Why did it take so long for people to sue the right for lying, defamation, slander and libel?

Politics & Elections
21

In a law suit, you have to figure out:

  1. What are the damages, can i credibly quantify them?

  2. Do I have evidence that’ll convince a jury?

  3. Could I win against the person I’m suing?

  4. Would I be able to actually collect what I’m owed?

There’s a lot to consider. If you can’t say “yes” to all of that, you won’t come out ahead in the end, and it’s not worth it. Add the high bar put in to prove defamation and it makes it really difficult.

I’d say the fact that someone credible is going through with this (not just a crackpot) shows how extraordinary the circumstances are.

22

I don’t think you need a unanimous jury in a civil case. Can some lawyerly type clarify?

But that is why I doubt that Trump can ever be convicted in any criminal proceedings. The jury decides on the facts and for a trumper, the “facts” are what Trump thinks they ought to be.

23

How much of that was due to his own efforts? Trump has spent his whole life being handed things. And that includes his presidency.

24

My apologies; I don’t know how I could have possibly gotten confused. Carry on.

25

This is a sidetrack to this thread, one I probably shouldn’t have started. I think to the extent I’m disagreeing with either of you, it’s a pretty subtle difference, anyway. Please disregard my comments and carry on.

26

Then the disagreement is that I would still call that lying. If someone knows the truth but says something contrary to that truth, it is lying.

The problem seems to be that Trump is not good at knowing what is necessarily useful. He just seems to lie reflexively, without putting any thought into it.

What he seems to instinctively rely on are two things: that the bolder the lie, the more people will believe, and that you should say what your target audience wants to hear, so they’ll come up with the excuses for you. He also noticed that a new lie (especially a larger one) can distract from an precious lie.

He does not seem to ever actually think about his lies. But, if he knows that what he’s saying is not the truth, but says it anyways, that is a lie. Many lies are made by instinct and no thought.

A better liar would be able to do all Trump does, but also be able to think about which lie would be the most convincing or least likely to get them into trouble. Trump generally hasn’t gotten in trouble for his lies, and has always tended to lie to people who were I a less powerful position than him, and thus their disbelief did not hamper his goals.

He did seem to learn a bit about how to avoid legal liability from his lawsuits, but only in a specific context of never saying exactly what he wants the other person to do for him (like a Mafia boss). He didn’t learn more complex stuff because he’s always been able to steamroll over others with brazenness and money. Heck, with more powerful opposition, even not directly saying things might not be enough. He’s no longer a merely a rich businessman who our capitalist system is too reluctant to pubish.

If he were smarter, he’d figure out the change in circumstances and make changes, not go entirely on instinct.

But, regardless of how much thought he puts into it, I would still call it lying.

27

Other commenters point out that you have to prove damages, usually monetary loss. If someone bad-mouths you with false information, that they KNEW was false at the time they said it… stronger case. But you have to prove that they knew they were lying. There’s no penalty for sloppy fact-checking, which there should be.

Lawyers want cases they can win, otherwise they need a lot of fees upfront.

28

It depends. A lot. ianal.

https://www.findlaw.com/litigation/legal-system/must-all-jury-verdicts-be-unanimous.html

29

In New York, where the Smartmatic case was filed, a civil jury has 6 jurors, not 12.

The verdict doesn’t have to be unanimous, but you need 5 out of 6.

30

I just hope they’re taking a good long look at who profited from the disinformation campaign, and if there are any financial connections between those companies, their investors, and anyone involved in trashing the reputations of their competitors.

Not to make any accusations, but they could start here.

31

IANAL.

A rather simplistic take on this question is the David and Goliath thing.

Civil litigation can be really complex and really costly. There’s also a propensity for the better-funded party to win – particularly in lengthy and complex litigation.

And many jurisdictions are “loser pays,” where – regardless of how meritorious your claim is/was – if you lose, you may be liable to reimburse the prevailing party for costs/fees of litigation.

So the penalty for failure can be extreme.

I liken it to this:

You and a couple of your buddies are drinking at a bar when some Navy SEAL is hammered, shooting his mouth off, and making inappropriate comments about your girlfriend.

One of your buddies remarks that “somebody” ought to go over there and put that SEAL in his place.

And maybe “somebody” should.

But it isn’t going to be me :wink:

32

Someone has to show actual damages from the lies. That’s hard to do for most people.

33

I read once that this is the difference between a liar and a BS artist. The liar knows what the truth is and is knowingly lying. The BS artist doesn’t know what the truth is and doesn’t care. He says whatever feels good in the moment.

34

(bolding mine)

TL; DR: Part of the problem is, basically, if someone lies all the time, like a pathological liar, it’s very difficult to prove in court that they knew anything they said was a lie.

For the longer version, I recommend watching this 8-minute-or-so bit in 2004’s Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism about Bill O’Reilly’s slander of the son of a NYFD guy who was killed trying to rescue people at the World Trade Center and why the kid, who was called out on national television, was left with no practical recourse to seek any kind of restitution. I’ve queued the video but it is free with ads on YouTube, so sorry in advance eh.

35

I think that’s one factor that led to Casey Anthony being acquitted of murdering her daughter. While lying to the police was suspicious and implied that she was covering up a crime, the fact that she seemed so pathological in her lying supported the idea that she lied just because that’s what she did.

She did end up being convicted of lying to investigators, but that’s it. Perversely, being an established habitual liar can work as a legal defense under the right circumstances.

36

There are valid reasons behind insanity defenses and mens rea and all the rest. But ISTM in the case of somebody like Casey Anthony the right answer is: “Either your sane and belong in jail due to mens rea or you’re insane and belong in jail due to your untrustworthiness as a normal human.”

37

No, you must be a danger to others. You can be committed if you are a danger to yourself, also.

They are people wandering around stark, raving mad.

38

The woman in question murdered her daughter. It’s self-evident she was a danger to others.

Insanity at the level of disconnection from reality (i.e hallucinations), or inability to discern right from wrong may be a defense to a crime. But it also should be a one-way ticket to protective custody before any crime. Protective for the rest of us.

39

This is not correct. Some lies are actionable per se, this means that they are so gross that damage may be assumed without needing to prove it.

cite

Traditionally, there have been four general categories of untrue statements presumed to be harmful to one’s reputation and therefore actionable as an injury claim. Typically, if the statements don’t fall into one of these categories, the plaintiff is required to prove their damages. If it does fall into one of these categories, damages are usually presumed.

The four general categories are:

  • Indications that a person was involved in criminal activity
  • Indications that a person had a “loathsome,” contagious or infectious disease
  • Indications that a person was unchaste or engaged in sexual misconduct
  • Indications that a person was involved in behavior incompatible with the proper conduct of his business, trade or profession

Rudy and Sydney and others accused the voting machine companies of deliberately changing the results of the election. That would be both an accusation of serious criminal activity, and also of behaviour incompatible with proper conduct of their trade and business.

40

Yes, in her case. But in general, your untrustworthiness as a normal human is not a reason to be committed.

But do note, she was acquitted. Perhaps not guilty at all.