Sadly, this part is wrong. It demonstrates a sound appreciation of the immoral, hate-filled stupidity of the American public.
Vance sez; I know the Haitians are here legally, I don’t care, I’m still gonna deport them.
This makes me pretty sure they’ll come up with all sorts of creative ways to call brown and black peope," illegal." Then they’ll joyfully inter, force labor, and eventually deport them. Don’t tell me steven miller and vance wouldn’t revel in this and be camp commanders.
I mean, Trump has basically been telling us for months that he intends to commit a Holocaust if elected. “The biggest mass deportation in history” can only end one way for the tens of millions of people he’s talking about.
He talked about the same kind of thing in 2016.
https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/8y14i/ill_help_you_pack_comic/
c. 2007 comic of an indigenous American saying “I’ll help you pack” to a white American who is complaining about “illegal immigrants.”
One would assume that said Haitians have standing to sue for any damages or mental hardship that come, due to any of these statements?
At this point, I would say that Couchboy has Neimüllered the conversation.
That would be slander laws, and they only apply if a person can be personally identified from the slander. Since Vance has only been throwing out slurs against the population of Haitians in Springfield in general, and no particular individuals, then there doesn’t seem to be anything actionable.
Of course, the law will change from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But Ohio’s law seems to be clear that it has to be against an individual.
https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2739.01
If the allegation is denied, the plaintiff must prove the facts, showing that the defamatory matter was published or spoken of him.
This page has more detail:
In Gosden v. Louis, 116 Ohio App.3d 195, 206 (9th Dist. 1996), the Ohio Court of Appeals identified five core elements a plaintiff must prove to succeed in a defamation claim.
- There must exist a false statement of fact,
- About the plaintiff,
- Published or communicated to a third party,
- With at least a negligent level of intent,
- That was either ‘defamatory per se’ or caused damage to the plaintiff’s reputation.
And further:
The false statement must be “of and concerning the plaintiff,” meaning that a statement need not explicitly identify the plaintiff. As long as a reasonable person would understand the statement to be about the plaintiff, then the statement will be considered “of and concerning the plaintiff.”
Again, it has to be directed against the plaintiff themselves, or done in such a manner that a reasonable person would understand it was against the plaintiff. If you slander an entire population of people that a particular person is a member of, Joe Joseph can’t claim in court that anyone listening to Vance’s comments believes that Vance was specifically accusing Joe of stealing and eating his neighbor’s pets, and that’s why Joe’s record shop went out of business.
Also, there have been attempts to establish criminal laws in the US to make it a crime to defame classes of people, and those laws are routinely struck down due to the perception that they violate the First Amendment. Here is a discussion:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-7-5-8/ALDE_00013809/
Or to put it another way, the US does not criminalize hate speech the way that many other developed countries do. So unfortunately, I don’t think Vance has any legal risk despite how dangerous his remarks are.
(As always, I’m not a lawyer, this is just my lay opinion.)
IMO you’d need to establish direct nexus between any given act of stochastic terrorism and the incitement by trump / vance. That’d be a criminal indictment rather than civil liability for creating a hostile living environment for all these folks.
Did Alex Jones name names or just attack the Sandy Hook parents generally as “government crisis actors”?
You don’t have to “name names” for defamation. You just have to speak in a way that allows someone to know that you’re speaking about them. The parents of the Sandy Hook victims were a relatively small group.
I don’t know where the line is for how broad a brush you can paint. If you’re talking thousands of people, like what is estimated about the Haitian population of Springfield, that seems to be too broad. For Jones, he was liable for the defamation of the families of 8 people. I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know how that line is drawn in US courts. First Amendment issues are not simple ones.
Reporter: What do you have to say about Mark Robinson?
Vance: My dumb stupid kid got me sick and Kamala singlehandedly causes inflation
Here is JD telling the world that car seats are why we don’t have enough children.
@not_what_you_d_expect – do you have a short description that doesn’t rely on xitter?
(And I’m starting to think that not only does xitter only show me sign-in screens, but that it’s somebody linking there which causes some of my thread pages to go haywire. Not sure of that yet, though. Will have to wait a while and see whether any non-xitter thread pages do so, as the problem’s intermittent.) ETA: and appears, also, to be just me.
I’m sorry, I can’t find it anywhere else. I did look because I know there are folks here without twitter. He basically says:
There’s evidence that the car seat rules that we impose have driven down the number of babies born in this country.
But he does assure us that, of course he wants kids to drive in car seats.
I’ll take “Post hoc ergo prompter hoc” for $200 Alex.
Would you still have to phrase “post hoc ergo prompter hoc” in the form of a question?
JD, dude, you went to college and law school – did you never have to take a single statistics class? Here, let me tell you about the difference between “correlation” and “causation”…
In other words, JD seems to think that car seat laws are what keep parents from having big broods of kids, because they can no longer legally just let the kids ride around loose in the “way back” of the Country Squire station wagon, the way our parents did.
Between this and his comments upthread, my thesis on Vance reiterates itself - he doesn’t actually like children, his own or others, and his anger at childless people is out of jealousy.