What the actual fuck? How can you throw out a case (dismissing it) but also order a penalization?
Can this be appealed?
That's how you deal with frivolous lawsuits. Pretty standard stuff in my experience, although maybe less so in america, land of the frivolous lawsuit.
The issue is more the ruling itself, although I can see where the judge is coming from. There is some truth to the idea that "outright lying via 'exaggeration'" is understood to be a standard part of american political speech.
Except, no, it's not. Lying, especially as Trump does, is so far outside the bounds of normal political discourse as to be a serious aberration. Study after study has shown that politicians work pretty hard to keep their promises made during their campaign. This meme of "politicians lie" is pretty much a lie itself.
This is more about using an elevated position to make someone look bad. Hence defamation.
“If this Court were to prevent Mr. Trump from engaging in this type of ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ against a political adversary, it would significantly hamper the office of the President,” Otero wrote.
“Any strongly-worded response by a president to another politician or public figure could constitute an action for defamation. This would deprive this country of the ‘discourse’ common to the political process,” he wrote.
A lie isn't a "strongly worded response."
He said her claim of being threatened was "a total con job." If what he said was true, then that's his defense; which he is welcome to make. If it's a lie, then that's the whole point of the suit! This is basically "Ok, he did it, but so what, it's his job."
Saying the president can't lie to slander others should not hamper the office of the President. Would it hamper Donald Trump? Most definitely!
Because he is unfit for the office of the fucking President.
ArbitraryDescriptor on
+32
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I’m not sure Daniels can be considered a political opponent, regardless.
“If this Court were to prevent Mr. Trump from engaging in this type of ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ against a political adversary, it would significantly hamper the office of the President,” Otero wrote.
“Any strongly-worded response by a president to another politician or public figure could constitute an action for defamation. This would deprive this country of the ‘discourse’ common to the political process,” he wrote.
He said her claim of being threatened was "a total con job." If what he said was true, then that's his defense; which he is welcome to make. If it's a lie, then that's the whole point of the suit!
Saying the president can't lie to slander others should not hamper the office of the President. Would it hamper Donald Trump? Most definitely!
Because he is unfit for the office of fucking President.
Also, the bolded text in the quote says "against a political adversary".
I don't recall Ms Clifford announcing a presidential run, so how is that a fucking argument?
Sure, Avenatti has, if you want to argue that, but this wasn't an attack on Avenatti.
Isn’t it historically difficult to argue defamation if you are a public figure, which Clifford can probably be considered (for reasons beyond her association with Trump)?
I mean the quote up page about it hampering the office of the President is pretty bullshit, but it seems unnecessary as it relates to rejecting a defamation case from a public figure.
I'd say Clifford is a miles of difference from someone like Trump and its a huge difference when the POTUS is using his bully pulpit to lie about you specifically.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I think the notion of "lie" has been considered kind of flexible, in that politicians call each other liars all the time. Usually it's things like "X said that his tax cut increased employment by 3%, but employment only increased by that much if you measure it based on an overly favorable set of conditions!" In which case it makes sense to set the standard for a lie very strictly, because otherwise everyone is lying all the time.
But now we're at a place where the president can just say that Obama invented ISIS to hide the fact that he was secretly born in Kenya and fathered by a jar of Marmite and WHO CAN FUCKING SAY WHAT FACTS EVEN ARE because lolz.
So this ruling is balls-deep in the gaping mouth of stupid, but it is also completely unsurprising.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I think the notion of "lie" has been considered kind of flexible, in that politicians call each other liars all the time. Usually it's things like "X said that his tax cut increased employment by 3%, but employment only increased by that much if you measure it based on an overly favorable set of conditions!" In which case it makes sense to set the standard for a lie very strictly, because otherwise everyone is lying all the time.
But now we're at a place where the president can just say that Obama invented ISIS to hide the fact that he was secretly born in Kenya and fathered by a jar of Marmite and WHO CAN FUCKING SAY WHAT FACTS EVEN ARE because lolz.
So this ruling is balls-deep in the gaping mouth of stupid, but it is also completely unsurprising.
A place where one of the president's lawyers literally goes on national television and says "Truth isn't truth"
So conclusion here is "president is above the law"?
It is really not. Slander has a long tradition in this country of having exceptions for obvious hyperbole. It is why, for example, I'm allowed to say that our president is a tangerine colored proto-hominid who can't even tie his own shoe laces much less understand defamation law. That statement has a bunch of things in it that are obviously not true but because it is clearly hyperbole it is not actionable.
There were some other comments about the Presidency in the finding that really feel besides the point.
