Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

Commissario
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
30,973
Location
Panting like a fiend
As I understand it, in America the press can basically lie with impunity.
The fox news defence.

It's more that you have to be able to prove they knew what they were saying was false and it was not just opinion - very very hard to do when the person is due in court on murder charges, or even just has killed someone.

And at this point he's probably a "limited public figure" (I think is the term) because he's so well known, which raises the bar even further for anything said after the trial.
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Oct 2007
Posts
7,672
Location
London, UK
It never did.

When he first started talking about it several American solicitors who specialise in defamation pointed out that he had a high bar to reach given the circumstances and the US laws on free speech.

Scrolling back up the page there are plenty of posters who were convinced it was a slam dunk he was going to get millions. It always seemed like a stretch to me with someone's opinion being protected speech. Saying you think he's a murderer is not going to get you successfully sued for defamation.

Maybe this was all a LARP of suing people. A LARP where idiots line his pockets in the hope he'll stick it to the libs. There are no shortage of suckers in the US.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,693
That can't be right. I'm certain that at least one person on here said "IT's the US and he probably does stand to get some large payouts from various organisations if he pursues this".

Yup, see payouts to the 'Covington Kid' Nicholas Sandmann, various news networks settled with him
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Oct 2007
Posts
7,672
Location
London, UK
Yup, see payouts to the 'Covington Kid' Nicholas Sandmann, various news networks settled with him

The cases aren't remotely the same. One was a kid that was just stood face to face with an Native American, little was said and certainly there was no violence, no one died, no one was arrested and no one was indicted or faced trial for murder. Then there was Rittenhouse. You are comparing apples with oranges dowie. More chance it was all a LARP than what you are suggesting.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,693
The cases aren't remotely the same. One was a kid that was just stood face to face with an Native American, little was said and certainly there was no violence, no one died, no one was arrested and no one was indicted or faced trial for murder. Then there was Rittenhouse. You are comparing apples with oranges dowie. More chance it was all a LARP than what you are suggesting.

No, you are, you've totally missed the point, your post is contrasting the actions of the people involved but the comparison being made is the media coverage.
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Oct 2007
Posts
7,672
Location
London, UK
No, you are, you've totally missed the point, your post is contrasting the actions of the people involved but the comparison being made is the media coverage.

no you are missing the point from the video. The fact there was violence, deaths, an arrest, a trial all matters in coverage. So it is comparing apples and oranges. The circumstances matter.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,693
no you are missing the point from the video. The fact there was violence, deaths, an arrest, a trial all matters in coverage. So it is comparing apples and oranges. The circumstances matter.

I wasn't commenting on the video the comment was about the media reaction, you again don't seem to grasp that.

You're referring to a youtube video largely focusing on the chances of success in court against specific individuals in reply to a view about large media organisations offering to pay settlements right?

My views was that it seems to me that he could easily end up with some fat settlements from media orgs, that could well be wrong but you don't know that (yet) and you seem to be making tangential points.
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Oct 2007
Posts
7,672
Location
London, UK
I wasn't commenting on the video the comment was about the media reaction, you again don't seem to grasp that.

You're referring to a youtube video largely focusing on the chances of success in court against specific individuals in reply to a view about large media organisations offering to pay settlements right?

My views was that it seems to me that he could easily end up with some fat settlements from media orgs, that could well be wrong but you don't know that (yet) and you seem to be making tangential points.


You think he could end up with substantial settlements from media organisation based on what the kids from Covington got, when the circumstances of those cases couldn't be further from each other. The only thing they have in common is that young men were involved, that is it. So quite how you imagine Rittenhouse is going to get paid off because the Covington kids got paid off is a mystery. You are comparing apples to oranges. No organisation is going to pay out if they think they will win in court, so the chances of a court win/loss has everything to do with it.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,693
You think he could end up with substantial settlements from media organisation based on what the kids from Covington got, when the circumstances of those cases couldn't be further from each other. The only thing they have in common is that young men were involved, that is it.

Nope, try to read and understand what you're replying to, this might help:

No, you are, you've totally missed the point, your post is contrasting the actions of the people involved but the comparison being made is the media coverage.
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Oct 2007
Posts
7,672
Location
London, UK
You're just making dumb points, sorry but if all you can do is go off on tangents or act as though I'm arguing something else then you're being a bit silly.


IF he's got pending legal cases then I doubt he's going to comment too much on them.



It doesn't seem to be, the media objectively did tell lies about Kyle, lots of the reporting was utterly flawed and probably did do a lot of damage to him. IT's the US and he probably does stand to get some large payouts from various organisations if he pursues this. Just look at some of the posts in this thread - various people getting fundamental details wrong or repeating meaningless tropes about how he'd "crossed state lines" etc...

How much money has Kyle raised?

So where are these large payouts coming from dowie? You are comparing this to the Covington case when its nothing like that case. Who is being silly here because this is beginning to stink of as dowie hole to me. Either he has a case and so will get paid off to avoid court or he doesn't have a case and won't get a penny. The lawyer says he doesn't have a case so where is this money coming from?
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,693
Again I'd suggest reading the previous posts:

I wasn't commenting on the video the comment was about the media reaction, you again don't seem to grasp that.

You're referring to a youtube video largely focusing on the chances of success in court against specific individuals in reply to a view about large media organisations offering to pay settlements right?

Either he has a case and so will get paid off to avoid court or he doesn't have a case and won't get a penny.

This is a great bit of binary thinking too, this sort of flaw in reasoning is a common trap people seem to fall into.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
3 Oct 2007
Posts
7,672
Location
London, UK
This is you all over it really is. You claim in earlier posts he is likely to get large payouts, long before I posted the video from a practising lawyer, when its shown he will likely get nothing as what has been said is protected speech you try and move the goalposts. You example of the Covington case is frankly laughable, they couldn't be further apart.

Enjoy your dowie hole, you're in there on your own. Its the only thing getting fallen into here. .
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,693
You claim in earlier posts he is likely to get large payouts, long before I posted the video from a practising lawyer, when its shown he will likely get nothing as what has been said is protected speech you try and move the goalposts.

What goalposts have been moved here? You can't specify.

You're adding things here yourself, asking questions that have already been answered and making logically flawed arguments. I might well be wrong that he gets payouts from various organisations but I've not moved any goalposts there.

This is the claim:

"IT's the US and he probably does stand to get some large payouts from various organisations if he pursues this".

If you want to go off on one about the chances of some individuals like Whoopie Goldberg or Joe Biden losing against him in court (if he were to even pursue it that far) etc.. then that's fine but it's a rather tangential point to make in reference to the claim I made which doesn't even rely on him needing to get to court with this.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom