Physicians Assistant yelling “HELP ME” while stealing a CitiBike ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The funny thing is that all of those kids are laughing right now because you guys have your panties in a bunch over their little prank.

No those kids are mad she's got a gofundme over $120K and they have.... nothing.

120k!!! Are you serious? According to a DCUM poster, her life was ruined and she was an assault victim. It sounds like she is actually doing pretty good!

It's all going to go to her lawyer for multiple lawsuits. Have you ever had to retain a lawyer?

Not for a BS case that has little chance of panning out. If she was smart, she would just pocket the Gofundme cash. I'm kind of jealous!

Have you learned nothing? Let’s see how it plays out. The Covington kid did well and people said he’d lose too.

The particulars of this case are different, but maybe you aren't aware. Also, 99.99999% of people don't know this ladies name and wouldn't recognize her if they saw her walking down the street, so the libel/reputation angle is going to be a major stretch.

False accusations of committing a felony are libel per se. And of course, there’s no requirement of name recognition for libel.

She's can sue and win like the kid sandmann kid that was smeared by cnn

Well Sandmann didn’t actually win in court so we don’t know how his case would play out legally with the “opinion” exception.

He basically did- he got a fat settlement and an apology. That's winning by any measure

I have been trying to find legal analysis of his suit against CNN which settled prior to any motions being decided on the records. He lost against WaPo.

[Anonymous]

The Covington Catholic case was quite different.

In that case, the teenager was not alleged to have committed a crime. Some outlets quoted the indigenous man in the video as saying that the Covington teenager wouldn't let him pass, but they didn't run headlines alleging that the kid had kidnapped the indigenous man. They simply reported what the man said. The stories written and posted about the incident definitely alleged that the kid was motivated by racial animus. On the other hand, the kid was wearing a MAGA hat, which some people argue is a racist dog whistle on its own.

In both cases, additional context was later released. However, in the Covington case, the later context complicated the situation greatly. The original video showed only the kid and the indigenous man, face to face. Later context showed that a group of Black Hebrew Israelites had been taunting both the high school kids AND the indigenous group, just prior to the other video. All parties in that case were engaged in some form of political speech. There were MANY witnesses.

Most of the cases filed by the teen (and his classmates -- many of them also filed defamation suits) were dismissed. Two were settled. It is likely they were settled simply to avoid a long and public trial that both sides wished to avoid. The facts in that case are quite fundamentally different than this one -- the boy was not accused of a crime, he was engaging in political speech at the time of the incident, and there was a third party who it turned out inflamed the situation and complicated it greatly.

The CitiBike case is fundamentally different. The PA was accused of a crime. We have concrete evidence that no crime was committed. There are fewer witnesses and the parties were engaged in private activity, not political speech. No one involved in the incident says anything racist, so all conclusions about the parties' feelings on race are assumed/interpreted. It's a very different case with different facts and it is not particularly useful to compare them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Covington Catholic case was quite different.

In that case, the teenager was not alleged to have committed a crime. Some outlets quoted the indigenous man in the video as saying that the Covington teenager wouldn't let him pass, but they didn't run headlines alleging that the kid had kidnapped the indigenous man. They simply reported what the man said. The stories written and posted about the incident definitely alleged that the kid was motivated by racial animus. On the other hand, the kid was wearing a MAGA hat, which some people argue is a racist dog whistle on its own.

In both cases, additional context was later released. However, in the Covington case, the later context complicated the situation greatly. The original video showed only the kid and the indigenous man, face to face. Later context showed that a group of Black Hebrew Israelites had been taunting both the high school kids AND the indigenous group, just prior to the other video. All parties in that case were engaged in some form of political speech. There were MANY witnesses.

Most of the cases filed by the teen (and his classmates -- many of them also filed defamation suits) were dismissed. Two were settled. It is likely they were settled simply to avoid a long and public trial that both sides wished to avoid. The facts in that case are quite fundamentally different than this one -- the boy was not accused of a crime, he was engaging in political speech at the time of the incident, and there was a third party who it turned out inflamed the situation and complicated it greatly.

The CitiBike case is fundamentally different. The PA was accused of a crime. We have concrete evidence that no crime was committed. There are fewer witnesses and the parties were engaged in private activity, not political speech. No one involved in the incident says anything racist, so all conclusions about the parties' feelings on race are assumed/interpreted. It's a very different case with different facts and it is not particularly useful to compare them.

