seen as defamation if not defamation of character. I do not enjoy how certain people are trying to skirt around the fact that public accusation/statement of someone being a white suprimists & or a murder does a lot of damage to said person's precived character & reputation.
I think all media entities that label themselves as news should have to : 1) Affirm that they will do their best to avoid bias and 2) Be transparent when a piece of media is the production of opinion, bias and or both. I know "opinion piece " is a tag line but that seems mostly to be a tool for companies to avoid responsibility for backlash.
Oh I feel you on the despair of the word "literally" now meaning its exact opposite. And I realize this is not the first time in linguistic history that this has happened, but it irks me because it makes it to where people don't necessarily know that you really do mean "literally" when you say it.
In That Case We Should Change The Meaning Of The Word "Ironic" Every Thinks It Means Something That It Doesn't. Let's Go With The Popular Definition Of "Ironic". The Actual Definition Is Crap
You can hedge your bets that everyone under 30 means metaphorically. I make effort to remove literally entirely. More often than not terms like categorically, demonstrably and definably can be used. 🤷♂️
To be fair, the use of the word “literally” as a point of exaggeration is nothing new and can be traced to the 19th century though the popular use in such a way is definitely more recent. Languages evolve and this is part of it
has it happened with the word literally before though? The thing that really hurts is it's a unique word. We already have a host of intensifiers, so one of them losing their meaning wouldn't be a huge deal, but literally is unique.
I had an entire argument with my supervisor at work based entirely on this subject. What I would have given for this to have been released a few weeks ago.
I feel the rage around the literally thing, as a Brit I hate it when I hear a person say “I could care less” because it LITERALLY means the opposite of what they’re trying to say
👮♂ Do you agree with the law on this?
🚀 Watch my exclusive companion video here! legaleagle.link/curiositystream
Honestly the quickest way to even avoid the lawsuits (no matter who would likely win) is if those involved would just issue an apology to Rittinghouse
I learned that I’m allowed to be hyperbolic, and the actual dictionary literally gave up on the hard stance definition of the word literally.
What are your thoughts on calling him a white supremacist pile of crap, given that he has repeatedly associated himself with white supremacists?
@@williamgosvener47 Do you think it's fair to call someone who supports, praises, defends, and associates with white supremacists, a white supremacist?
3:30 false is misspelled "flase"
My takeaway from this video is that "a reasonable person" is a very high standard that most people don't seem to meet.
Said the Furry. Its funny how you notice when its a cop being arrested leftist say "Not guilty" but when its a right winger they say "Acquitted" I wonder why that is. Ps 1/6th was a riot not an insurrection and Trumps innocent. Kthxs.
I was thinking the same thing! Though obviously plenty of people see through these "opinion" pieces as manipulative, but the fact that far too many people fall for it is definitely concerning. From the standpoint of the law it may not be actionable, but if that's what you're using as a defense, that you were just using hyperbole and no one should take you seriously, then we should stop taking those people seriously and assume they are constantly engaging in hyperbole.
@@youwouldntclickalinkonyout6236 1/6 was morally and historically equivalent to the Beer Hall Putsch. Both were pathetic attempts to overthrow the government. Hopefully the parallels stop there.
Another problem is that very few, if any, of Fox viewers could be characterized as "reasonable".
@@youwouldntclickalinkonyout6236 IDK, but I would say that trying to violently overturn the results of a lawful election and keep your preferred party in power - remember, if Trump remained in office as president then most of his sycophants would have also stayed in power - qualifies as an insurrection.
Kyle Rittenhouse aside, we should have some laws that protect people from media slander. I'm specifically thinking about people who are reported for crimes that they are being charged with, but when they are found not guilty, there is little to no coverage of it and their reputations are forever tainted by false allegations.
Ye, it’s a sticky wicket. Essentially, the media used to be limited but when the “Washington Papers Case” as well as the FEC one in the early 2000s, the media has been able to fall under the first amendment freedom of speech.
Couple that with the line between figurative and literal diction has become so grey that it looks like a cloud, it is very hard to prove defamation nowadays.
I would recommend a mini-series called 'The Lost Honour of Christopher Jefferies' which was a very famous case here in the UK. Long story short, a woman was murdered in her apartment, and it appeared to be a regular murder which usually disappears from the news quickly. A media outlet then ran an article on her landlord, who was a very eccentric looking guy with an odd manner, and then the rest of the media pretty much had him convicted of the murder. It turned out he was just eccentric and a genuinely nice guy, and they caught the real murderer after the media had ruined this guys life.
It's one of the best mini-series I've ever seen, and it sticks very closely to the facts, with something of a happy ending considering the horrible crime that it's about.
I am confused how he is a public figure in purpose for the lawsuit? Has he tried to become a celebrity by working in some media? Because otherwise it would seem his fame is just linked him defending himself in court and in public opinion and other people commenting about him in media. But maybe after he has tried to become a celebrity after a trial. I just don’t feel defending yourself in media should make you a public figure in sense that makes it more difficult for you to defend yourself in civil cases.
@@sarasamaletdin4574 Aye, it's a mess. I've seen people complain that he's done too much media, but the fact that some idiots are still claiming he crossed state lines with an 'assault rifle' just shows he hasn't done enough. That said, if people don't know even the basic facts of this case without spouting off their nonsense, no amount of media will help at this point.
@@sarasamaletdin4574 He is not a public figure, he may qualify as a Limited Purpose Public Figure. He explains it clearly at 4:12
I'm Ok with news corps hiding behind "no reasonable person would believe what we say to be factual"... on the condition that if that argument is ever used, they must surrender any legal privileges associated with being a member of the press.
We're here to report news & give our opinions but we won't tell you when we go from one to the other.
" no reasonable person would believe what we say to be factual" ?? Yet Throughout Europe people noted being shocked to discover the " facts about Rittenhouse.
Many stated the facts were nothing like the " media" had led them to " believe" .
Yes .normal reasonable people "BElIVED " what the meadow said as if it were factual.
All countries need laws to govern misleading media reporting.they have too much voice without little to no accountability.
Agreed.
Once they begin spouting opinion and activism for one party over another they are no longer journalists and as such should not have their access or protections.
I think there are situations where hyperbole should be a defense.
For example, a statement like “This person is insane” or even “This person belongs in a straitjacket”. Any reasonable person would realize that the commentator doesn’t actually think the the person is clinically insane or belongs in a psychiatric hospital because it is common hyperbole.
But the example brought up in the video are different.
@@liamrivers3283 agreed.
"Bob is insane!" during a conversation is not remotely the same as "Kyle, a high ranking member of the KKK... "
Though to be fair they're calling these people white nationalists, as though being white or being a nationalist is a bad thing. They changed the definitions of words again and now pretend that white patriots are all racists. They can always fall back on "white nationalist doesn't mean racist" as a defense.
Whoopie is an open a close case. They literally (Yes actual 'literally') said "To me is murder" expressing their opinionated definition of the word
if you think he will take on whoopie, you are dreaming.
@@bwana-ma-coo-bah425 hahaha like an AG thinks she can take on Trump who is far richer than whoopie
@@Cruzeoc101 pay very close attention. Whoopie made the comment on television. The network she works for will have far more money than trump.
@@bwana-ma-coo-bah425 cool. then they will settle for an astounding amount and tell her to stfu to prevent further losses. sounds like a win.
@@DarrinSKI don't think so, it will open up the doors and that will never happen.
my issue is with "no reasonable person would think the statements are true " seems way too open to interpretation and abusable
Find me a reasonable person and we'll talk...
@@TotallyNotRedneckYall find me something truly unbelievable
Kind of like the self defense laws in Wisconsin ironically enough, except the leniency in the law is working against instead of for him this time around.
@@namoma4922 the argument that 'gods exist'
I still don’t understand how a reasonable person could think this kid brought an assault rifle to a riot and he *didn’t* have the intent to murder someone.
the court saying that viewers of tucker carlson are unlikely to take his statements literally is in my opinion wrong. Since there is tons of public evidence that many who watch his show take him literally, I have multiple relatives who believe he is the only trustworthy media source.
Frankly, it is disturbing how many statements of fact are being labeled as "opinion" by the courts.
Key word here is *reasonable* viewer
At least he had to go on record basically asserting that no reasonable person would take him seriously. That is good enough for me, but it is scary that you can lie and lie and lie, then stand up and tell the whole world that you are definitely a liar and anyone who believes you is an idiot, and conservatives will STILL believe everything you say.
@@ninjanomnomSK
Yeah, reasonable is the rub. That excludes the majority of Fox viewers, sadly.
@@jamessloven2204 Name some
Can we agree that news outlets shouldn’t be able to argue that their content isn’t intended to be taken literally? People watch the news to learn facts about what is happening in the world around them. If it really is a hyperbole, opinion or stretching of the truth it’s wrong to tell millions with them assuming it’s factual.
Edit- I’m all for freedom of speech but just like how you can’t run into a building and yell fire I don’t think news outlets should be giving uneducated opinions and presenting them as fact. Bring a specialist in get their opinion sure, but enforce the audience that that was an opinion.
also, the standard of "reasonable person" is too optimistic for today's people
Yea.... I don't know how someone can argue no reasonable person would take it literally while the logo 'Fox News' is predominately displayed through the ENTIRE show. It's.... insane.
someone must hold noted news platform Lebron James to account
@@dizzy2020 People had to write that encyclopedia as well. People also had to gather that information and produce studies on them. To act like an encyclopedia is free from bias if your going to be that pragmatic about the news (even if i do agree), is probably a bit disingenuous. At the end of the day the news is known to report facts, and therefore shouldn't be allowed to flagrantly use its label to push propaganda the way it does.
If tucker Carlson wants a talk show, that's one thing, but he has a damn news segment. They shouldn't get to give him that, and act like he has no responsibilities.
Yeah. Tucker Carlson isn't a late night comedy show or edutainment host. He proports to be pure news. It's not like John Oliver doing a piece on someone and saying that the subject has rat balls. Then he could reasonably say that part was a joke, and the actual substance of his piece was a joke.
