What should be done about the MAGA terrorist threat?

[userque]

eh...that's a BS charge that shouldn't stick. I'm free to influence people however I want w/my speech. If it's foreign entities, that's a different thing altogether.

Even with lies?

I don't think intentional lies should be considered free speech. We have seen what they can lead to.

When corporations lie, it's called fraud, and is actionable. We do need to penalize individuals for intentionally spreading bullshit, imo.

 

[Cuddles]

 

[Cuddles]

Even with lies?

I don't think intentional lies should be considered free speech. We have seen what they can lead to.

When corporations lie, it's called fraud, and is actionable. We do need to penalize individuals for intentionally spreading bullshit, imo.

That would mean every GOP politician and 3/4 of the dems would need to be penalized. Show me a politician that doesn't lie?

 

[Overnight]

...Show me a politician that doesn't lie?

George Washington! I mean, after all, he said he cannot tell a lie! Then he went on a slash and burn campaign against cherry trees. Bloody wanker he was!

 

[userque]

That would mean every GOP politician and 3/4 of the dems would need to be penalized. Show me a politician that doesn't lie?

Intentional lies.

Perhaps those statistics would change if there were penalties.

How many people cheat on their taxes? How many get caught?

Just because so many do it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be illegal.

Along with making intentionally false statements unlawful, there would still have to be a showing of damages. So an intentionally false statement, where no one claims harm, would not be actionable.

The definition of 'damage' would have to be expanded to include things like 'reputation,' 'damage to democracy,' etc.

 

[Cuddles]

Intentional lies.

Perhaps those statistics would change if there were penalties.

How many people cheat on their taxes? How many get caught?

Just because so many do it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be illegal.

Along with making intentionally false statements unlawful, there would still have to be a showing of damages. So an intentionally false statement, where no one claims harm, would not be actionable.

The definition of 'damage' would have to be expanded to include things like 'reputation,' 'damage to democracy,' etc.

How do you prove a lie was intentional if I can just lie about my intent?

 

[userque]

How do you prove a lie was intentional if I can just lie about my intent?

Right, most criminals lie about their intent in court. Doesn't mean it'll be believed by the judge/jury.

Consider what I'm saying as simply expanding the defamation laws to include false statements generally...but relaxing the damages requirement to include damages to institutions (democracy), and allowing solely harming reputation to also be a damage, etc.

"Elements
To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement."

Regarding your reply on Intent:

"Actual Malice Standard
In The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), the Supreme Court held that for a publicly-known figure to succeed on a defamation claims, the public-figure plaintiff must show that the false, defaming statements was said with "actual malice." The Sullivan court stated that"actual malice" means that the defendant said the defamatory statement "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." The Sullivan court also held that when the standard is actual malice, the plaintiff must prove actual malice by "clear and convincing" evidence, rather than the usual burden of proof in a civil case, which is the preponderance of the evidence standard. On this point, the precise language the Sullivan court uses is that the plaintiff must show "the convincing clarity which the constitutional standard demands.""

Intent would have to be proved similar to how it is already proved in some defamation cases.

We can't always prove crimes, guilty people do walk; yet, we still maintain laws and keep trying.

After we've seen how dangerous false statements can be, I think we should at least try to do something about it...like twitter, facebook, amazon, and the corporations withholding money to specific politicians have done.

Quotes from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation

 

[Cuddles]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/dhs-is...bYPIJtzYISoLxthzPSpQlH6K4lIF1ftTAn17RsZ9sjH8k
DHS Issues Its First National Terrorism Bulletin for Domestic Extremists
Advisory warns that Jan. 6 riot at Capitol could motivate extremists to attack in coming weeks

The Proud Boys, a far-right group, have tried to play down their role in the Capitol riot. A WSJ investigation shows that at many of the day’s key moments, Proud Boys were at the forefront.

The Department of Homeland Security issued its first-ever national terrorism bulletin about violent domestic extremists, warning they could attack in the coming weeks, emboldened by the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

DHS, in an advisory Wednesday, said violent extremists opposed to the government and the presidential transition “could continue to mobilize to incite or commit violence,” though the department said it doesn’t have evidence of a specific plot.

The bulletin said that violent extremists have been “motivated by a range of issues, including anger over Covid-19 restrictions, the 2020 election results, and police use of force” as well as “long-standing racial and ethnic tension, including opposition to immigration.”

DHS has commonly issued terrorism bulletins, though those warnings usually focus on foreign-inspired threats. While this advisory mentions terrorists inspired by foreign ideologies, it is notable for its focus on domestic violent extremists—the first such bulletin ever published, according to a DHS spokesman.

The most recent DHS bulletin—a warning that Iran had the potential to carry out cyberattacks—came a year ago. DHS didn’t issue a bulletin ahead of the planned Jan. 6 rally in Washington, D.C. that devolved into a mob attack at the Capitol, despite public chatter online about the extremists’ plans.

 

[Cuddles]

Right, most criminals lie about their intent in court. Doesn't mean it'll be believed by the judge/jury.

Consider what I'm saying as simply expanding the defamation laws to include false statements generally...but relaxing the damages requirement to include damages to institutions (democracy), and allowing solely harming reputation to also be a damage, etc.

"Elements
To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement."

Regarding your reply on Intent:

"Actual Malice Standard
In The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), the Supreme Court held that for a publicly-known figure to succeed on a defamation claims, the public-figure plaintiff must show that the false, defaming statements was said with "actual malice." The Sullivan court stated that"actual malice" means that the defendant said the defamatory statement "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." The Sullivan court also held that when the standard is actual malice, the plaintiff must prove actual malice by "clear and convincing" evidence, rather than the usual burden of proof in a civil case, which is the preponderance of the evidence standard. On this point, the precise language the Sullivan court uses is that the plaintiff must show "the convincing clarity which the constitutional standard demands.""

Intent would have to be proved similar to how it is already proved in some defamation cases.

We can't always prove crimes, guilty people do walk; yet, we still maintain laws and keep trying.

After we've seen how dangerous false statements can be, I think we should at least try to do something about it...like twitter, facebook, amazon, and the corporations withholding money to specific politicians have done.

Quotes from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation

I'll need to do some reading on the case. At first skimming it appeared to be just some dude making political memes but could've overstepped by misdirecting voters about dates/locations/etc..

 

[WeToddDid2]