Ana the Ist
Aggressively serene!
Now the truth comes out. Lively is being charged with something that someone else said.
Well, Charles Manson never killed anyone either....
Do you think he was wrongly convicted?
Upvote
0
Now the truth comes out. Lively is being charged with something that someone else said.
Charles Manson was actually party to the murders. We don't have any evidence that actually links Lively to anything untoward. Perhaps you have some you'd like to shareWell, Charles Manson never killed anyone either....
Do you think he was wrongly convicted?
ok, read the posts.
No one disputes he is being charged with crimes against humanity for all his legal actions.
Had anything he did in Uganda been done here, he would be protected by first amendment. So unless he actually called for illegal extermination of people, he only asked for laws to be passed, which is legal.
Would we claim people wanting murderers to be executed be crimes against humanity? no.
So he asked for a law to be passed to execute people found guilty of another crime. Which is legal even if extreme over kill.
It is not a crime to ask lawmakers to make a law. That is how laws are passed. Even the most insane people can ask for a law to be passed.
Criminals seek to have mob justice or lynchings. This is criminal.
Where is a person to go, if they want a law passed if they can't ask lawmakers to do it without being liable for the request?
How can a person break a law by following all appropriate laws?
I say if he made a legal plea for a law, then he was acting legally. So he can't be guilty of a crime against humanity. no matter what law he asked to be passed.
Well, Charles Manson never killed anyone either....
Do you think he was wrongly convicted?
I'm not sure why you would want to hold Lively responsible for the acts and speech of others when it can't be demonstrated that he actually encouraged such
I say if he made a legal plea for a law, then he was acting legally. So he can't be guilty of a crime against humanity. no matter what law he asked to be passed.
Odd that someone can be sued when the whole story is not known
Investigations determine the information. Courts act on what is already known.
Rules of discovery require the defense to reveal whatever information they have, which means the information is there, we just don't have it. So if you did sue me, whatever information you had would have to be made availableyes, and that will be the job of his defense lawyers to prove he's innocent, just as in a case if I sued you saying you stole money from me, I would have to prove you did it, and you would provide evidence that you couldn't have done it.
In the court the Ugundan's would provide their evidence, and he would provide evidence like transcripts, recordings and such of what he said.
If I want to sue you for stealing my money I don't have to prove you stole it before the case I just have to provide my claim. I'm not sure what kind of law you think the US has. were not talking criminal case, were talking civil case wich has lower standards to go to trial and to be held acountable.
Investigations determine the information. Courts act on what is already known.
Often times coffee and donuts and after meeting discussions
After reading a bit further, I have to retract some of my earlier statements. He didn't explicitly call for the death of gay people. He did put forth a lot of charged points, though, some of which are not supported by modern science.
That to me is the key distinction - did he expressly advocate for murder, or did he give an opinion which was then taken by others and used to advocate for murder.
If it's the latter - there shouldn't be a case, because merely expressing an opinion which subsequently gives rise to harm isn't (and shouldn't be) illegal.
And thats for the courts to decide in this case, if he's directly responsible for the law in Ugunda then he be in trouble for pushing that kind of law in the US if it got passed let alone Uguna.