Objection: Rittenhouse does not meet the standard for limited purpose public figure.
He did not (a) voluntarily participate in a discussion nor did he (b) have access to the media to get his views across during the time period in question. Otherwise it is circular logic. Much like how the word “literally” can not be defined using the word “literally”; Rittenhouse cannot be made a public figure by means of public defamation. His fame was made manifest by the defamation itself.
If a private individual is defamed online by another and that media goes viral then the individual does not retroactively become limited purpose public figure. Otherwise there is no such thing as a private individual.
I object to your objection. He became famous for the shooting and killing, and the defamation followed subsequently.
He did appear on Fox.
@@steve6790 not according to the law
You add to this the fact that he used is right to silence makes him even less of a public figure.
@@steve6790 Shooting and killing doesnt make you a public figure
so let me get this straight. the more a tv host exaggerate, the less likely he is to be held liable.
so the more extreme he gets, the better it is for him, both in views and in court? so populism has already won then?
Define populism
Populism was already a thing long before, Tucker Carlson is an example of that...
A hazard of echo chambers and a sharply segmentated audience. I have two reasons this isn't the end of civilization it might sound like:
1) I think most people aren't that invested - they want to live their lives and, at least in their personal interactions, not be total asshats. I think most people will tend toward decency and appreciation. I think such people wind up supporting cruel or vindictive policies because the narrative has been reframed to make the cruel and vindictive seem caring and supporting. I think that's where we are with anti-trans laws. I don't think that reframing can go the distance as the harm such laws do invariably comes out.
2) A populist who encourages populist tendencies in their audience is playing with fire. Someone who's been taught to dehumanize can do the same with their leaders once those leaders have been proven no more than human. Recall Trump getting booed when he told his audience that actually getting vaccinated is a good thing.
Let's phrase this differently: the more obvious it is that the statements are not meant as literal truth, the more likely it is that a defamation suit will fail. Making obviously exaggerated statements is just one way of marking them as opinion.
Unfortunately it is becoming harder to tell whether a statement is exaggerated or the speaker really believes it to be an extreme fact.
Alex Jones set the precedent that tucker used.
Even without being extremist, you can claim that your show is for entertainment purposes and is not an actual representation of news
This allows you to talk about the news and report it while saying whatever you want with impunity
Oh the irony of announcing a media accountability organization on Tucker Carlson's show. Let's us not forget Tucker's own lawyer's said his words cannot be trusted.
Damn, I never thought about that. LOLOLOLOL
I thought I was the only person thinking this.
But tucker isn’t a reporter, he is an opinion journalist and has stated as so. Unlike most of the other “reporters”
Like CNN
It was never intended to be an accountability organization. It was always intended to be a settling scores organization. It is a sure bet that this organization won't go after anything published on Fox or OAN.
Regarding the definition of "literally", as a linguist, I have to say this sort of thing is so common we actually have a term for this. This is what linguists call semantic hyperbole. It happens when a word's meaning becomes exaggerated by overstatement. Usually, this change involves the meaning diluting rather than becoming its opposite. A good example of the usual way this process happens is the word "awfully," which used to have a more specific meaning but today is essentially a synonym for "very." Another example that more resembles what happened to "literally" is what happened to "terrific," which until the mid 20th century meant the same thing as "terrible." But then people started using it to refer to things that weren't scary but were exciting, like a "terrific" party, and over time this caused it to diverge into a new meaning. It's the same thing with "literally," but it's unlikely that the original sense of the word will die out, so "literally" will probably become a true contranym, where 2 or more of a word's senses are opposites. But who knows? Maybe because of confusion people will stop saying "literally" to mean "factual" and will use a different word, and then original meaning of "literally" may die out. Language is fun!
"As a linguist..." Sure you are.
@@reh3884 Odd thing to be sceptical about
@@reh3884 Fortunately the doubt of some rando on youtube doesn't affect my credentialing, but whether you believe me or not a quick google search will confirm my assertion.
This comment is literally awfully awesome
@@reh3884 how to say ‘as a dick’ without saying it. Don’t worry I believe you.
This guy must be a great lawyer. He hits all the lawyer points of emphasis. "It is not about right and wrong, it is what you can prove in court" have got to be tattooed on his back.
@Brutally Goofy Buddha uh, no.
Video is the witness that doesn’t lie, so a lot of slam dunks. All you need to find is 12 common sense jurors with an IQ above 85. Which would eliminate most democrats.
Correct, and in this case they proved Kyle only fired his gun after he was attacked, everyone who didn't attack Kyle survived. It was a clear cut case of self defense no matter how you look at it.
Don't chase people down and attack them and you won't get shot, very simple.
Haha, that's explains why this kind of lawyers are not very respected. They don't care about right or wrong at all. They are just the robots for they legal system.
@@GotoHere no both Democrats and Republicans have rednecks
What is the point of even having defamation laws, when everything can be written off as hyperbole or open to interpretation.
I think at some point, they're still good to protect non-public figures. If I went to your place of work and told your boss blatantly untrue facts about you in an effort to get you fired and succeeded, you would more than likely have a case to say "Hey, this guy said defamatory stuff about me and it cost me my job!"
Right???
@@ericvtheworld Obviously that would be defamation whether it's a public figure or not.
@@ericvtheworld then the court says "no reasonable person would believe some random guy who just walked in" and case closed
@@ericvtheworld depending on where you are, being called a racist can get you fired. The Supreme Court being called a racist is not defamation.
What I learned from this video:
If you defame people long and often enough, you get away with it cause it's somehow your character.
If you're a serious person and do it once, you get the hammer.
Long live the USA
You know it's not that simple.
@@Hoganply It literally is. That is the entire argument that Kyle is a public figure
@@gholland5840 how is a 17 y defending themselves vs a pedo and 2 other violent ex con a public figure?
@@gholland5840 kyle is a public figure because of blm and the medias attempt to get an innocent man locked up, while also "getting justice" for a pedophile and a domestic abuser, kinda blew up their faces lmao.
@@gholland5840 He is a public figure. The video was released on social media and became popular. People knew who he was within an hour or two. Being a public figure doesn't have to be a choice.
Thinking as a lawyer, here.
1. Sue as many as possible.
2. Negotiate and close with those un-willing to fight.
3. Withdraw from those wanting to fight.
4. Collect a massive payday. Lawyers win.
Good thing the Covington kid didn't took your advice, I mean, I don't think the Washington Post didn't wanna fight :)))))))
I don't think you know how the legal process works in this regard. Almost every single company will fight it to some extend.
What I hope you mean is those willing to actually take it to trial.
Although the problem with your premise is the second someone tries to take it to trial and they back down every single other firm will realize they backed down when it came to trial and all will then just file for motions to sent it to trial.
That may be beneficial for easy money, but it’s not the money that this is about. It’s about the outright lies and how they ought to be punished to keep it from continuing.
@@feartheghus you can't say an opinion is a lie dude, learn some grammar.
that only works if the person you sue never even talks to a lawyer and assumes they actually did something wrong. All they need to do is talk to a lawyer and they will say "ya, you didn't break the law and here are all the ways I can prove it in a court room" If you have no claim and make a baseless accusation, the lawyer will highly encourage the client not to settle out of court, because it's a free win for that lawyer, and you save money in the process.
I am with you on the literally thing. it drives me nuts. Especially when I realize I have done it.
I feel more respect for you agreeing that “literally” should not be coopted for “figuratively”
the destruction of the english language when the secondary meaning of a word means the opposite of that word. At least most other contranyms have to be used in a different way.
@@davidokinsky114 I believe in living languages should change and grow but this habit is so fuckinh annoying. Sarcasm isn't actual language use! It only works if everyone knows the correct definition and is in on the joke!
When close to half of elected official constantly dumb down the population to stay in power, as well as using slippery slope to fear monger their base, and changing the law/make ruling to protect themselves.
Well it happens to a lot of words, over time, similar to people saying "xerox" instead of "copy". Language erodes almost like rocks, exaggerations ("killer party") and slang (like "cool") become common and accepted at face-value.
@@davidokinsky114 It's slang. You people gonna cry "cool" doesn't actually relate to temperature in some cases? Was it destruction of language when your grandpa used his own slang? Get a grip.
Generally, I lean very heavilly towards freedom of speach, but with large media organizations and their comentators/journalists, I feel they should be held to a higher standard due to them being often viewed as authorities when it comes to disemination of facts and their ability to reach a very large audiance.
Exactly
I disagree
If you are presenting yourself as a objective teller of truth, you better be telling the objective truth to the best of your ability. When you put yourself into that position you take up the responsibility of truth to your audience.
"I support freedom of speech but.." = I only support freedom of speech when I agree with it. Don't try to disguise it as something else.
@@benjaminhoyt1421 I'm not disguising anything. I don't care what is being said and I think opposing viewpoints are important and I think people are entitled to say anything they want reguardless of how I feel on the matter. Media organisations are basically the only instance that has pushed my tolerance to the limit, because of how many people they can reach and how an average person can never have sufficient reach or clout to argue against them.
I'm not saying media shouldn't be able to talk freely, but I do think that if they are taken to court by someone, then the reach they have should be taken into consideration when they make hyperbolic and exagerated statements that could be damaging to a person, as their reach can have a much greater effect compared to a regular person.
As I told everyone at the time the media that was addicted to using "alleged" or "suspect", never used those words when talking about Rittenhouse. Those words are a hedge against a defamation claim.
That's because he's a murderer. Regardless of the verdict. He killed two people.
@@latenight7528 In self defense and it wasn't premediated. Both meaning not murder. Yes he killed 2 people. No it wasn't murder.
@@latenight7528 homicide does not mean murder...
My apologies. I'm not super knowledged when it comes to law. I understand what you are all saying now.
Because we saw it happen on video.