I think that the Covington case did involve some potentially defamatory statements by CNN, that he was “harassing” the protestor. What confuses me is how defamation relates to ambiguous video and mistake of fact. Both the Covington and Citibike videos clearly made some people believe that they were seeing harassment or theft. That was their subjective belief of fact, but based on ambiguous evidence. Is that defamation? I guess this is a question about intent and the standard of care? Like, if you are CNN you have some duty to investigate more thoroughly but not an individual?

What if there is an outright falsified or AI generated video that is the basis for the false statements? Defamation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Covington Catholic case was quite different.

In that case, the teenager was not alleged to have committed a crime. Some outlets quoted the indigenous man in the video as saying that the Covington teenager wouldn't let him pass, but they didn't run headlines alleging that the kid had kidnapped the indigenous man. They simply reported what the man said. The stories written and posted about the incident definitely alleged that the kid was motivated by racial animus. On the other hand, the kid was wearing a MAGA hat, which some people argue is a racist dog whistle on its own.

In both cases, additional context was later released. However, in the Covington case, the later context complicated the situation greatly. The original video showed only the kid and the indigenous man, face to face. Later context showed that a group of Black Hebrew Israelites had been taunting both the high school kids AND the indigenous group, just prior to the other video. All parties in that case were engaged in some form of political speech. There were MANY witnesses.

Most of the cases filed by the teen (and his classmates -- many of them also filed defamation suits) were dismissed. Two were settled. It is likely they were settled simply to avoid a long and public trial that both sides wished to avoid. The facts in that case are quite fundamentally different than this one -- the boy was not accused of a crime, he was engaging in political speech at the time of the incident, and there was a third party who it turned out inflamed the situation and complicated it greatly.

The CitiBike case is fundamentally different. The PA was accused of a crime. We have concrete evidence that no crime was committed. There are fewer witnesses and the parties were engaged in private activity, not political speech. No one involved in the incident says anything racist, so all conclusions about the parties' feelings on race are assumed/interpreted. It's a very different case with different facts and it is not particularly useful to compare them.

I think that the Covington case did involve some potentially defamatory statements by CNN, that he was “harassing” the protestor. What confuses me is how defamation relates to ambiguous video and mistake of fact. Both the Covington and Citibike videos clearly made some people believe that they were seeing harassment or theft. That was their subjective belief of fact, but based on ambiguous evidence. Is that defamation? I guess this is a question about intent and the standard of care? Like, if you are CNN you have some duty to investigate more thoroughly but not an individual?

What if there is an outright falsified or AI generated video that is the basis for the false statements? Defamation?

I think what you’re asking is if you can still get slapped with defamation if you thought you were right but actually you were wrong. And the answer is yes, for a private person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Covington Catholic case was quite different.

In that case, the teenager was not alleged to have committed a crime. Some outlets quoted the indigenous man in the video as saying that the Covington teenager wouldn't let him pass, but they didn't run headlines alleging that the kid had kidnapped the indigenous man. They simply reported what the man said. The stories written and posted about the incident definitely alleged that the kid was motivated by racial animus. On the other hand, the kid was wearing a MAGA hat, which some people argue is a racist dog whistle on its own.

In both cases, additional context was later released. However, in the Covington case, the later context complicated the situation greatly. The original video showed only the kid and the indigenous man, face to face. Later context showed that a group of Black Hebrew Israelites had been taunting both the high school kids AND the indigenous group, just prior to the other video. All parties in that case were engaged in some form of political speech. There were MANY witnesses.

Most of the cases filed by the teen (and his classmates -- many of them also filed defamation suits) were dismissed. Two were settled. It is likely they were settled simply to avoid a long and public trial that both sides wished to avoid. The facts in that case are quite fundamentally different than this one -- the boy was not accused of a crime, he was engaging in political speech at the time of the incident, and there was a third party who it turned out inflamed the situation and complicated it greatly.

The CitiBike case is fundamentally different. The PA was accused of a crime. We have concrete evidence that no crime was committed. There are fewer witnesses and the parties were engaged in private activity, not political speech. No one involved in the incident says anything racist, so all conclusions about the parties' feelings on race are assumed/interpreted. It's a very different case with different facts and it is not particularly useful to compare them.

