Fired founder of right-wing org Project Veritas is under investigation

[Belk]

If you work for XYZ company. And the company is one I don’t like because it brings out the worst of a political party I identify with.

Accusations are made and I call you a shill a liar and a thief, when you have not been con I text of any of those.

That is not opinion, it is slander.

Those are not mutually exclusive categories. Slander has a legal definition and it requires that someone be materially harmed. If I call someone "a shill a liar and a thief" and everyone shrugs and things continue as normal it is not slander.

 

[DaisyDay]

Do you believe in the "Presumption Of Innocence" below?

Wikipedia:The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact (a judge or a jury).

Do you even understand my claim? Smiles?

 

[DaisyDay]

Those are not mutually exclusive categories. Slander has a legal definition and it requires that someone be materially harmed. If I call someone "a shill a liar and a thief" and everyone shrugs and things continue as normal it is not slander.

I think it is still slander, just not actionable.

 

[Belk]

I think it is still slander, just not actionable.

Hmmmm.. The definition I am reading says it must cause harm but I claim no legal acumen.

 

[DaisyDay]

Hmmmm.. The definition I am reading says it must cause harm but I claim no legal acumen.

Emotional harm? Since you said that awful thing about me, I haven't been able to eat or sleep, hardly. My partner is suing you for loss of companionship? since I have neglected him ever since that incident.

 

[Belk]

Emotional harm? Since you said that awful thing about me, I haven't been able to eat or sleep, hardly. My partner is suing you for loss of companionship? since I have neglected him ever since that incident.

Demonstrable harm, so like loss of business or reputation.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Those are not mutually exclusive categories. Slander has a legal definition and it requires that someone be materially harmed. If I call someone "a shill a liar and a thief" and everyone shrugs and things continue as normal it is not slander.

On this we disagree - I believe it is rude, unmannerly, uncivil and close to slander.

 

[Always in His Presence]

I guess Project Veritas board of Directors are Slanderous people!

Did they call him a liar, thief or shill? Or did they file formal charges initiating and investigation?

That my friend is the difference.

 

[DaisyDay]

Demonstrable harm, so like loss of business or reputation.

You don't see the circles under my eyes and my hollowed cheeks?!

 

[JustOneWay]

Did they call him a liar, thief or shill? Or did they file formal charges initiating and investigation?

That my friend is the difference.

LOL. Now one must utter the words "liar, thief or shill"! If you bothered to read the articles posted -

"In a statement, CEO Hannah Giles said, “Project Veritas did not initiate any potential investigation the Westchester DA’s office may be conducting with respect to James O’Keefe."

Project Veritas FIRED him and claimed"and accused O'Keefe of spending "an excessive amount of donor funds in the last three years on personal luxuries." which is an accusation of stealing! They accused him of being a thief! SLANDER!

 

[Belk]

On this we disagree - I believe it is rude, unmannerly, uncivil and close to slander.

I'm not sure I understand what the disagreement is?

 

[Belk]

You don't see the circles under my eyes and my hollowed cheeks?!

No, but apparently your partner does. j/K.

From what I understand the bar is pretty high for slander since by it's nature it impinges free speech. Certainly you could try this as an argument but I doubt it would fly.

 

[JustOneWay]

No, but apparently your partner does. j/K.

From what I understand the bar is pretty high for slander since by it's nature it impinges free speech. Certainly you could try this as an argument but I doubt it would fly.

The only thing I have to say is the rules for slander here are not the same as in the real world, and there can be punishment regardless of the legal definition. That is what I have learned here today. There is no real free speech here.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Of course it applies outside the court system

No, it doesn't.

"Presumption of innocence" is a legal principle that applies to criminal charges inside the court system. It has no general applicability to ordinary life.

Not being an officer of the court, a witness, or a juror, it doesn't apply to me regarding criminal cases either. Even after they are tried.

I think the evidence leads to the conclusion that OJ Simpson killed his ex-wife and some other poor fellow she knew with a knife. I am not bound by the trial jury. Another jury found him liable to their families for their wrongful deaths. (On a different burden of proof.) Of course my opinion (widely held) does not impact the legal status of Mr Simpson and it cannot send him to jail for murder.

Donald J. Trump was "Accused" of Russia collusion, if a person relied on the liberal democratic MSM he was 100% guilty, and it was repeated daily

No criminal charges were filed. "Presumption of innocence" is not relevant.

John Durham investigated the scope of Muellers investigation, and all contributing factors, the criminal treasonous rogue players were everybody but Donald J. Trump

Only a couple charges were filed (mostly lying to the FBI). None were treason.

Hillary Clinton, DNC, FBI James Comey, Peter Strzok, Andy McCabe, Lisa Paige, and a whole bunch more

Again, zero criminal charges here. The "presumption of innocence" principle does not apply.

Kyle Rittenhouse was accused of 1st degree murder, and once again the liberal MSM claimed over and over again he was guilty, and he was acquitted of his alleged crimes by a jury

Rittenhouse is not legally a murderer, but he is a killer as can be seen on video. That fact wasn't even contested in the trial, just intent.

Innocent until proven guilty

Is what happens in court.

 

[Truth7t7]

Do you even understand my claim? Smiles?

Bigger Smiles

 

[Pommer]

Do you believe in the "Presumption Of Innocence" below?

Wikipedia:The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact (a judge or a jury).

Enjoy being incorrect, you’re so good at it.

 

[Truth7t7]

Enjoy being incorrect, you’re so good at it.

We need to be a little more sensitive, we shouldn't be talking about the DNC and Joe Biden like that

 

[Pommer]

We need to be a little more sensitive, we shouldn't be talking about the DNC and Joe Biden like that

Lame

 

[durangodawood]

Do you believe in the "Presumption Of Innocence" below?

Wikipedia:The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact (a judge or a jury).

Sounds like a reasonable legal principle.

But its no reason for me to abandon my own good sense about who did what.

 

[Truth7t7]

Lame

Yes Biden is