You know, we should be holding media to a higher standard of telling the truth over reporting genuine misinformation and claiming someone who has been proven innocent in a court of law is, somehow, still the thing that he was accused of than your random citizen - not a lower one.
They have the reach to ruin lives far easier than a single person and yet the standards for them to be convicted of defamation are so impossibly high that they can act with utter impunity.
Rittenhouse was not "proven innocent." The jury in his case simply found that the prosecution had not met its burden, based upon the evidence they were allowed to present. The only way you can arguably be "proven innocent" is if a court of law makes a legal finding of innocence in your case. No court has made a legal finding of innocence on Rittenhouse's behalf. The idea that he's innocent just because he was acquitted....sorry, but that's not the law. Plenty of people have been acquitted only for new evidence to surface later that proves their guilt. But they can't be retried because of double jeopardy. That could conceivably happen, not just in Rittenhouse's case but in any case.
@@gspendlove The video footage alone proved he was innocent, the case never should have went to court.
@Nortius Maximus I'll bet you think O.J. Simpson was innocent, too. And that strippers like you.
@Nortius Maximus Sure.
The judge was damn sure not innocent heels extremely biased Rittenhouse and didn't even have to come to court to win that one
To hold the media accountable... On Tucker Carlson show. Really. The irony is painful.
But he's satire, no rational viewer would take what he says seriously.
he tells more truths then CNN abc and other new medias put together democrats just hate him cause hes not willing to conform to there way of thinking
@@OneEyeShadow ok but do rational people watch his show
@@eaglegundam1873 You are so deluded, it's actually laughable.
Tucker Carlson on Fox calling out CNN as "unreliable fake news" is the pot calling the kettle black. The only difference between the two is political leaning.
Two things I've learned about the law... It often depends and the wheels of justice turn slowly.
"Anything can happen in a jury trial."
Also never ask a question you don't already know the answer to
Judgement doesn't make things true... A murderer getting favorable legal outcome doesn't make them "innocent"...
The problem with slow justice is that justice delayed is justice denied.
It depends on how much money you have.
Kind of makes me think why so many people go crazy with the "allegedly" when reporting things. Looks like you can call a person pretty much whatever you want and almost nothing is actionable.
Yeah, the law is kept broad in scope so that people don't just sue anyone who says mean stuff about them...
Legal eagle gave an example of an actionable statement too
yeah. That's how freedom of speech works. Unless you can prove someone knowingly provides false facts about you, or unless you can prove they violated some contractual obligation, a person is not subject to legal retaliation. Otherwise any rich asshole with enough lawyers can sue anyone who calls him an asshole.
Especially leading up to trials, actual news agencies (ie, NOT Tucker Carlson) have to be wary of crossing the line into libel/slander/defamation, as well as impacting potential juries.
Sources lie, video & photos can be altered, & so on...if a journalist just says "Joe shot Bill," they can quickly get into hot legal water, & legit news agencies have repeatedly lost lawsuits or had to settle when they cross the line. Saying "Joe allegedly shot Bill" mitigates that risk. An example is the ongoing cases against Fox News by Dominion for repeatedly claiming that Dominion had actually committed crimes, rather than merely reporting that Trump et al allege that Dominion had committed crimes.
@@Metrion77 I wonder how many times that walking wig you called a ‘president’ for four years, tried it anyway. 🙄
What did you think Free Speech means?
I watched this trial. Evidence clearly showed Rittenhouse being approached and pursued in an agressive manner by those that he shot. He could reasonably believe that they intended him significant physical harm. Video evidence supported that. That is why he self defense defense led to his acquittal.
I watched the trial too. It also showed that Rittenhouse was an immature idiot who panicked at the first sign of conflict.
Juries never come to the wrong conclusion and there's no such thing as a biased judge. Plus evidence of motive and intent never gets excluded from a trial.
@@gspendlove lmao
Good one.
@@leeartlee915 The trial DID indeed show that Rittenhouse was an immature idiot who panicked - when someone came at him in an aggressive manner. The videos clearly showed all of the ones the kid shot were coming for him, with clear intent to physically touch him, or in one case, had a gun themselves.
I do not think that kid should have been anywhere near that situation, and definitely shouldn't have been armed, but they were able to prove that Rittenhouse did not shoot unprovoked. Each shot could be reasonably considered self defense.
@@foreveryoungsiberianhuskie6771 I never argued otherwise. But just imagine the same situation minus Rittenhouse having a gun. If you do that, I don’t see anyone dying in that scenario. Him having a gun, him panicking, him being a afraid little bitch, that’s what led to people dying.
Legally, he was found not guilty. Doesn’t mean that the laws aren’t whack. If Rittenhouse had done the exact same thing in, say, Massachusetts, he likely would have been found guilty. Another thing of note. When Rittenhouse was “attacked” when he was fleeing the scene and had been killed by those men, it’s very likely they would have been found not guilty because it was “reasonable” for them to believe Rittenhouse was a danger to themselves and others (as he was an active shooter). Hell, there’s a good chance they wouldn’t have even been indicted.
After watching this in full, I feel that the law for defamation needs to be changed. It currently seems that public figures, who have access to large audiences, can make defamatory statements about individual people and neglect the facts of situations in regards to those individuals. However, the court of law will not punish these people because it was presented as a public statement based on public events. This prevents people from being held accountable for any actions that they take which can lead to the destruction of people's lives. Kyle Rittenhouse was banned from attending ASU because of the statements made from these public figures. To say that publics statement don't have consequential actions is blatantly untrue, whether the they were intended or not.
That is complete misinformation. Whoopi Goldberg does not dictate who can study at ASU 🤣 ASU took no steps to prevent Kyle Rittenhouse from attending. His course was mostly online and he was a student there for a short period. What could've influenced his decision to quit was the fact a bunch of students protested his attendance, which is completely within the bounds of free speech - many people believe what he did constituted murder, or at the very least illustrated the race disparity in legal judgement, i.e. there is simply no way a black man would've got off had he been running round Kenosha with a gun and shot multiple people. For those who don't view him as a folk hero, and there are many, he is an extremely repulsive character. I think the gun lobby need to come to terms with this.
It's not the law that needs to change, it's the idea news stations do not need to be help accountable for stating fact. FACT is, a reasonable person SHOULD believe news stations are providing facts to them. Problem is the news stations are so damn untrustworthy that a reasonable person would actually assume they are being lied to when they turn on the news in todays day and age which is a MASSIVE problem. People are right to assume the news is lying, because it's all they do.
Rittenhouse was not banned from attending ASU. He was enrolled in online classes at ASU for a few months but was no longer enrolled by the time of the trial. At no point did ASU take any action against Rittenhouse. Even if ASU had taken action against Rittenhouse there is no reason to believe it would be because of the influence of media. Universities are private institutions and association with them is a privilege that they have the right to remove for any reason they see fit. If a university decides that they don't want students attending public protests with firearms and publicly stating affiliation with the university then it is completely in their right to do so. If Rittenhouse were expelled from ASU because of this incident it would be a result of his public statement claiming to be a student at ASU and nothing else. They would have very little reason to expel him if he was not publicly associated with ASU. A great example to point to is that time an ASU student was expelled for posting pornographic photos where she was wearing an ASU shirt. You can post nudes, you can shoot people in self defense, you can't post nudes in an ASU sweatshirt, you can't shoot people in self defense in an ASU sweatshirt.
I'm not sure why I'm trying to explain this though, he wasn't expelled at all.
@@ToomanyFrancis much more comprehensive explanation than mine, cheers 😂👏🏽
@@CrypticCobra I support Rittenhouse , but I don't think the law needs to be changed . Because defamation is already itself an infringement of the first amendment & we don't want any more intrusion from the government in our Freedom of Speech . This is the slippery slope through which the government gradually creates law to censor speech & people see the short time dynamic but not the long term effects
I doubt anyone could be sued if they said “arguably...” .
Whoopi also make a remark that she was opining. So with JLeBJ that's three down.
Arguable.
Argues with Some Dude.
Can't be that simple unfortunately. It'd just become the "in my opinion" excuse. "Arguably XYZ has this STI"
@@addymant I think the difference is that, in this case, it is literally arguable. Saying someone has an STI/STD can be proven false with a simple test. Kyle Rittenhouse had to argue his case in court, against all of the opinions from before it even got there. Now, initially, I believed what was said, due to lack of information. Only when the footage from the case came out, widely, did I actually start to believe him innocent of murder and instead decide it was self defense in my opinion. So yeah. The actual need/ability to argue the point to different conclusions makes it "arguably", and, therefore, an opinion.
Short answer to video's title: Yes.
Longer answer: You can sue anyone for anything, up to and including God. Doesn't mean you'll win or you'll win money.
Slightly longer answer: Rittenhouse had a lot of personal information that wasn't allowed at trial that he wouldn't want to be subject of a lawsuit.
I'd love to see someone defend against this suit and take it to discovery.
(looks at video suggestions) Yep, you're right, LegalEagle did a video about suing God. Guess I'm watching that next!
💯 about discovery. He's only filing this garbage lawsuit because he knows it won't make it that far.
@@elizabethhenning778 that is funny as has has multiple high end lawyers that saw otherwise and people calling him a white supremacist, murderer, and terrorist are all easy to show is false so those calling him that are clearly guilty.
@@chrischandler889 you really didn't watch the video huh
We need to hold the media accountable exactly the same way we hold police. In NYC, we have CCRB for the NYPD. Why don't we have a committee like that for the media?
Thank you for the "literally" rant. I stand with you in support of the proper use of literally.
But do you figuratively or literally stand in support?
Misuse of literally is figuratively the worst!
I know it irks people, but in English, common usage IS correct usage. It's a very fluid and quick to evolve language. I'm a grammar pedant every day of the week, but you have to roll with these things.
@@tigerofdoom
I know people commonly use it that way. I'm generally okay with the evolution language. I just dont like that this word evolved to mean the opposite of what it means. And I will die on this hill. Everyone is wrong. Literally does not mean figuratively. All the goobers who use it wrong can fight me!
