On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 2:34:28 PM UTC, William Crowell wrote:
> You may rest assured that, if sued, such defendants will defend with the absolute or qualified privileges that may apply. Actually, I think it SHOULD be privileged. Let 'em say what they want; I don't care.
> If those crazy commentators on CNN, MSNBC, et al can't express their opinions, or call Kyle unflattering names because they disagree with him, then what is left of the first amendment? Are we on the Right such wimps and snivelers that we need a "safe space", free from the influence of the leftist networks? Hell, no! The first amendment means that you let everyone speak, and you just ignore what they say if you think they're stupid.
I agree with your intention of free speech, William, but those who wish free speech should take responsibility for what they say. in this case the vicious scum on the mainstream media declared Rittenhouse guilty before the trial. In a civilized country, the UK for instance but the Anglosphere in general, they would have been jailed for contempt of court for that alone, and sued for defamation after they served their time even before the jury declared him innocent of all charges. In France, they would have been jailed for invasion of privacy for substantial amounts of time, and then sued for libel.
This case is exactly parallel to that of Nicholas Sandman in the Covington catastrophe for those those arrogant media clowns. It will be a precedent, as Tom says.
Who apparently knows more about defamation than the lawyers on RBT.