I think that the Covington case did involve some potentially defamatory statements by CNN, that he was “harassing” the protestor. What confuses me is how defamation relates to ambiguous video and mistake of fact. Both the Covington and Citibike videos clearly made some people believe that they were seeing harassment or theft. That was their subjective belief of fact, but based on ambiguous evidence. Is that defamation? I guess this is a question about intent and the standard of care? Like, if you are CNN you have some duty to investigate more thoroughly but not an individual?

What if there is an outright falsified or AI generated video that is the basis for the false statements? Defamation?

I think what you’re asking is if you can still get slapped with defamation if you thought you were right but actually you were wrong. And the answer is yes, for a private person.

So bear with me here. Shouldn’t the first amendment protect the right to be honestly mistaken in your speech? Or is the idea that when the speech is very harmful, you risk liability?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Covington Catholic case was quite different.

In that case, the teenager was not alleged to have committed a crime. Some outlets quoted the indigenous man in the video as saying that the Covington teenager wouldn't let him pass, but they didn't run headlines alleging that the kid had kidnapped the indigenous man. They simply reported what the man said. The stories written and posted about the incident definitely alleged that the kid was motivated by racial animus. On the other hand, the kid was wearing a MAGA hat, which some people argue is a racist dog whistle on its own.

In both cases, additional context was later released. However, in the Covington case, the later context complicated the situation greatly. The original video showed only the kid and the indigenous man, face to face. Later context showed that a group of Black Hebrew Israelites had been taunting both the high school kids AND the indigenous group, just prior to the other video. All parties in that case were engaged in some form of political speech. There were MANY witnesses.

Most of the cases filed by the teen (and his classmates -- many of them also filed defamation suits) were dismissed. Two were settled. It is likely they were settled simply to avoid a long and public trial that both sides wished to avoid. The facts in that case are quite fundamentally different than this one -- the boy was not accused of a crime, he was engaging in political speech at the time of the incident, and there was a third party who it turned out inflamed the situation and complicated it greatly.

The CitiBike case is fundamentally different. The PA was accused of a crime. We have concrete evidence that no crime was committed. There are fewer witnesses and the parties were engaged in private activity, not political speech. No one involved in the incident says anything racist, so all conclusions about the parties' feelings on race are assumed/interpreted. It's a very different case with different facts and it is not particularly useful to compare them.

I think that the Covington case did involve some potentially defamatory statements by CNN, that he was “harassing” the protestor. What confuses me is how defamation relates to ambiguous video and mistake of fact. Both the Covington and Citibike videos clearly made some people believe that they were seeing harassment or theft. That was their subjective belief of fact, but based on ambiguous evidence. Is that defamation? I guess this is a question about intent and the standard of care? Like, if you are CNN you have some duty to investigate more thoroughly but not an individual?

What if there is an outright falsified or AI generated video that is the basis for the false statements? Defamation?

I think what you’re asking is if you can still get slapped with defamation if you thought you were right but actually you were wrong. And the answer is yes, for a private person.

So bear with me here. Shouldn’t the first amendment protect the right to be honestly mistaken in your speech? Or is the idea that when the speech is very harmful, you risk liability?

Flipping it around, shouldn’t you be held responsible for causing someone harm (eg losing their job) because you didn’t make sure you were right before saying something horrible about them? It’s all fine and good until you harm someone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Covington Catholic case was quite different.

In that case, the teenager was not alleged to have committed a crime. Some outlets quoted the indigenous man in the video as saying that the Covington teenager wouldn't let him pass, but they didn't run headlines alleging that the kid had kidnapped the indigenous man. They simply reported what the man said. The stories written and posted about the incident definitely alleged that the kid was motivated by racial animus. On the other hand, the kid was wearing a MAGA hat, which some people argue is a racist dog whistle on its own.

In both cases, additional context was later released. However, in the Covington case, the later context complicated the situation greatly. The original video showed only the kid and the indigenous man, face to face. Later context showed that a group of Black Hebrew Israelites had been taunting both the high school kids AND the indigenous group, just prior to the other video. All parties in that case were engaged in some form of political speech. There were MANY witnesses.