Both are 100% equally valid uses.
Making a judgment call on what is hyperbolic, what is rhetorical, and whether their use of "literally" meant "literally" or "not literally" seems like a hell of a slippery slope to me.
What's stopping anyone from phrasing LITERALLY anything in a way that can be considered hyperbolic, and therefore can't be considered defamation?
What CAN be sued then? Is anyone allowed to say anything from now on, because even facts can be considered opinion, even 'literally' can be considered not literally, everything can be considered rhetorical/hyperbolic, etc...
Good point. Could someone give an example of what would constitute defamation against Rittenhouse? It sounds like it would be completely legal to say on your TV show: "he's literally a Nazi. That's a fact. He wants to commit genocide against the Jews"
Problem is, this swings both ways. How to decide when hyperbole is meant seriously and when jokingly? The problem is that either everyone and their dog gets convicted for making jokes or nearly nobody (as it is now). As law seeks to not punish the not guilty, it will always choose the definition that lets some guilty people free over convicting innocent people.
What surprises me more is that public figures are not held to a higher standard. Like Goldberg said that he is a murderer in her opinion. I think such clarification is reasonable to expect, considering the wide audience they have. Either through clearly stating it is an opinion or through the format of the show. A comedian doesn't need to say that it is his opinion, because the format of his public presence makes it clear. A news show however should have to always state when it is opinion and not researched fact (i.e by saying "alleged murderer" or "one can assume he is a murderer").
I find it especially shocking that the white house/the president can post things that clearly ruin someones reputation. Again, the statement would be different if he said that they disavow someone who is allegedly a white supremacist. I don't think that it is asked too much of experienced public figures to clearly state what is opinion and what fact, especially in social media or speeches or prepared shows. Because many people will believe their words and take it for fact otherwise.
Only exception I would make is for live content where you can't prepare every word or a reasonable amount of what you will say.
@@denidale4701 I think the difference between a joke, and a claim, is rather obvious.
I'll say it right now, not ONE person who called Kyle a murderer/white supremacist/terrorist on the air, was 'joking' about it. They all believed he was all these things, and so they claimed it.
Better to slip too far in the direction of letting people say anything than slipping too far in the direction of controlling what people say.
Well that’s why judges must hold a judicial philosophy to come to a conclusion. Judges might each come to different conclusions.
If calling an acquitted persona murderer were defamation O.J. Simpson would be wildly rich by now.
Kyles going to put out "If I did it" Part 2.
I'm looking at these situations from a purely moral, and not legal, perspective. From a purely moral perspective, there are key differences. I would point out that the media made tons and tons of money off of the deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, and the media never had to pay their families a dime as much of it delighted in their murders. There are other differences:
1) O.J. is extremely rich, although not from lawsuits.
2) O.J. was a public figure before the double-murder trial and intentionally sought publicity by trying to flee from justice.
3) O.J. was found liable for the deaths of the people in question.
4) O.J. has not had experienced a significant backlash even after being convicted of a different violent offense from a different incident than the infamous one: O.J. is still allowed and encouraged on Twitter, is welcome at universities, and has had no school administrators speak out against his acquittal in a professional capacity. O.J. was even rewarded with a show on MTV after the civil trial for wrongful death.
Honestly, OJ emerged from that double-murder trial as a real-life version of Pennywise the Clown from the first It movies with Tim Curry.
Doesn't he have millions of dollars?
@@teh-maxh Yep. OJ is probably worth about $100,000,000. For practical purposes, after being released from prison for armed robbery, OJ finds himself in a far more envious position socially than Kyle Rittenhouse. For example, OJ is encouraged to be active on Twitter, and no university has banned him.
If they can get 1.5 billion out of Alex Jones the Kyle deserves at least a few million.
Objection:
The word 'false' is misspelled in defamation requirement number 2 at 3:32. Thus, all information built upon this requirement must be considered unreliable and removed from evidence.
ah, a redditor.
Is this is a phoenix wright quote
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
he was talking about the Fair Lawn Association for Special Education (FLASE) in that portion of the video.
I find it so ironic that Rittenhouse announced the Media Accountability Project on Fox News lol
That’s what happens when an entire political demographic wants you imprisoned or dead based on irrationality.
Had left wing outlets and people just waited for the trail to finish and reach out to him all of the right wing spin could have been avoided
@@lustrazor44 if he was a black man, cops would have shot him dead the minute he walked towards them in Kenosha with a rifle. That was why people were protesting. Unequal justice and unequal rights.
He killed people and probably he enjoyed it.
@@lustrazor44 and if he had stayed his ass at home. he wouldnt have been on trial to start with. play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
@@Bored_Barbarian you poor thing.
@@cmdraftbrn no law requires you to stay at home. Quit being so sour.
I love how so many people have been misusing the word 'literally' that the dictionary added a secondary definition.
I love people on Twitter who say one of the witnesses ruined everything by admitting he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse.
If they'd said no, they would've been guilty of perjury.
True, but that’s OBJECTIVE REALITY. Don’t forget we’re talking about Twitter here lol, factual reality is meaningless to them.
Didn't he point the gun at him after Rittenhouse already shot someone? That's self defense right? The only thing this trial taught me was to always pull the trigger first. Seems like a bad lesson but idk.
@@Vexas345 rittenhouse was on the ground when the guy pointed an illegal gun at rittenhouse. This means that the guy was about to essentially execute someone who is on the ground while kyle didnt point his firearm at tge guy
@@taggymcshaggy6383 There are no illegal guns in the usa
@@Vexas345 That's the point, Rittenhouse shot someone ELSE that was chasing him down and trying to harm him.
I'm so glad you added that rant about literally's definition. I was having that exact reaction right before you launched into it.
Lol that's what I was getting on here to say too
"can you sue..."
Yeah. It's the US, you can sue over anything.
The real question is "is there a chance of winning?"
Even for being called a murderer after you wave a gun around and murder two people.
"I'm suing for pain and suffering."
"Why?"
"My coworker farted in the elevator and it smelled like death."
@@thewhitewolf58 I mean you don’t run at someone with a gun with your own gun and hope to live, weather or not he went there with the purpose to kill he was ran at by people with firearms
@@jonahclark7442 Anyone who asserts that Kyle Rittenhouse is a murderer falls into one of two categories:
1) They never saw the footage of the incident
2) They saw the footage of the incident, but they don't believe in the right to self-defense
I hope he rakes them over the coals. Make them eat their words.
Out of curiosity, what is the definition of a "Public Figure"? While Rittenhouse certainly fits that definition now, he didn't make the initial choice to become one (the social media storm regarding his case did that for him).
I'm just curious if the public can essentially transform someone against their will INTO a public figure thus necessitating the highest standard of actual malice or if that person needs to choose to engage.
Further, is the actual malice standard applied based on the time the statements were made or the time of the defamation lawsuit?
I'm not from the US so US law isn't my strong suit.
I don’t believe you get to choose to become a public figure or not in this case with how big it all got. Just sort of fact of what happens with something like that.
Rittenhouse also did interviews on national televison. Dude chose to be a public figure.
@@ELFanatic he definitely did by the end. Not not in the initial chaos.
@@nibblitman but then does that mean the media can blow up your profile and make themselves immune from that lower burden without you doing anything?
@@adamgribble3936 So my feelings on that is it all kind of depends on the starting point. In this case it is his actions that bring that spotlight so I would think that negates it. If they just picked ransoms guy and made fake stories and made it a big deal out of nothing that would likely be different.
I am laughing so hard at fox news essentially being like "you listen to this guy?" About tucker Carlson. "Oh he's just making stuff up and everyone should know that bc that's like his whole show. It's all making stuff up. His reputation is shit too. Seriously"
Not to mention the double standard that conservative pundits express when they sue liberal pundits for defamation.
I feel like as funny as that is, it’s still kind of messed up that that works as a defense. Because a lot of people actually take Tucker Carlson at his word. He can basically say whatever he has said, and then go “I didn’t mean it.” And avoid legal repercussions for Slander. With a bunch of his audience either never knowing about it, or understanding that he only said “I didn’t mean it.” To get out of hot water.
Yes he has no integrity, but that’s because neither he, nor his audience, care.
but what people fail to mention is CNN and MSNBC have both gotten out of lawsuits with the same arguments
This is how fox has gotten out of trouble multiple times before, claiming it's entertainment and not actually news
@@samkeiser9776 To be fair, Carlson does frequently look like he's really, really confused. Perhaps this is because he cannot understand why any sane person would take him at his word.
9:55 - "I refuse to accept that 'literally' now means 'figuratively.'"
Testify! I understand that language needs to evolve, and I generally agree that definitions should be descriptive, not proscriptive, but I draw the line at contranyms. No word's accepted usage should include two mutually contradictory meanings. "Sanction" is bad enough. We don't need more contranyms.
Well, contronyms are an accepted part of the English language and really easy to parse based on context, so that's on you, not the rest of us.
@@RabblesTheBinx Cancer is an accepted part of medical science, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say we don't need more cancer, either.
As for inferring meaning from context, that isn't always clear, and words like "literally" allow the speaker to impart clarity to an otherwise possibly ambiguous statement. Or, at least, they used to.
@@RabblesTheBinx Eh, context doesn't always help in this case. Sure, if someone says, "I literally jumped out of my skin!" you know they're most likely exaggerating, particularly if you can't actually see any of their bone or muscle. But if someone says, "I was out running and I literally hit the wall," you'd have to hear more of the story before determining whether they actually meant "literally" or just didn't know how to properly use words.
While we're at it, can we also get rid of negative prefixes that aren't, such as "inflammable"?
As you say, likelihood. The more I work with judges the more I realize Judges don't always follow laws, facts, or procedures. Some just make decisions on what they feel like.
That makes them in dereliction of duty and they need to be in prison
dead fkn right. feelings should have no bearing on the case,
One thing that might vary in the lawsuit is what people said about Kyle Rittenhouse BEFORE he was a bit of public figure vs what people said AFTER he became a public figure.