So we're literally at the point where Trump makes so much shit up you legally can't expect him to ever be truthful
He’s a confabulist. He doesn’t really exist on this plane of reality. Truth isn’t a thing that exists in his worldview. He regards statements as points of attack, and he who gets his worldview as the dominant narrative is the winner. Actual fact is irrelevant. He’s very postmodern.
This breaks me. Does not compute. I do not understand how it is not defamation of character to call someone a liar when they are telling the truth. This isn't hyperbole, this is Fake News being enshrined as court precedent.
Ladies and Gentlemen, may I present your president. In addition to his...umm...shortcomings, he has demonstrated his incompetence, hatred of women and lack of self control on Twitter AGAIN! And perhaps a penchant for bestiality. Game on, Tiny.
Stormy Daniels (nee Stephanie Clifford) is a woman who is currently a plaintiff against the President over an abusive NDA.
So conclusion here is "president is above the law"?
It is really not. Slander has a long tradition in this country of having exceptions for obvious hyperbole. It is why, for example, I'm allowed to say that our president is a tangerine colored proto-hominid who can't even tie his own shoe laces much less understand defamation law. That statement has a bunch of things in it that are obviously not true but because it is clearly hyperbole it is not actionable.
There were some other comments about the Presidency in the finding that really feel besides the point.
Aye. I'm no familiar with the specific laws here and everything but the idea that one can throw out some hyperbole without being slapped with lawsuits is not prima facie ridiculous.
So conclusion here is "president is above the law"?
It is really not. Slander has a long tradition in this country of having exceptions for obvious hyperbole. It is why, for example, I'm allowed to say that our president is a tangerine colored proto-hominid who can't even tie his own shoe laces much less understand defamation law. That statement has a bunch of things in it that are obviously not true but because it is clearly hyperbole it is not actionable.
There were some other comments about the Presidency in the finding that really feel besides the point.
Aye. I'm no familiar with the specific laws here and everything but the idea that one can throw out some hyperbole without being slapped with lawsuits is not prima facie ridiculous.
And I get that. However, the sorts of things being said in this case and by the people involved are not your normal hyperbole. Nor is the intended or desired effect of his speech.
This is not a citizen expressing their political opinion or spilling their invective on the editorial pages. This is the occupant of the highest of offices using the amplification of that office to convict in the court of public opinion a private citizen they may or may not have sullied their marriage with. If that situation alone doesn't cause a court to pause and reconsider the nature of what the meaning of free expression should entail and the limits imposed upon such by statue and by precedent, then I'm not certain there should limits imposed on anyone. Because that's where this sort of a punted ruling leads.
Another example of the norms of the office being violated because we trusted our elected office to not be avatars of avarice and lust for nothing but power itself. That's an example of normal political hyperbole. What the current president is doing is nothing like that. A line has been crossed by him and a court should be able to see that line as clearly as any other.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
Let’s all take a minute to imagine Obama saying such things.
+18
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
I keep thinking.. man, that tweet would be amazing for a defamation lawsuit... and then I remember it's the response to a defamation lawsuit getting dismissed.
I keep thinking.. man, that tweet would be amazing for a defamation lawsuit... and then I remember it's the response to a defamation lawsuit getting dismissed.
Judge: There is no proof that the defendant called the plaintiff a “cunt.” Case dismissed.
Defendant: You all see how that cunt was lying about me now, right?
Let’s all take a minute to imagine Obama saying such things.
Saying this...to a woman he allegedly had an affair with (although it seems he had affairs with several women around that time)...months after his 3rd wife gave birth to his 5th child.
It’s insane how Republicans completely ignore all of this when they would have burned down the capital of it were Obama.
Let’s all take a minute to imagine Obama saying such things.
Saying this...to a woman he allegedly had an affair with (although it seems he had affairs with several women around that time)...months after his 3rd wife gave birth to his 5th child.
It’s insane how Republicans completely ignore all of this when they would have burned down the capital of it were Obama.
It's what makes it obvious they don't give a shit about their supposed morality and all their attempts to attack others for it are cynical ploys.
Let’s all take a minute to imagine Obama saying such things.
Saying this...to a woman he allegedly had an affair with (although it seems he had affairs with several women around that time)...months after his 3rd wife gave birth to his 5th child.
It’s insane how Republicans completely ignore all of this when they would have burned down the capital of it were Obama.
Republicans: “Can a man not make mistakes? If God can forgive, then so can I.”
Let’s all take a minute to imagine Obama saying such things.
Saying this...to a woman he allegedly had an affair with (although it seems he had affairs with several women around that time)...months after his 3rd wife gave birth to his 5th child.
It’s insane how Republicans completely ignore all of this when they would have burned down the capital of it were Obama.