Most of the cases filed by the teen (and his classmates -- many of them also filed defamation suits) were dismissed. Two were settled. It is likely they were settled simply to avoid a long and public trial that both sides wished to avoid. The facts in that case are quite fundamentally different than this one -- the boy was not accused of a crime, he was engaging in political speech at the time of the incident, and there was a third party who it turned out inflamed the situation and complicated it greatly.

The CitiBike case is fundamentally different. The PA was accused of a crime. We have concrete evidence that no crime was committed. There are fewer witnesses and the parties were engaged in private activity, not political speech. No one involved in the incident says anything racist, so all conclusions about the parties' feelings on race are assumed/interpreted. It's a very different case with different facts and it is not particularly useful to compare them.

I think that the Covington case did involve some potentially defamatory statements by CNN, that he was “harassing” the protestor. What confuses me is how defamation relates to ambiguous video and mistake of fact. Both the Covington and Citibike videos clearly made some people believe that they were seeing harassment or theft. That was their subjective belief of fact, but based on ambiguous evidence. Is that defamation? I guess this is a question about intent and the standard of care? Like, if you are CNN you have some duty to investigate more thoroughly but not an individual?

What if there is an outright falsified or AI generated video that is the basis for the false statements? Defamation?

I think what you’re asking is if you can still get slapped with defamation if you thought you were right but actually you were wrong. And the answer is yes, for a private person.

So bear with me here. Shouldn’t the first amendment protect the right to be honestly mistaken in your speech? Or is the idea that when the speech is very harmful, you risk liability?

Look up the constitutional legal issues raised by yelling “FIRE” in a crowded theater.

“HELP ME HELP ME”

[Anonymous]

The first amendment generally prohibits GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE with free speech rights. It doesn't mean you can say anything you want anytime without repercussions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Covington Catholic case was quite different.

In that case, the teenager was not alleged to have committed a crime. Some outlets quoted the indigenous man in the video as saying that the Covington teenager wouldn't let him pass, but they didn't run headlines alleging that the kid had kidnapped the indigenous man. They simply reported what the man said. The stories written and posted about the incident definitely alleged that the kid was motivated by racial animus. On the other hand, the kid was wearing a MAGA hat, which some people argue is a racist dog whistle on its own.

In both cases, additional context was later released. However, in the Covington case, the later context complicated the situation greatly. The original video showed only the kid and the indigenous man, face to face. Later context showed that a group of Black Hebrew Israelites had been taunting both the high school kids AND the indigenous group, just prior to the other video. All parties in that case were engaged in some form of political speech. There were MANY witnesses.

Most of the cases filed by the teen (and his classmates -- many of them also filed defamation suits) were dismissed. Two were settled. It is likely they were settled simply to avoid a long and public trial that both sides wished to avoid. The facts in that case are quite fundamentally different than this one -- the boy was not accused of a crime, he was engaging in political speech at the time of the incident, and there was a third party who it turned out inflamed the situation and complicated it greatly.

The CitiBike case is fundamentally different. The PA was accused of a crime. We have concrete evidence that no crime was committed. There are fewer witnesses and the parties were engaged in private activity, not political speech. No one involved in the incident says anything racist, so all conclusions about the parties' feelings on race are assumed/interpreted. It's a very different case with different facts and it is not particularly useful to compare them.

I think that the Covington case did involve some potentially defamatory statements by CNN, that he was “harassing” the protestor. What confuses me is how defamation relates to ambiguous video and mistake of fact. Both the Covington and Citibike videos clearly made some people believe that they were seeing harassment or theft. That was their subjective belief of fact, but based on ambiguous evidence. Is that defamation? I guess this is a question about intent and the standard of care? Like, if you are CNN you have some duty to investigate more thoroughly but not an individual?

What if there is an outright falsified or AI generated video that is the basis for the false statements? Defamation?

I think what you’re asking is if you can still get slapped with defamation if you thought you were right but actually you were wrong. And the answer is yes, for a private person.

So bear with me here. Shouldn’t the first amendment protect the right to be honestly mistaken in your speech? Or is the idea that when the speech is very harmful, you risk liability?

Look up the constitutional legal issues raised by yelling “FIRE” in a crowded theater.

“HELP ME HELP ME”

Cry uncle, nonsense talker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Covington Catholic case was quite different.