Same thing with who media outlets said when he was still technically a minor vs what media outlets said when he was an adult.
Excellent points!
I mean, if people haven't been so hyperfocused with cases like Kyle Rittenhouse. He wouldn't sued people in the first place.
I don't know if this is a legal argument in favor Kyle but: Didn't the MSM and the justice system in Waukesha cause him to become a public figure with a trial and all the public exposure that the trial brought before and during the trial?
Do media outlets really get to use the public figure excuse when they were the ones that made him such...
@@Cevans1992 good question Captain America
“Literally” has been hyperbolic for centuries, maybe always. In the Adventures of Tom Sawyer in 1876 it says “And when the middle of the afternoon came, from being a poor poverty-stricken boy in the morning, Tom was literally rolling in wealth.”
Even earlier than that, John Dryden, England's first Poet Laureate and the father of modern literary criticism, was using it hyperbolically in the early 1700s.
I'd be literally shitting bricks if i were on kyles hitlist
Should have scrolled down, I was just posting the same, but with the example of Charles Dickens in 1839 (“his looks were very haggard, and his limbs and body literally worn to the bone…” - Nicholas Nickleby). Linguistically, the argument 'literally' cannot be used to mean 'figuratively' was lost literally two centuries ago.
Are you taking about the word rolling on its own, the word wealth on its own, or the idiom 'rolling in wealth'?
Tom was not physically rolling in something.
Tom did not possess actual money.
Tom had obtained things of relative value as established by the other boys exchanging items to then be allowed to paint.
In the world of those youths Tom amassed wealth between morning and noon.
How is "literally rolling in wealth" not literal? Are you confusing the definition of the word "rolling"? He's not on the ground rolling in his wealth, but, the word "rolling" has more than one definition. One of those definitions is "done or happening in a steady and continuous way".
Tom WAS literally rolling in wealth. (not figuratively)
Worth noting, if I’m remembering the wording correctly, that the Rittenhouse sentence didn’t even require them to think he _was_ engaged in self-defense, more that they could not unanimously conclude that he had acted _“beyond a reasonable doubt”_ in alignment with the charges. Any amount of reasonable doubt would mean the charges hadn’t been proven according to necessary standards.
Acquitted doesn’t always mean “proven innocent;” sometimes it means “failed to prove guilty” and there’s some nuance in meaning there between the legal and literal definitions. Also, that all is before you get into bad practices by prosecutors, defense attorneys, etc. which can result in deliberate or accidental mistaken guilty verdicts.
Edit: added "between the legal and literal definitions" to second paragraph
"Acquitted" is the same as innocent. By default all people are innocent until proven beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty. There is no need to "prove innocent", because a person is inherently innocent.
Isn't that one of the main principles of criminal law not only in the US, but in most democratic countries?
It *always* means failure to prove guilty. Or at least it should. That's the entire basis of the legal system.
Still, a person who hasn't been proven guilty of a crime can't be recklessly accused of the crime. In law if a person hasn't been proven guilty he is considered innocent.
@@Temo990 THe point being raised is that sometimes someone OBVIOUSLY in the wrong that is acquitted is still guilty in actuality. They are only innocent BEFORE THE LAW. innocent until proven guilty is a LEGAL standard, applied by our government, not us.
@@Temo990 He is guilty, the trial was a clown show and key evidence was witheld which pointed to a trend of criminality and vigilante behaviour, therefore if all the actual facts were taken into account I really doubt a reasonable person would find his ass "innocent", he is guilty, the court and the judge helped him get away with murder literally (not figuratively)
Hey, the 'literally' thing already has happened to the word 'terrific'. It originally related to 'terrible' like 'horrific' to 'horrible'. Now people in the USA use 'terrific' to mean the exact opposite of its literal meaning.
Words change meanings over time. The word "thing" 2000-2500 years ago used to mean a meeting, then later it came to mean a topic discussed at those meanings up until the modern meaning of any object. Are we going to complain about people misusing the word "thing"?
The timescale here is crucial, especially because those shifts in meaning happen at different pace (and sometimes direction) in different parts of the world. Try doing internet search on "terrific accident" in Singapore or Malaysia or Pakistan for example. That is a difference between current ongoing shifts, and shifts from hundreds of years ago.
I honestly don't feel too comfortable with the integrity of journalism or anything for that matter, if "no reasonable person..." can be used as a valid defense against liability for wrongdoing, as if reasonable people aren't in short supply and less than reasonable people don't deserve the same rights, not to mention how nebulous the distinction between reasonable and otherwise really is.
This case presents an interesting conundrum. At the outset, Rittenhouse was not a public figure. He became one because of the nature off the media coverage of his case. The very material at issue in any potential defamation suit.
So your analysis implies that the media can make it harder for private citizens to sue them for defamation by simply choosing to treat that person as a public figure and making them so via the news coverage. He's not a public figure by choice, and in large part any damages he claims are going to be the result of how he was made into a public figure.
I'm not sure what the answer is here. But I'm not convinced that the case is as clear cut as your analysis implies.
Not a public figure by choice? Not sure about that since he is choosing to do all these interviews with the media. This seems like he's trying to have his cake and eat it too.
That "breakdown" was pretty funny the fakest crying i ever seen lol
Yup, plus multiple media outlets outright lied about facts of the case. Whether Kyle has a defamation suit or not isn't clear to me but it's absolutely atrocious that there seems to be no reprocussions for these outlets outright lying.
There was even the instance of the New York Times reporter (I forget which one) tweeting out that Rittenhouse shot Gage while Gage had the gun pointing in the air hours after Gage had testified in court that he was pointing the gun at Kyle when he was shot.
@@1EdgarA His interviews occurred after the media made him a public figure. The cat was already out of the bag so he decided to get his side out. You don’t need to like Rittenhouse to agree with OP. Media shouldn’t be able to make someone a public figure to avoid legal penalties.
Being that it is a summary of multiple days worth of trials, potential outcomes, and tried to explain legal nuances is 15 minutes... Yeah... Yeah it's not going to be as clear cut in reality as it is in this segment. 🙄
Senk Weeger? It is more properly pronounced like Jenk You-ger.
No it's chunk yoghurt
@@michaelrobinson300 closer than Jay's pronunciation
*Cenk
@@michaelrobinson300 haha you love Cenk 💘😘💕
He couldn’t pronounce Jim Adler the other week sooooo
So my conclusion is you can effectively call someone anything you want and hide behind not being serious and exaggeration. Because I’m not sure how the most powerful man in the world calling you a white nationalist or powerful media figures calling you a murderer when you aren’t doesn’t count as defamation
@VaderxG What an ironic way to start a sentence.
free speech, conservatives love it until it's used against them.
People keep saying Kyle is going to sue, but he hasn’t yet and when is he going to?
@VaderxG Sometimes killing someone is okay, self defense laws exist for a reason. Nobody argues he didn't kill those people, he did. People who are right argue it clearly was in self defense and therefore justified.
@VaderxG Completely irrelevant.
10:00 in regards to literally and figuratively.
I do agree with you there. I just chuckled because a lawyer would get that worked up over a word.
Getting that worked up over a word is literally (and yes, I mean literally) central to a lawyer's job.
@@Ahui87 *linguist's
Attorneys succeed & fail by their facility w the English language. Most of them pride themselves on it. And rightly so.
Sadly, the battle has already been lost over "really" and "hopefully".
@@DeGuerre In regards to "really" it really shows the need for punctuation denoting sarcasm.
12:38 she said “TO ME it’s murder.” That sounds like an opinion to me.
that's a sissy way to not own something
@@andaleebhassan5766 In your opinion
Came to the comments to say much the same thing. Whoopi is clearly establishing that this is how she reads Brandon's actions from her own moral outlook, and that her opinion is drawn from the uncontested facts of the case (that Brandon took other people's lives, regardless of justification).
@Andaleeb Hassan She literally said, "to me". There isn't more of a way to own something.
You Americans engage in mental gymnastics probably every day I see. Liberals especially. A court ruled that he didn't kill those people unlawfully which means he is not a murderer. A ruling of the court is an established FACT. You cannot oppose fact while protecting yourself with "In my opinion".
Her "opinion" publicly defamed Rittenhouse as a murderer for a huge group of viewers on TV. She knew about the ruling of the court, she disagreed with it but did not say that "In my opinion, jury decided wrongfully" but that he IS A MURDER.
What's especially funny to me is that LegalEagel included a clip from "King of the hill" where it was ironised about stating something about facts and claiming it as an opinion.
I cannot believe that I spend so much time watching a lawyer explain things. Your videos are always amazing and very enlightening. Thanks
Literally the worst lawyer on TH-cam. So many better options.
@@Sirxeko I mean you can list options instead of saying that point blank. It’s your opinion too, I think he’s fine
@RosekiSommers ok so list them then?
@@Sirxeko if you say so
As a non-American, the whole Rittenhouse case is just jaw-dropping. I just don't understand the positions Americans have adopted on this issue. On one side you have a group (the right) that see a hero in a teenager that grabbed some guns and went play vigilante to a protest when he should be playing Minecraft with fantasy swords. On the other side you have another group (the """left""") that instantly called him a murderer even though the videos shown from the very first day show that the men that died went after him with the obvious intention to hurt him, giving him a perfect excuse to actually kill them in self-defense.
No one there was a hero, there's no one there to side with. It was a beyond ridiculous situation involving people that glorify violence and were very clearly out there to get into fights. It is a complete failure of society and both sides should be ashamed that incident happened, because both sides WANTED it to happen.
edit: 9:52 I fully agree with you haha. Here in Spain people have ruined the world "literally" in _literally_ the same way, by using it to mean "figuratively".
I agree they both used this as a weapon for politics and weren’t actually focused on how the situation would’ve come about and how u can stop future situations from happening in the future
He defended his community in the face of violent rioting, which many more people should do. Hero.
