https://www.resetera.com/threads/e-jean-carroll-is-weighing-suing-donald-for-defamation-again-after-his-cnn-appearance-last-night.718633/page-3#post-105569716
I'm not a lawyer, but giving someone that has been found guilty of defaming someone an open platform the next day and not taking any measures to ensure they don't continue to defame that person sounds like grounds for a lawsuit.
You are right about not being a lawyer.
I thought this would be a one off dumb hot take because he forgot to think for a minute but instead he keeps insisting on it and other members join in on how CNN should totally get sued
Did we not just witness the Dominion lawsuit against Fox News? Hosting someone on your network with the intent to have them spew falsehoods that you *know* are false and will damage someone's reputation on a national scale is actionable.
Having a token moderator on to get railroaded while Trump's deplorables that you dragged into your studio guffaw like idiots is probably worse than what Fox did, because CNN tried to dress it up with a veneer of respectability.
You are not liable (nor should you be) for what people that arent your employees/under your supervision say.
Seriously... in what way could CNN be liable for what trump says.
Should internet companies be liable for what people say online? Your argument is pretty much that they should, which is ridiculous.
How is this even comparable? If my internet provider sent out messages to everybody saying to go to a website at a certain time and when I went there it was a puff piece about Nazis, yeah they’d be fucking responsible. Especially when you find out they also paid for the site to get made and produced all the content themselves. Literally the only thing CNN didn’t directly create here are the words that came out of Trump’s mouth and a fucking toddler could’ve told you what he’d say in this situation.
Him continuing to defame Carroll and doing so at the CNN town hall was *completely foreseeable* and many predicted he would. CNN took no steps to make sure he didn't. They could have run the thing on a short delay, like many many things are in order to mute any defamatory remarks, for example. But they did nothing.
There's your legal grounds.
WB should be included here. After the Fox suit it should be clear you cannot just let someone on your air and allow them to lie.
It's not a network's LEGAL obligation to fact check or say if something is true or not true or verifiable or unverifiable. Actually making a statement as to if its true/not true puts them into legally questionable territory.
You are mixing up what is the moral responsibility of news networks with their LEGAL responsibility.
And btw they DID push back on the election denying AND said he lost the defamation case and he was found by a jury to have sexually assaulted her.....
The difference is when you have good reason to suspect they're going to come on and repeat statements that were proven defamatory. If CNN invite someone known to use hate speech on, and they don't put any safeguards in place and they broadcast hate speech, you're saying they should be immune from someone suing them in a civil court for broadcasting hate speech.
They would be immune LEGALLY, unless the person spouting the hate speech is employed by them or saying those things at the direction of them.
Hate speech is also not illegal anyways and is protected by the first amendment.
So, yes. You are 100% cool with CNN having someone on who uses hate speech and letting them spout that hate speech. Thanks for clarifying that.
This is prime Benji fodder
No, CNN is not liable for Trump continuing to proclaim his innocence in a civil case he lost. Losing a civil case does not mean you are required to tell everyone you lost fair and square. Trump was not found "guilty" because it was not a criminal case and even if he was he could continue to proclaim his innocence, it's not
defamation to say you've been falsely accused and/or falsely convicted. If Carroll would like to roll her meager winnings into a massively stupider case against CNN (an entity with both good lawyers and actual billions of dollars) then I encourage it.
No, your ISP is not liable for anything if they tell you to check out a Nazi website because they think it's based not even if they made it themselves.
No, the Fox/Dominion lawsuit didn't show you anything because it's been the case that you can't make false
factual claims about someone, especially not their engaging in criminal conspiracy, for centuries. (Also, it was settled and the facts of the case are completely different.)
Notice how plagarize, moderator, shifted from what's legal to what's moral by accusing someone correcting his ignorance of being "100% cool" with "hate speech" when the person said nothing remotely like that. (The person was even wrong and suggested you could be liable for hate speech.)
edit: Can't believe I forgot this is all aside from how CNN would use the recognized defense that this is all comment on public matters aka news aka a presidential candidate aka omg how can you possibly believe a news company would somehow be liable for covering something. Assuming they were somehow magically liable for someone else's speech out of some "should have foreseen" nonsense.