Good news! The Springfield Haitians are filing criminal charges against Trump and JD Vance!

[playtime]

Fuck the Haitians.

no thank you, but whatever turns you on - i say go for it, kitty cat.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Again, they are NOT "illegals".
They are here on green card work invitations.
And of course they are "citizens".
Everyone is born somewhere, so are citizens of somewhere.
The term "private citizens" does not specify what country they are citizens of.

Until they take an oath of citizenship they're not US citizens. I learned this in like middle school. Where were you?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Right.
Reject all the fake claims at hearings.

Yes, I believe that's the current system.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The execution being done to "score political points" is not only likely true, but is not being stated as a proven fact. It can only be opinion because there is no way to know or check.

Trump and Vance stated things which could have been in known and checks. The fact the Haitians had green cards was not hard to discover. Any everyone should know that cats and dogs are predators, so then are universally not considered food. The few Asian cultures that eat cats and dogs know how to treat the flesh to remove the toxic uric acid. But it is very rare anyone eats predators.

The execution being done to "score political points" is not only likely true, but is not being stated as a proven fact. It can only be opinion because there is no way to know or check.

Come on..that’s a cop out. In post 246 you said this:

Wrong.

When you make harmful public statements such as the Haitians being illegal and eating cats and dogs, what you believe to be true is not a sufficient defense.

Legally you have to investigate and determine what is true before you make these public statements.

There is no evidence he allowed the execution to score political points. Because of this, it’s defamation and we should be able to sue him and everyone who says things like he does, right?

Or…

You recognize that Trump said what he said based off of what he believes based on what he was told, but didn’t intend on harm to those people and thus wasn’t trying to defame them.

Part of defamation is saying something you know to be false. Did trump know that was false when he said it?

 

[ThisIsMe]

One would hope.

I think we do know. It’s 2024, we know who the oppressive governments are and who are not.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Part of defamation is saying something you know to be false.

False. Negligence also meets the standard.

 

[ThisIsMe]

False. Negligence also meets the standard.

Well, according to my reading, both are required.

defamation

www.law.cornell.edu

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 reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

Reading this, it appears all 4 must be present for defamation.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well, according to my reading, both are required.

Then you need to read better.

Since your link says exactly the opposite.

 

[BackAgain]

False. Negligence also meets the standard.

Actually, more of a “reckless disregard” of the truth.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Actually, more of a “reckless disregard” of the truth.

That also.

That's a more accurate description of what Trump did, really.

It was.nice of him to confess to that on live TV, during the debate.

 

[WEATHER53]

How’s the make pretend efforts for a non existent legal entity going?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Then you need to read better.

Since your link says exactly the opposite.

Read it again, to prove defamation it says you need “these four things”

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Read it again, to prove defamation it says you need “these four things”

And one of them is "at least negligence".

You messed up and made my point for me.

That's what you get for trying to fudge your way through a book report for a book you didn't read.

Posting with you is always like this. Nothing but a series of you trying out false, ad hoc talking points, while it falls to everyone else to correct them.

 

[BackAgain]

That also.

Also? If you mean “an intentional lie” OR “a reckless disregard for the truth,” then maybe you are right.

But mere negligence doesn’t suffice. (ie, being mistaken — standing alone — isn’t actionable. But if your error stems from a lreckless disregard,” then you could indeed be liable.)

EDIT: I need to correct myself. A statement may be made negligently (mere negligence) and yet still qualify for liability. Fort Fun was correct.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Also?

Yes.

Negligence

Or recklessness

Two things

"Also"

 

[ThisIsMe]

And one of them is "at least negligence".

You messed up and made my point for me.

That's what you get for trying to fudge your way through a book report for a book you didn't read.

Posting with you is always like this. Nothing but a series of you trying out false, ad hoc talking points, while it falls to everyone else to correct them.

No, you need to understand what it says, it says the plaintiff “must show four things”, it doesn’t say “one of four things” or have an “or” after each point. The way it’s written, all of those elements must be present.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, you need to understand what it says, it says the plaintiff “must show four things”, it doesn’t say “one of four things” or have an “or” after each point. The way it’s written, all of those elements must be present.

And none of them say it must be shown it was uttered with malice.

As everyone can see for themselves.

You messed up, and i don't have to give any more attention to your error and red herring.

 

[BackAgain]

Yes.

Negligence

Or recklessness

Two things

"Also"

Mere negligence by the defendant may indeed satisfy that element of libel/slander where the alleged victim is not a public figure. As I noted a moment ago, you are right about that.

It doesn’t suffice for the so-called “public figures” though.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Mere negligence by the defendant may indeed satisfy that element of libel/slander where the alleged victim is not a public figure. As I noted a moment ago, you are right about that.

It doesn’t suffice for the so-called “public figures” though.

The haitians of springfield are not public figures.

"When the victim is not a public figure"

 

[BackAgain]

The haitians of springfield are not public figures.

I don’t recall claiming that they are.

"When the victim is not a public figure"

All I noted was that mere negligence can suffice in some defamation cases. Morons required, however, when public figures are the ones allegedly defamed.

In the case of some Haitians there in Minnesota, the big obstacle will be proving any actual damages. Also, much of the analysis seems to simply accept as true that rhe claim that some Haitians in Springfield were eating cats and dogs was “false.”

It isn’t sufficient to merely deny it. Let’s see what the evidence shows about that claim which was merely repeated by Trump.