In that case, the teenager was not alleged to have committed a crime. Some outlets quoted the indigenous man in the video as saying that the Covington teenager wouldn't let him pass, but they didn't run headlines alleging that the kid had kidnapped the indigenous man. They simply reported what the man said. The stories written and posted about the incident definitely alleged that the kid was motivated by racial animus. On the other hand, the kid was wearing a MAGA hat, which some people argue is a racist dog whistle on its own.

In both cases, additional context was later released. However, in the Covington case, the later context complicated the situation greatly. The original video showed only the kid and the indigenous man, face to face. Later context showed that a group of Black Hebrew Israelites had been taunting both the high school kids AND the indigenous group, just prior to the other video. All parties in that case were engaged in some form of political speech. There were MANY witnesses.

Most of the cases filed by the teen (and his classmates -- many of them also filed defamation suits) were dismissed. Two were settled. It is likely they were settled simply to avoid a long and public trial that both sides wished to avoid. The facts in that case are quite fundamentally different than this one -- the boy was not accused of a crime, he was engaging in political speech at the time of the incident, and there was a third party who it turned out inflamed the situation and complicated it greatly.

The CitiBike case is fundamentally different. The PA was accused of a crime. We have concrete evidence that no crime was committed. There are fewer witnesses and the parties were engaged in private activity, not political speech. No one involved in the incident says anything racist, so all conclusions about the parties' feelings on race are assumed/interpreted. It's a very different case with different facts and it is not particularly useful to compare them.

I think that the Covington case did involve some potentially defamatory statements by CNN, that he was “harassing” the protestor. What confuses me is how defamation relates to ambiguous video and mistake of fact. Both the Covington and Citibike videos clearly made some people believe that they were seeing harassment or theft. That was their subjective belief of fact, but based on ambiguous evidence. Is that defamation? I guess this is a question about intent and the standard of care? Like, if you are CNN you have some duty to investigate more thoroughly but not an individual?

What if there is an outright falsified or AI generated video that is the basis for the false statements? Defamation?

I think what you’re asking is if you can still get slapped with defamation if you thought you were right but actually you were wrong. And the answer is yes, for a private person.

So bear with me here. Shouldn’t the first amendment protect the right to be honestly mistaken in your speech? Or is the idea that when the speech is very harmful, you risk liability?

Flipping it around, shouldn’t you be held responsible for causing someone harm (eg losing their job) because you didn’t make sure you were right before saying something horrible about them? It’s all fine and good until you harm someone else.

But the First Amendment allows intentionally harmful speech. I can call you horrible names and slurs as much as I want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: The first amendment generally prohibits GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE with free speech rights. It doesn't mean you can say anything you want anytime without repercussions

A tort suit with damages for speech is government interference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Covington Catholic case was quite different.

In that case, the teenager was not alleged to have committed a crime. Some outlets quoted the indigenous man in the video as saying that the Covington teenager wouldn't let him pass, but they didn't run headlines alleging that the kid had kidnapped the indigenous man. They simply reported what the man said. The stories written and posted about the incident definitely alleged that the kid was motivated by racial animus. On the other hand, the kid was wearing a MAGA hat, which some people argue is a racist dog whistle on its own.

In both cases, additional context was later released. However, in the Covington case, the later context complicated the situation greatly. The original video showed only the kid and the indigenous man, face to face. Later context showed that a group of Black Hebrew Israelites had been taunting both the high school kids AND the indigenous group, just prior to the other video. All parties in that case were engaged in some form of political speech. There were MANY witnesses.

Most of the cases filed by the teen (and his classmates -- many of them also filed defamation suits) were dismissed. Two were settled. It is likely they were settled simply to avoid a long and public trial that both sides wished to avoid. The facts in that case are quite fundamentally different than this one -- the boy was not accused of a crime, he was engaging in political speech at the time of the incident, and there was a third party who it turned out inflamed the situation and complicated it greatly.

The CitiBike case is fundamentally different. The PA was accused of a crime. We have concrete evidence that no crime was committed. There are fewer witnesses and the parties were engaged in private activity, not political speech. No one involved in the incident says anything racist, so all conclusions about the parties' feelings on race are assumed/interpreted. It's a very different case with different facts and it is not particularly useful to compare them.