@@dongquixote7138 problem was it aint just like batman defending gotham its like batman defending houston
@@dongquixote7138 nope. He's a vigilante, and we know for experience vigilantes only increase violence.
@@azaria_phd Defending yourself from attacks by a convicted child rapist, a serial domestic abuser, and a felon isn't "increasing violence," no matter how many dullards say it is.
It will be interesting to see if he actually sues and the arguments made
He will not - he’ll just accept donations from right wing idiots and then slink off with the money. He probably knows that the people cheering him on are idiots.
@@scifisyko 100% those hogs already replied to a fundraiser email
@@scifisyko not what the Covington kid did. If anything that sets precedent, or at least it may set, for the suit to be brought to an actual court. The pockets of these companies are very deep, why make off with 100,000 and a reputation you can never live down, when you could make 5 or 10 million just in settlements. At least bringing the lawyers to the table with the allowance to make the case would easily make that hundred or so thousand increase ten fold.
He’s been on multiple shows post verdict, would you stomach those “idiots” for what amounts to 2-5 years of an average salary, knowing you’ll likely never work again with that name?
I hope that murderer sues me. He can murder me in court.
@@AnimusPrime87 We can only hope
Personally I believe that if something has the moniker of "NEWS" everything they say should be actionable.
You’re obviously a Trumper that hates freedom of press
So you don’t believe in freedom of speech
@@Duhbaby2348h no, I'm a social democrat and I completely agree with Kenneth. Kyle was forced out of college because of the news coverage.
His biggest mistake was inserting himself into a dangerous situation that could have been avoided. We have to keep in mind he was 17 at the time, he had a good 8 years before his pre-frontal cortex finished developing and already needs to cope with the complex emotions of taking a life, and being on trial for life in prison for self defense.
The news media absolutely contributed to making his life much more difficult than it had to be.
@@Duhbaby2348h I do believe in the freedom of speech, and the freedom of the press, but "news" is supposed to be the truth, or at least an attempt at the truth. Anything less is false advertizement.
@@bobDotJS he was forced out by other students personal viewpoints on what happened. His own actions gave many people plenty of ammo to paint him as a racist.
Thing is defamation works very differently in the UK. Where in the USA it's up to the prosecution to prove that what the defendant said is objectively false, in the UK it's up to the defendant to prove that what they said is objectively true.
That's not great, damn. Guilty until proven innocent doesn't agree with me.
@@cyborgninjamonkey Yeah, I'd recommend watching the film "Denial" based on the Irving vs Penguin Books & Lipstadt case in London High Court to show what that lawsuit is like.
@@gamepopper101 It worked pretty well. Completely ruined any respectability Irving had left and was proven as a liar in court.
No it isn't. By definition that would require the prosecution to prove a negative, which is not possible in and of itself
@@JS-wp4gs Defamation Act 2013 (c 26) § 2.(1) "It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true."
It is. You also could have looked it up.
You keep fighting the “literally battle” and I’ll keep fighting the “begs the question” battle!
Can he, yes.
Can he do it successfully, no.
Good luck getting past anti-SLAPP when he tries to sue LeBron in California.
Sincerely,
An attorney who does Legal Malpractice, defamation, and Malicious Prosecution defense.
Just a guy trying to stay relevant in the public eye is what I see from Kyle here. Did you see how much money he wants in damages? That number is ludicrous lol
But to be safe, he should probably just be referred to as a loathsome little bug.
@@blankname6629 I mean, half of an entire country were truly led to believe he was a racist murderer. I’d want a good bit of money too
@@davidhochstetler4068 I mean... he isn't not that. I would have approached his crime differently, I would have prosecuted the gun crimes first, the straw sale by his buddy, the open carry under age. etc. Instead the judge in this trial chose to not allow those basic tenents.
So starting here a 17 year old is not allowed to open carry a loaded rifle in city limits. The judge basically said well what if he was hunting? Which he was not.
@@pbgd3 the judge didn't say anything about Kyle hunting. You should actually watch the trial....
My law school professor would have answered this in a few seconds. Yes. You can sue anyone for anything. You might not succeed but you can still sue. In this case, the analysis is whether he would make more money in appearance fees and donations than he'll lose in attorney's fees and penalties for filing frivolous lawsuits. If he can get more money from being in the press again then it would make sense to file the lawsuits even if he knows he'll lose.
it should also be noted that the kid himself, well, isn't that bright. the professional grifters around him though are. I suspect this isn't really his idea and he is just enjoying the fame/attention.
"Yes. You can sue anyone for anything." He literally says this in the video you couldn't bother watching before commenting on...
@@oru8612 That is what is referred to as a foundational statement that leads into the rest of the comment that you didn't read before making this one. Well done.
@@neeneko 💯. I kind of fell into lawyerspeak. Lawyers don't ever take credit for their strategy. They always say that the client did this or the client did that when referring to decisions in cases. I'll bet you are right and none of this was really his idea.
Maybe your professor should replace LegalEagle?
I'm with the Eagle here on literally. I am literally disgusted with how communication is constantly being eroded by lazy use. Perhaps this could be solved with some old-school decimation.
Like the addition of “ain’t” to the dictionary.
Language evolves. Back in the 90s, "Ain't" was not in the dictionary. Now it is.
Your use of literally here doesn't make sense as an example. One would struggle to point out the differences between being "literally" discussed and "figuratively" disgusted. lol
You want to kill one out of ten soldiers in a legion? That's what "decimation" is.
@@aircraftcarrierwo-class Which is weird since it goes back to at least the 1700s and was even used by big names like Charles Dickens ("There ain't no teacher like Fagin!" - Oliver Twist). And similar "incorrect" contractions predate it, like the spiritual precursor "amn't" in the 1600s, and all the way back to Geoffrey Chaucer with other contractions considered "vulgar" at the time for their inconsistency with 'preferred' grammar.
I would contend that Rittenhouse does not count as a 'Limited Purpose Public Figure' because the entirety of his presence in the media has been due directly to, or in response to, political partisan attacks against him. He would be as unknown to the general public as he was in 2019, if not for the concerted, partisan, and aggressive effort to defame him over his self defense.
No, he's a murderer who got away with murder specifically because domestic terrorists support him, and corrupt officials denied the murdered people their due process rights in favor of defending a provable murderer specifically because of his political affiliation.
@@dontmisunderstand6041 If those are your genuinely held beliefs about it, then you really are too stupid to be worth engaging on the topic.
Found the white supremacist.
He would be unknown to the public if he hadn't shot three people and killed two.
The thing is, yea he can sue, winning said lawsuits though, is another thing altogether.
Defamation suits are also very very notoriously hard and expensive to win =7= ;;; .
You can only be used for telling the truth like Mike Lyndell Sydney Powell and Rudi Juliany. Not Pushing A big lie . Like Whoopi Goldberg Kent Uygar and Joe Biden
@@osmosisjones4912 "used"
@@angelgsant9671 you're not actually expecting a drump troll to be literate, are you?
@@krismckasson now that you've made assumptions about the literacy of someone else, can you fix yours?
If the definition of murderer is a human who kills another person through direct action than I don't know that calling him a murderer is false. If you use a separate definition perhaps, such as a murderer is someone convicted of murder than in this case he is not. That's not how I define murder though. Also, I feel like this dude's hella trolling but all people lie sometimes, just not usually about news that affects millions of people directly like names in your first list. Lyndell may not be accountable for his actions though since he's probably jusfiably insane.
So totally agreed about "literally". The word serves a useful and unique function; it de-metaphors a metaphor, and no other word does it nearly as well. We shouldn't let dullards define words for us.
Words are all made up, don't act like you own it
@@svenjorgensenn8418 I just don't think it's a good idea to redefine a word because dumb people don't understand the traditional meaning. Dumb people could always try learning a thing and becoming a little less dumb.
I wouldn't classify Rittenhouse as a 'public figure'.
He was involuntarily thrust into the public limelight, which (I'd argue) is very different.
How u become one doesn't matter
@@CoL_Drake That ... doesn't make sense - how it happens absolutely should matter, since it can happen willingly and unwillingly IMO that is a distinction that is necessary.
And that is where the problem is they are glorifying what he did.
Involuntarily? Nah. If you load up. Cross state lines and go stand in the middle of a big riot/protest that's volentary.
@@CoL_Drake Actually it very much does. Being a public figure due to the claims you are suing for actually makes his case a lot more solid. So claiming Rittenhouse is now a public figure will actually help his case,
What about seeking restitution from a media agency such as CNN or MSNBC? One could argue that by parading out pundits and "experts" whom continue to put forth the narrative that Kyle is a murderer, while the individuals themselves may be giving their opinions, the Agencies are using those like minded opinions to impart a belief among their viewership that can and likely will cause some form of damages to Mr. Rittenhouse. Rather than going after each individual, take the group from each channel and use their words to convey a directed attack on Kyle by the ones employing them.
How do we determine when a person qualifies as a public figure? It feels like Rittenhouse was in this category without really choosing to once the trial started
Public figures can sue as Carol Burnett successfully sued the National Enquirer.
@@hydrolito depends on state if memory serves which is stupid to say the least the legality of defaming someone should be determined state by state but at the federal level.
Also I'm not well read on the laws but what about statements made prior to the trial is he automatically a public figure because the incident went viral? So did sandman yet he won. So the laws seem poor to say the least, anything said about Rittenhouse post trial may not be actionable in court given him making the rounds with interviews but pre-trial and during the trial I'd say it would be.
@@ralcogaming7674, sandman didn't win a court case. They settled.
@@Ridingrules10000 yeah why bother settling? Sandman wasn't rich he wasn't capable of having an extended legal battle.
@@ralcogaming7674, I suspect they were afraid of being the ones to set a precedent.
"I refuse to accept that literally now means figuratively." It's not new, it's been around for literally hundreds of years. Dickens, Fitzgerald, and Joyce all used "literally" to mean "figuratively." Context matters.
