But the previous poster didn’t use it in that way.

Quick question… Using the jerboa app, if I click a link… What happens if I accept cookies?

With RIF I knew they wouldn’t be saved.

What’s the situation for me now?

Fascism was defeated in the UK by some clever jokes and having a monarchy.

The UK helped defeat a couple of fascist Regimes through spending the last power of the Empire on it.

Fascist Regimes were defeated, not the concept of fascism.

The concept of fascism is not defeated through violence, it is through education and debate.

You think some young nazi is going to wake up from a baseball to the head and think “oh wow, I was so wrong about the concept of ‘might makes right’”

I feel like addictive algorithms are a big part of what we need to get away from.

It’s not naming them, it’s repeating a claim, which, if not proven would be defamation.

Are black politicians immune from lying?

Of course racism isn’t socially acceptable.

OP just wanted to sound moral.

But fascism wss also heavily defeated by a world war and that didn’t stop it.

So if you’re picking things that don’t work, then violence also doesn’t work.

It’s almost as if you are more interested in ideating about committing violence than actually solving the problem.

That’s not how they used it though. Grammatical construction matters

Just more subscription hell. It’s ridiculous anymore.

“It’s ridiculous these days”

“I don’t go out any more”

I don’t know what you mean by anti vaxxers. What defamation cases arr you talking about?

As for the rest of it, defamation laws vary from state to state, and defamation very much is an exception to to the first ammendment.

I think you are a bit confused about how defamation cases work.

If your comments are not protected if they are defamatory. The decision is made in the trial, not “before” the trial.

The defamatory statements are presumed to be untrue, it is for defendant to prove that they are not true.

If you go on record as saying something defamatory, and it can be shown be harmful to reputation, then you HAVE to be able to prove it is true.

Otherwise people could just accuse anyone of anything all the time, and that would be utter chaos.

You can’t prove a negative.

So it you accuse me of molesting my patients, and I have beverage molested my patients, how can one prove it or doesn’t make sense.

Here are the tests for defamation in Alabama:

To be defamatory:

• The statements must not be true but presented as facts (not opinions).
• The statements must be published or spoken.
• The statements must be read or heard by others.
• The statements must cause injury to your reputation.
• The statements are not protected under any kind of legal privilege.

If this black mayor guy is accusing others of racism, then they can sue him.

Obviously accusing government employees of racism and refusing to follow orders will harm their reputation.

There’s Tests to decide that, but it’s pretty obviously the case here.

The mayor has presented his opinions as facts. That is also clear.

Whether his remark are true or not would be for the court to decide, and would clearly be what the court case would be about.

The mayor has damaged to reputation of these people - and he will be found to have defamed them unless HE can prove his statements were true because HE is the one who made them.

Truth is a (the!) defence for defamation.

The last compounding factor would be whether he has a special kind of legal privelage. I don’t know how it works for them in that regard.

Sorry, but the longer I think about this the more I think it is you who are deeply confused about defamation law.

I never said it wasn’t a problem.

I said it wasn’t socially acceptable.

Let me give you an example because it seems that you’re getting too emotional to think straight.

Theft is a problem.

Theft is not socially acceptable.

Does that make things clearer for you?