I think that the Covington case did involve some potentially defamatory statements by CNN, that he was “harassing” the protestor. What confuses me is how defamation relates to ambiguous video and mistake of fact. Both the Covington and Citibike videos clearly made some people believe that they were seeing harassment or theft. That was their subjective belief of fact, but based on ambiguous evidence. Is that defamation? I guess this is a question about intent and the standard of care? Like, if you are CNN you have some duty to investigate more thoroughly but not an individual?

What if there is an outright falsified or AI generated video that is the basis for the false statements? Defamation?

I think what you’re asking is if you can still get slapped with defamation if you thought you were right but actually you were wrong. And the answer is yes, for a private person.

So bear with me here. Shouldn’t the first amendment protect the right to be honestly mistaken in your speech? Or is the idea that when the speech is very harmful, you risk liability?

Look up the constitutional legal issues raised by yelling “FIRE” in a crowded theater.

“HELP ME HELP ME”

“you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” is dicta from a Supreme Court case limiting speech that was later overturned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Covington Catholic case was quite different.

In that case, the teenager was not alleged to have committed a crime. Some outlets quoted the indigenous man in the video as saying that the Covington teenager wouldn't let him pass, but they didn't run headlines alleging that the kid had kidnapped the indigenous man. They simply reported what the man said. The stories written and posted about the incident definitely alleged that the kid was motivated by racial animus. On the other hand, the kid was wearing a MAGA hat, which some people argue is a racist dog whistle on its own.

In both cases, additional context was later released. However, in the Covington case, the later context complicated the situation greatly. The original video showed only the kid and the indigenous man, face to face. Later context showed that a group of Black Hebrew Israelites had been taunting both the high school kids AND the indigenous group, just prior to the other video. All parties in that case were engaged in some form of political speech. There were MANY witnesses.

Most of the cases filed by the teen (and his classmates -- many of them also filed defamation suits) were dismissed. Two were settled. It is likely they were settled simply to avoid a long and public trial that both sides wished to avoid. The facts in that case are quite fundamentally different than this one -- the boy was not accused of a crime, he was engaging in political speech at the time of the incident, and there was a third party who it turned out inflamed the situation and complicated it greatly.

The CitiBike case is fundamentally different. The PA was accused of a crime. We have concrete evidence that no crime was committed. There are fewer witnesses and the parties were engaged in private activity, not political speech. No one involved in the incident says anything racist, so all conclusions about the parties' feelings on race are assumed/interpreted. It's a very different case with different facts and it is not particularly useful to compare them.

I think that the Covington case did involve some potentially defamatory statements by CNN, that he was “harassing” the protestor. What confuses me is how defamation relates to ambiguous video and mistake of fact. Both the Covington and Citibike videos clearly made some people believe that they were seeing harassment or theft. That was their subjective belief of fact, but based on ambiguous evidence. Is that defamation? I guess this is a question about intent and the standard of care? Like, if you are CNN you have some duty to investigate more thoroughly but not an individual?

What if there is an outright falsified or AI generated video that is the basis for the false statements? Defamation?

I think what you’re asking is if you can still get slapped with defamation if you thought you were right but actually you were wrong. And the answer is yes, for a private person.

So bear with me here. Shouldn’t the first amendment protect the right to be honestly mistaken in your speech? Or is the idea that when the speech is very harmful, you risk liability?

Flipping it around, shouldn’t you be held responsible for causing someone harm (eg losing their job) because you didn’t make sure you were right before saying something horrible about them? It’s all fine and good until you harm someone else.

But the First Amendment allows intentionally harmful speech. I can call you horrible names and slurs as much as I want.

All that 1A means is that you can’t write a law saying “there will be a criminal penalty for saying a slur to someone.” It doesn’t mean, for example, that you can’t be fired by your employer for using slurs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: The first amendment generally prohibits GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE with free speech rights. It doesn't mean you can say anything you want anytime without repercussions

A tort suit with damages for speech is government interference.

I see your logic, and I can imagine a universe where our courts could have precedent that said 1A prohibits defamation suits.

But we don’t live in that universe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: The first amendment generally prohibits GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE with free speech rights. It doesn't mean you can say anything you want anytime without repercussions

A tort suit with damages for speech is government interference.

I see your logic, and I can imagine a universe where our courts could have precedent that said 1A prohibits defamation suits.

But we don’t live in that universe.

Ummm yes we do. 1A is a defense in defamation suits. NYT v Sullivan.