With it being so hard to hold people accountable for outright lies that do real harm to individuals, I fear there is no way to fix our political discourse in America. The only way to fix such thing seems to be making the government the arbiter of truth. This is even worse than the original problem.
Just teach kids media litteracy
Or don't go as a kid to protests armed with a gun across state lines. It was only a few days before protesters whooped his ass prior when he tried to beat up a girl protester, then he comes back with a rifle and kills people looking for a fight.
@@Henbot you didn’t watch the trial at all did you
@@Henbot wrong, wrong on all counts.
@@demonslayer6588 No he didnt, just looked at whatever news article appeared first and took it as the whole 100% truth
Yeah....some people are dumb enough to believe things said as "Opinion" ...lawyers, and Judges, give people too much credit!
The counter-suit video on the paid service is your most lawyer-but-on-TH-cam move yet. Well played, sir!
It worked on me 🤣
it still makes me laugh that tucker's legal defense was essentially *"no reasonable person would believe the things i say are actually true"*
That’s literally what happened with the Rachel Maddow suit. “A reasonable viewer viewer would not take the statement as factual” What makes me laugh is that anyone thinks that these are news outlets and not just opinionated propaganda on both sides.
@@PipsqueaQ but it depends who doing the talkig example if it was u people would believe u over a opinionated show like Tucker that purposely spreads hatred and division
@@drewmcdonald1077 And Maddow doesn't? XD
The defense was _"given Mr Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of scepticism about the statement he makes"_ and that he _"discusses and engages in non-literal commentary"._ His show is slated as an opinion-based show, not part of their primetime news, and you see this with all opinion-based shows. Rachel Maddow, for example, won her lawsuit by claiming she's not even a real journalist, and the court agreed, claiming her show is one of _"opinion and rhetorical hyperbole"_ and engages in _"exaggeration of the facts"_ .
@@WhiskeyPapa42 um Rachel Maddow doesn't spew rhetoric Tucker and other Trump people do
Kyle Rittenhouse can try suing but all it'll do is make some lawyers get paid.
That being the point. Most lawsuits are for the purpose of bludgeoning a person into compliance by shackling them with so many Attorney Fees that they have to retreat.
@@Neddyhk LeBron has plenty of money and personal lawyers. Only person house would get beaten into submission is Kyle
@@Neddyhk
Rittenhouse's legal fees won't shackle other people, just him.
Which is why I suspect it is his lawyers that came up with the idea. They have already made millions off him, and his supporters are still willing to keep opening their wallets.
Its mostly just to throw some darts at the wall hoping at least one of them sticks.
I agree with you in opposing a court's support of the corruption of "literally's" definition.
Objection : Literally originally meant figuratively, as in like a poem or work of fiction, as used by the likes of Jane Austen in them olden days. The 'to the letter' definition came later. I don't know if thats very helpful in the case of Maddow's remark but it's a handy factoid to annoy people with at dinner parties.
Wait, are you serious? So people are technically using the word in it's original meaning now when they use it to mean 'figuratively'?
Lol that's kinda crazy!
Agreed. I've always seen it as having both definitions.
Agreed. Most people have no idea what the full scope of words mean and their origins.
Literally comes from Latin, litteralis, meaning literary or related to letters. The common usage as an intensifier isn't really wrong, but the original was not "figuratively".
Another handy factoid to annoy people with at dinner parties: "factoid" means a bit of information that becomes accepted as true even though (or, rather, regardless of whether) it is false.
What I find fascinating is people like Tucker Carlson saying that this and that is defamatory when he himself has made thousands of statements that could be interpreted as defamatory over the course of his career in his own show. If calling someone a terrorist or white nationalist is defamatory and grounds for a lawsuit, he should prepare himself for the thousands of lawsuits that could stem from every time he called someone a terrorist looter, Marxist etc. (And he applies those labels to people simply for supporting BLM)
I don’t know if you realize but you’re on to something here....
how much real estate does tucker hae rent free in your head do you think about him when you go to bed? do you have to havde your mommy check under your bed to sleep well at night
Accountability, bb. That should go for everyone.
I’m now imagining thousands of BLM supporters across all 50 states bringing up simultaneous suits against tucker for his defamation.
If people tried to destroy or burn my business down or bum rushed my establishment to steal shit because they’re angry would terrify me and most others which in turn by definition makes them terrorists.
The problem I have with this is that these same people are trying to have it both ways. When they’re in trouble, it’s “no reasonable person would believe what we were saying,” but when they want to lecture the rest of us from their ivory towers, it’s how “informed they are on the subject.” Sick of that crap
It’s like how Trump says “I was kidding” when he is in trouble and “I never kid” when the coast is clear.
💯💯💯💯
At the time of the alleged defamation, Kyle Rittenhouse was not a limited public figure, lowering the standard.
Most (all?) of the alleged defamation happened either before his trial was complete or in the immediate aftermath of the verdict, when it was a matter of public commentary. For later comments... if Rittenhouse had gone home and stayed away from TV cameras after the trial, maybe. But as the video explains, he went on tour and kept harping about the alleged injustice he suffered. Perhaps this is true, but appearing before the public a lot and rebranding himself as an activist of sorts keeps his status of limited public figure.
@@Snow_Fire_Flame Yeah but the claims that he was a murderer happened long before that, you have your timeline wrong.
Rittenhouse aside news outlets should really be held to a higher standard. So many people will put in zero effort to verify a statement and take it as fact.
Regarding public figure vs private figure: Nearly everyone has at some point or another made a statement in a public forum such as Twitter, Reddit, etc. Any statement made has a real chance of becoming national or even international news due to the unpredictability of internet virality. Additionally, an individual has nearly zero personal control over whether or not they end up the attention of immensely large groups of people on the internet. Usually, a defamation lawsuit has no purpose unless the (alleged) lies have reached a point where they have become very publicly defamatory. Given all this, is anyone a private figure under the current definitions of a public or private figure? And if the only thing a defendant in a potential defamation case needs to do to turn their target into a public figure is be a public figure themselves, is this truly acceptable?
Yes, there are private figures under the current definitions. More likely than not, your or I are private figures. Rittenhouse is not, and he made himself not by going on media tours and talk shows and presenting himself as a public figure. He, essentially, doomed his own defamation lawsuits before they happened by these actions.
@@MelissiaBlackheart at the time he was a private figure and I that should matter imo but not sure if it actually does.
No, it's really not acceptable. But it's the world we live in.
@@imanudistperson Rittenhouse is a murderer, telling the truth isn't defamation.
@@wesleywyndam-pryce5305 "murder" is a specific crime, from which he was acquitted.
He is a killer. That's objectively true.
The key words in the alleged lawsuit are "A tool to help fundraise".
To be more charitable than Rittenhouse deserves... he might need the fundraising, I don't know his financial situation but his regular life is now over. If I was at a job with him I'd walk off it, and I'm not sure many corporations would want the baggage of having him around. Even this travesty will only last so long before he's half forgotten and he joins the ranks of Trayvon Martin's killer as another in a sadly long list of people for whom justice did not arrive.
"A tool to help fundraise" is an accurate description of the plaintiff...
@@jacklindsey8400 I would work with some who on camera had evidence of self defense.
@@jacklindsey8400 Oh, he's probably going to find a job easily enough, I'm certain a lot of his fans/supporters/apologists would have him on board in a flash. But, yeah, in the grand scheme of things his options have become severely limited - not just regarding who but also where. Sincerely, I wouldn't be surprised if he gets elected into a public office in a few years.
@@jacklindsey8400 your comment unfortunately is a bad take, from someone who prolly didn’t watch the trial.
The takeaway for me seems like we need a true federal standard for defamation that both adequately protects free speech but also gives these massive media corporations, millionaires, and billionaires with outsize legal and public influence and means relative to the average person’s ability to defend their reputation pause before spewing what are often clearly malicious comments and statements hiding behind legal hurdles.
Sadly too many people take Tucker Carlson seriously. Still more than a year from me the last time and chance I had to spend with my mother.
Lost my last two living family members over the past two years, spent hundreds of nights at the hospital with my mom this past year… She’s always been a Christian conservative but she was never an extremist. But after absorbing some of his idiocy, it became almost impossible to talk to her about ANYTHING. Even something simple as the weather could set her off… Reciting the insane fear mongering talking points Tucker gave the evening prior. It made the last year of time I had to spend with my mom miserably worse, ending many of the days pacing up and down the hospital hallways in the middle of the night trying to get a bit of rest, while my mom continued to absorb that madness.
Sadly too many people still take CNN and MSNBC as truthful news when CNN/MSNBC have consistently lied about 100s of topics from Nick Sandman, the Steele Dossier, Hunter Biden's laptop, or anything to do with Trump. They haven't told the truth for years, so when there are this many lies, from so called "news" stations, why would anyone trust them? And they continue telling their own viewers not to trust FOX news while continuing to spread more lies, this shows FOX viewers exactly what they have believed for years. FOX is more trustworthy than CNN or MSNBC.
@@keefersmotherland1308 no it’s not. They’re both equally garbage. Don’t act like either is worse. You are doing the exact thing you are criticizing
@@Leg1503 Thank you. I was going to say the same thing!
@@keefersmotherland1308 You are not remotely smart enough to realize that you are doing the exact same thing!
Its the pot calling the kettle black!
It has never occurred to you that there are people who's sole interest in life is to steer other people towards their own interest.
"Don't listen to that person's opinion over there. Just listen to me. And me alone!"
It has NEVER occurred to you, that with the USA having a population of over 330 million, that THERE ARE GOING TO BE SOME DIFFERENCES OF OPINION!
@@Leg1503 not even close to the same. One is an opinion station, the other is Fake news who lie to hide their hypocrisy. How are those kids in cages on the southern border???? Havent heard about them since Biden became president, bunch of hypocrites.