Eh, 'when they would have angrily grumbled and talked about how someone (someone definately not them) should do something about this guy if it were Obama'
Let’s all take a minute to imagine Obama saying such things.
Saying this...to a woman he allegedly had an affair with (although it seems he had affairs with several women around that time)...months after his 3rd wife gave birth to his 5th child.
It’s insane how Republicans completely ignore all of this when they would have burned down the capital of it were Obama.
Republicans: “Can a man not make mistakes? If God can forgive, then so can I.”
P.s. “Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!”
(Although this was perhaps what you were implying, CelestialBadger?)
Posts
Good grief, this is such a horeshit premise.
A lie isn't a "strongly worded response."
He said her claim of being threatened was "a total con job." If what he said was true, then that's his defense; which he is welcome to make. If it's a lie, then that's the whole point of the suit! This is basically "Ok, he did it, but so what, it's his job."
Saying the president can't lie to slander others should not hamper the office of the President. Would it hamper Donald Trump? Most definitely!
Because he is unfit for the office of the fucking President.
Also, the bolded text in the quote says "against a political adversary".
I don't recall Ms Clifford announcing a presidential run, so how is that a fucking argument?
Sure, Avenatti has, if you want to argue that, but this wasn't an attack on Avenatti.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I mean the quote up page about it hampering the office of the President is pretty bullshit, but it seems unnecessary as it relates to rejecting a defamation case from a public figure.
pleasepaypreacher.net
But now we're at a place where the president can just say that Obama invented ISIS to hide the fact that he was secretly born in Kenya and fathered by a jar of Marmite and WHO CAN FUCKING SAY WHAT FACTS EVEN ARE because lolz.
So this ruling is balls-deep in the gaping mouth of stupid, but it is also completely unsurprising.
A place where one of the president's lawyers literally goes on national television and says "Truth isn't truth"
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
It is really not. Slander has a long tradition in this country of having exceptions for obvious hyperbole. It is why, for example, I'm allowed to say that our president is a tangerine colored proto-hominid who can't even tie his own shoe laces much less understand defamation law. That statement has a bunch of things in it that are obviously not true but because it is clearly hyperbole it is not actionable.
There were some other comments about the Presidency in the finding that really feel besides the point.
I think legalese is 'not subject to'.
He’s a confabulist. He doesn’t really exist on this plane of reality. Truth isn’t a thing that exists in his worldview. He regards statements as points of attack, and he who gets his worldview as the dominant narrative is the winner. Actual fact is irrelevant. He’s very postmodern.
Well, it is true he is a total con.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
It's been used to describe Chelsea Clinton and Michelle Obama quite a bit on Right Wing Radio and TV.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I recall this being a disgusting smear against certain types of women (even a joke on Family Guy); Sarah Jessica park and Julia Roberts
Assholes, in my experience anyway.
Our President!
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Our President!
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
Stormy Daniels (nee Stephanie Clifford) is a woman who is currently a plaintiff against the President over an abusive NDA.
Aye. I'm no familiar with the specific laws here and everything but the idea that one can throw out some hyperbole without being slapped with lawsuits is not prima facie ridiculous.
And I get that. However, the sorts of things being said in this case and by the people involved are not your normal hyperbole. Nor is the intended or desired effect of his speech.
This is not a citizen expressing their political opinion or spilling their invective on the editorial pages. This is the occupant of the highest of offices using the amplification of that office to convict in the court of public opinion a private citizen they may or may not have sullied their marriage with. If that situation alone doesn't cause a court to pause and reconsider the nature of what the meaning of free expression should entail and the limits imposed upon such by statue and by precedent, then I'm not certain there should limits imposed on anyone. Because that's where this sort of a punted ruling leads.
Another example of the norms of the office being violated because we trusted our elected office to not be avatars of avarice and lust for nothing but power itself. That's an example of normal political hyperbole. What the current president is doing is nothing like that. A line has been crossed by him and a court should be able to see that line as clearly as any other.
Judge: There is no proof that the defendant called the plaintiff a “cunt.” Case dismissed.
Defendant: You all see how that cunt was lying about me now, right?
Saying this...to a woman he allegedly had an affair with (although it seems he had affairs with several women around that time)...months after his 3rd wife gave birth to his 5th child.
It’s insane how Republicans completely ignore all of this when they would have burned down the capital of it were Obama.
It's what makes it obvious they don't give a shit about their supposed morality and all their attempts to attack others for it are cynical ploys.
Republicans: “Can a man not make mistakes? If God can forgive, then so can I.”
P.s. “Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!”
Eh, 'when they would have angrily grumbled and talked about how someone (someone definately not them) should do something about this guy if it were Obama'
(Although this was perhaps what you were implying, CelestialBadger?)