IANAL, but I’m pretty sure calling someone a rapist who hasn’t been convicted in a court of law of being a rapist could get you into trouble. Now the fascist part is completely subjective so you could probably get away with it.
That’s not defamation because I have good reason to believe that.
Remember, the presumption of innocence is not a matter of fact- it’s an assumption that dictates procedural principles until it is in fact proven. But, if you rape some one… your a rapist. Period.
Simply believing a thing is true will not protect you from a defamation suit. You have to know he is, not just believe it. I suppose this varies from country to country.
I’m not obsessed with Donald Trump like most people seem to be, so I don’t follow his news much. I don’t have good reason to believe he’s a rapist, and prefer to wait until he’s convicted in a court of law, and would hope others would give me the same benefit of the doubt.
We don’t need something to “sound like rape”. If he was guilty of it, meaning there was sufficient evidence, in the jury’s opinion, the jury would have found him guilty of it. I’m sure they weren’t looking to do him any favors. Obviously the defense failed to prove their case relative to rape.
Now, did he do it? Probably. He’s a career criminal. But the line has to be drawn somewhere, and for me, if you’re found guilty of it, be it a criminal court room, or a civil one, that’s when I can safely say a person is what they’ve been found guilty of being.
Take emotions and opinions out of it, and just stick to the facts. He’s guilty in a civil case of defamation and sexual abuse.
I don’t particularly care what the legal system calls something that’s pretty much impossible to prove. And I don’t understand why you’re using my words as if it’s legally relevant. I’ll quote the article, because I don’t think you’ve read it: “A judge has now clarified that this is basically a legal distinction without a real-world difference.”
According to the defamation lawsuit Trump committed sexual assault. And since common parlance doesnt differentiat between sexual assault and rape you could probably call him a rapist.
And according to the counter suit, carol is allowed to call him a rapist.
Remember, you don’t have to be convicted of rape to be a rapist, you are not innocent and then magically guilty. It is merely a presumption of innocence until proven so, but that’s a procedural thing to prevent the courts from infringing on rights. It has absolutely nothing to do with the true facts of guilt.
keep in mind, we’re talking about the show that toppled Scientology.
just, for the record… part of how it’s able to make fun of shit is because they’re usually correct about the stuff they’re mocking.
Saying ‘Biden is a baby-sacrificing pedophile’ is defamation. saying ‘trump is a rapist and a fascist’ is not.
further, both parody and satire are in fact protected speech. at least, for the moment.
IANAL, but I’m pretty sure calling someone a rapist who hasn’t been convicted in a court of law of being a rapist could get you into trouble. Now the fascist part is completely subjective so you could probably get away with it.
Nope. I sincerely believe Trump is a rapist.
That’s not defamation because I have good reason to believe that.
Remember, the presumption of innocence is not a matter of fact- it’s an assumption that dictates procedural principles until it is in fact proven. But, if you rape some one… your a rapist. Period.
Simply believing a thing is true will not protect you from a defamation suit. You have to know he is, not just believe it. I suppose this varies from country to country.
I’m not obsessed with Donald Trump like most people seem to be, so I don’t follow his news much. I don’t have good reason to believe he’s a rapist, and prefer to wait until he’s convicted in a court of law, and would hope others would give me the same benefit of the doubt.
No, the fact that a judge ruled that he raped someone is what protects one from a defamation suit. At that point you’re just quoting the judge
Jury. A jury in 2023 found him liable for sexual abuse/defamation where Carol was awarded $5 million.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-rape-carroll-trial-fe68259a4b98bb3947d42af9ec83d7db
This year, another jury awarded her an additional $83 million for defamation.
I read three articles, and watched an NBC video, not one of them stated he was found liable for rape.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/
This is what I was going off of. Sounded to me like rape. I’m no lawyer tho.
We don’t need something to “sound like rape”. If he was guilty of it, meaning there was sufficient evidence, in the jury’s opinion, the jury would have found him guilty of it. I’m sure they weren’t looking to do him any favors. Obviously the defense failed to prove their case relative to rape.
Now, did he do it? Probably. He’s a career criminal. But the line has to be drawn somewhere, and for me, if you’re found guilty of it, be it a criminal court room, or a civil one, that’s when I can safely say a person is what they’ve been found guilty of being.
Take emotions and opinions out of it, and just stick to the facts. He’s guilty in a civil case of defamation and sexual abuse.
I don’t particularly care what the legal system calls something that’s pretty much impossible to prove. And I don’t understand why you’re using my words as if it’s legally relevant. I’ll quote the article, because I don’t think you’ve read it: “A judge has now clarified that this is basically a legal distinction without a real-world difference.”
According to the defamation lawsuit Trump committed sexual assault. And since common parlance doesnt differentiat between sexual assault and rape you could probably call him a rapist.
All rape is sexual assault, not all sexual assault is rape. Calling all sexual assault rape dilutes the term.
And according to the counter suit, carol is allowed to call him a rapist.
Remember, you don’t have to be convicted of rape to be a rapist, you are not innocent and then magically guilty. It is merely a presumption of innocence until proven so, but that’s a procedural thing to prevent the courts from infringing on rights. It has absolutely nothing to do with the true facts of guilt.
It’s not defamation.