Two points stand out to me. 1) A person or organization who engages in bad inflammatory speech is given a pass because they habitually engage in inflammatory bad speech. 2) the media has a habit of taking a non public figure a public figure than giving themselves permission to attack and defame them. Have to wonder if your companion piece is the adult only version of the show.
1) Congrats, we have free speech.
2) Kyle Rittenhouse is a public figure. People have a right to attack him and you can't assume he's defamed before the defamation trial. That's circular logic.
@@alexdelarge9425 I don't think you understood his points...
@@alexdelarge9425 Whoosh
@@alexdelarge9425 And why is he a public figure? Because the media made him a public figure, which then in a lovely catch 22 also gives them permission to talk all kinds of trash about him. I don't have an opinion on the situation as I don't know nearly enough about the case. But fact is, a non-public figure was turned public outside of his control and now can get slandered (statements counter to the legal decision imo is slanderous even if not actionable) to hell and back by the same people that turned him into a public figure? Doesn't seem right.
@@bararobberbaron859 He's a public figure because he shot 3 people. You sound like you're just mad the media covered it.
Him announcing "a tool to...hold the media accountable for the lies they said and deal with them in court" on the Tucker Carlson Show is peak irony.
Remember how Trump called for making it easier for libel lawsuits during the 2016 election? I am still waiting for somebody to pass that level of irony.
Sadly, most media lied about Rittenhouse and defamed him. So, probably they were not willing to interview him after the trial
But do you think that other news outlets, like CNN or MSNBC are any better? Those are just propaganda. Remember the whole four years of "Russian collusion" that turned out to just be a giant smear campaign? It used to be that you could trust the media. Now, you just have to assume that everything is a lie.
@@harrkev Yes, they are a lot better. They still suck a lot, since literally ALL of our news in the U.S. sucks (I'm sure everyone can agree on that lol), but that doesn't mean that Fox News isn't SIGNIFICANTLY worse. It's genuinely not even close. The amount of damage done is not comparable. The overall intention is not comparable. The egregiousness of the lies are not [generally] comparable. It just isn't the same at all.
On a similar note, your average [U.S.] Republican and your average U.S. Liberal have _vastly_ different levels of capability when it comes to analyzing data and determining fact from fiction. Lastly, the "amount of truth" (if that makes any sense) in any given statement is not comparable. While MSNBC and CNN absolutely lie all the frickin time, there's usually _some_ truth to what they're saying. Not always, but usually. On the other hand, Fox News _routinely_ fabricates issues out of thin air with the sole purpose of enraging/scaring their viewers.
I'm not saying that we don't have a very real problem with ALL the news in this country. We absolutely do. That said, Fox News is just so, so, SO much worse than anything else is. There is just no debate to be had here (if you'd like to see this in action, go find a foreigner and show them CNN and Fox News. They'll hate all of it, and rightfully so, but they will be genuinely scared by Fox News. Because it IS actually kinda scary to anyone who hasn't already succumbed to their delusional worldview. The entire Republican platform is devoid of supporting evidence. There's literally almost nothing at all at this point.
While the rest of the world has been moving to the left (politically) and have been doing quite well from it (despite what Fox would tell you. Remember the fake "no-go zones" in European cities that only Muslims could go through? Totally fake lol). The solutions this country actually needs are to the left, and yet Republicans keep going further and further right, and it's actually scary. At this point, this just isn't a simple difference in politics. This is living in reality and caring about human rights vs. living in an increasingly delusional fantasy and not caring about anyone else. There just isn't any reason to continue to vote Conservative at this point. While _actual_ Conservatism can serve as a crucial balance to prevent gov't overreach, they've entirely abandoned that platform... now it's purely about "owning the libs". We do not have any real Conservatives left.. what we have now is a purely regressive party that longs to go back to a "better time" that has never actually existed in reality.
It's all kinda depressing.
@@harrkev Yes, a 4 year investigation that could have been wrapped up in a few weeks, if "innocent" people didn't act guilty as hell..... Innocent people aren't generally that combative or defensive. Innocent people generally want to prove their innocence as fast as possible.
I think Maddow should have been convicted of defamation. She's a media person, she should be held to a higher standard when using extreme language.
But she never said anything that wasn't true...
I find it disturbing that newcasters and journalists are now being said to be giving an opinion, rather than facts, to protect them from being sued for slander or libel. I remember when watching the news was just the newscasters just stating the facts. Sure, it was a bit less entertaining than the news today, but at least you felt what you were hearing was the truth, and not just someone's (potentially skewwed) version of the truth.
So... Calling someone a "White Supremacist" is not "Defamatory" yea okay...
Considering that he interacted with white supremacists, no, it's not.
nope, so is calling someone a commie, genocide denier, traitor, terrorist and other terms, as long as i say "in my opinion" or have clearly shown that what is being said is opinion.
If you think it is, why was Trump allowed to make so many false accusations about not only individuals but groups of people. "yea okay.....duuuurrr"
@@ASHsor Name them.
So before I even watch this, the problem he’s going to face is showing damages. Considering he was acquitted and the resulting media tour that isn’t going to be easy.
showing damages will be incredibly easy, you having media heads, politicians and YT personalities calling him a murderer and a racist and all other slander. its winning in the court that will be hard
Showing damages is insanely easy; his future as a private citizen is over, and it was at the hands of the media that it happened. Future job opportunities are up in smoke for the majority of industries and sectors, narrowing his options severely. Education and training are also likewise impacted if the fiasco surrounding the school he was a student of at the time is any indication.
The tough part will be winning in court, but it won't be due to not being able to show damages.
@@burgers4alvn393 The Young Turks should be sued over the comments made about Kyles Mother in particular Cenk said some vile and untrue things about her before and after the trial.
@@aaronlefebre5060 It could be counter argued that, like celebrities, his actions indicated an intent to become a public figure. He certainly didn't shy away from a lot of publicity before, during or after.
@Elitistb616 it could be further counter argued that he was forced to take actions on account that he was dragged into the public sector by the media, and was doing what he could to attempt to have the narrative be in his favor instead of letting the media besmirch him uncontested. You don't have to have intent to be a public figure to attempt to prevent the media from spreading misinformation, but the act of defending yourself against that, by necessity, makes you one.
Devin’s diatribe about “literally” is the best part of this video.
If you could sue people for calling you a murderer after an acquittal, O.J. would be a billionaire by now.
Yes, however Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty because a preponderance of evidence showed that he acted in self defense. OJ walked away because the prosecution did not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
@@jamessloven2204 if you ask me, I would call that a distinction without a difference. At least not enough of one to matter in the court of public opinion.
I could be wrong but didn’t OJ get convicted in civil court?
@@shylogik he did but I don't if that's an option in this case. I don't recall anyone saying they would sue him over the deaths.
@@shylogik Yes, OJ was acquitted for murder.....but lost a wrongful death suit. I've been scratching my head about that one for years. Prosecutors could never actually prove he was even involved in the murders, but he lost a wrongful death suit that should have required it be proven he was responsible for the murders.
What about the people who could have potentially swayed potential jurors opinions by stating he was a murderer before the trial? Lots of people and news stations claimed he was a murderer before the trial which could be “poisoning the water”. Obviously they still came to a not guilty verdict, but the potential harm was there
There were also media figures who defended him, didn't they influence the trial as well?
@@carloschell986 in theory yes. But he wouldn’t be able to sue them for swaying in his favor, and we are talking about HIS ability to sue. If the prosecution wants to sue them, that’s a different question. But the people against him were so off that until the trial, I was under the impression he had shot 3 black men, which isn’t true.
This all sounds like a YOU issue honestly 🤷♂
Defamation can also include the damages caused or poential damages by what someone said publicly. Fact or not, a public statement about someone can be seen as defamation if not defamation of character. I do not enjoy how certain people are trying to skirt around the fact that public accusation/statement of someone being a white suprimists & or a murder does a lot of damage to said person's precived character & reputation.
a truthful public statement about somebody is not defamation
@@sandrafrancisco and claiming kyle was a white supremacist murder was not truthful
Calling somebody a communist can also be harmful to their reputation. Should it be legal to sue people who call their enemies communists?
Everyone forgets about point number 4. You have to prove damages. What damage was caused? Good luck with that.
@@Hotlog69 damages are not needed in defamation per se cases
I think all media entities that label themselves as news should have to : 1) Affirm that they will do their best to avoid bias and 2) Be transparent when a piece of media is the production of opinion, bias and or both. I know "opinion piece " is a tag line but that seems mostly to be a tool for companies to avoid responsibility for backlash.
Oh I feel you on the despair of the word "literally" now meaning its exact opposite. And I realize this is not the first time in linguistic history that this has happened, but it irks me because it makes it to where people don't necessarily know that you really do mean "literally" when you say it.
In That Case We Should Change The Meaning Of The Word "Ironic" Every Thinks It Means Something That It Doesn't. Let's Go With The Popular Definition Of "Ironic". The Actual Definition Is Crap
You can hedge your bets that everyone under 30 means metaphorically.
I make effort to remove literally entirely. More often than not terms like categorically, demonstrably and definably can be used. 🤷♂️
To be fair, the use of the word “literally” as a point of exaggeration is nothing new and can be traced to the 19th century though the popular use in such a way is definitely more recent. Languages evolve and this is part of it
has it happened with the word literally before though? The thing that really hurts is it's a unique word. We already have a host of intensifiers, so one of them losing their meaning wouldn't be a huge deal, but literally is unique.
@@faceoctopus4571 I don't think literally is unique at all.
Hell, the word "actually" is basically the same thing in context.
In my opinion the US defamatory laws are very detached from reality.
Probably a free speech thing
I had an entire argument with my supervisor at work based entirely on this subject. What I would have given for this to have been released a few weeks ago.
@neil stoner can't do that either.
@neil stoner i dont like some brands of smartphones.. might not be good ideal. maybe the weather
I feel the rage around the literally thing, as a Brit I hate it when I hear a person say “I could care less” because it LITERALLY means the opposite of what they’re trying to say