I think the title of the thread is a bid deceptive, only because the video is about the lawsuit that the Macoby guy filed against people reporting on Pizzagate. And maybe I'm just overtired, but the video seemed TOO DAMNED LONG. They could have cut to the fuckin' chase about the lawsuits they're facing. So that's my only complaint. Headline is for clickbait and the video's too damn long. Come on boys, time is passing. We ain't got all day. Just speak your piece so we can get on with our work again.
I DIDN'T WATCH IT ALL EITHER.I POST AND RUN. NOT INTO BABBLING OR CONTROLLING OTHER PEOPLE LIKE MILLENIAL FALCON, WHO OBVIOUSLY HAS HORRIBLE CONTROL ISSUES.
It would be an interesting court case. If you rely on nonsense news sites as your source, are you responsible if you pass on their falsehoods as facts?
It's a shoddy piece of research by the pizzagate community.
Your debunk was not well received (to put it mildly).... and you didn't even bother to respond to the long and thorough rebuttal left on your "proof".
As far as the legal argument goes.... you are stuck in a conundrum. Are the sources for this information widely known as "nonsense" by the public? Or, are the sources not completely ridiculous... and are based upon part publicly acknowledged fact and partially upon the authors personal opinion.
Answer:
(Yes sources are objectively nonsense) => no (or minimal) damages. The article sources and the resulting post carries no weight in the public eye and thus nobodies reputation has been damaged.
(No sources are not objectively nonsense) => Author is not recklessly disregarding the truth. Using some of the information from the "nonsense" news sources is not objectively reckless, as a reasonable person could use some of the facts in good faith to write an opinion piece.
Furthermore most of the pizzagate posts and blog posts and articles are very obviously opinion pieces. Most present different possibilities for interpreting public facts. Opinion is constitutionally protected.
▼ banusaur
Oh, Jesus Christ. Not a great idea to trust anyone working with Jason "SPOOF" Goodman the Mossad shill.
▼ madmama
LOL I SAID TO GO TO 32:35!
▼ KillAllPedos
Your submission /v/pizzagate/2181040 has been deleted by: @Millennial_Falcon Reason given: @KillAllPedos : Rule 1.
THIS IS THE LAST TIME!!!!! DESTROY ML
▼ madmama
MILLENIAL FALCON IS A SAD PREPUBESCENT MALE.HAVE PITY ON HIM KILLALLPEDOS
▼ SecondAmendment
I think the title of the thread is a bid deceptive, only because the video is about the lawsuit that the Macoby guy filed against people reporting on Pizzagate. And maybe I'm just overtired, but the video seemed TOO DAMNED LONG. They could have cut to the fuckin' chase about the lawsuits they're facing. So that's my only complaint. Headline is for clickbait and the video's too damn long. Come on boys, time is passing. We ain't got all day. Just speak your piece so we can get on with our work again.
▼ madmama
I DIDN'T WATCH IT ALL EITHER.I POST AND RUN. NOT INTO BABBLING OR CONTROLLING OTHER PEOPLE LIKE MILLENIAL FALCON, WHO OBVIOUSLY HAS HORRIBLE CONTROL ISSUES.
▼ fogdryer
Was listening to George Webb. He said he won't touch the trafficking issue. Too bad in both directions
▼ Are_we_sure
CIA? You mean the guy he defamed?
Oh wow, he's using he Silsby story I debunked. Starting here. https://youtu.be/XRZ1fH8j0g0?t=71
Here's where I proof this story you can connect the maccobys to Silsby. It's a shoddy piece of research by the pizzagate community.
https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2153386/10615474
It would be an interesting court case. If you rely on nonsense news sites as your source, are you responsible if you pass on their falsehoods as facts?
▼ haggl
nice proof you got -13 votes lol
▼ Are_we_sure
do you think that is how truth works?
▼ Poot_McGarvey
Your debunk was not well received (to put it mildly).... and you didn't even bother to respond to the long and thorough rebuttal left on your "proof".
As far as the legal argument goes.... you are stuck in a conundrum. Are the sources for this information widely known as "nonsense" by the public? Or, are the sources not completely ridiculous... and are based upon part publicly acknowledged fact and partially upon the authors personal opinion.
Answer:
(Yes sources are objectively nonsense) => no (or minimal) damages. The article sources and the resulting post carries no weight in the public eye and thus nobodies reputation has been damaged.
(No sources are not objectively nonsense) => Author is not recklessly disregarding the truth. Using some of the information from the "nonsense" news sources is not objectively reckless, as a reasonable person could use some of the facts in good faith to write an opinion piece.
Furthermore most of the pizzagate posts and blog posts and articles are very obviously opinion pieces. Most present different possibilities for interpreting public facts. Opinion is constitutionally protected.
▼ Are_we_sure
please point me to this.
▼ ZX4jBXu
Jake is awesome.
▼ derram
https://hooktube.com/watch?v=XRZ1fH8j0g0 | https://hooktube.com/embed/XRZ1fH8j0g0 :
This has been an automated message.