politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Unfortunately that just isn't something you can really sue for.
You can sue the administration putting the rules in place, but you can't sue someone for saying something that's then picked up by another person, and another, and so on until the president happens to hear about it.
It's why, for example, financial sites will always have the disclaimer "this is not financial advice, seek the advice of a licensed financial professional, etc, etc", because financial harms are often covered, (while other things affected by lies are not in most circumstances) when that lie is something you took action on, and that action caused you harm (e.g. "this stock is going to double tomorrow", you buy it, it crashes)
But you can't sue when that lie caused someone else to do something that indirectly caused you harm. (e.g. "this stock will crash in a week", billionaire sells a ton of the stock, your retirement portfolio drops in value) In that case, only the billionaire would be eligible to sue the person who lied to them.
You might be able to sue Nick Shirley if you ran a daycare business and his false claims about your daycare caused your daycare to get attacked, but you couldn't sue him if he lied about a daycare down the road and mobs started attacking every daycare in town because they just assumed all of them were at fault, and you certainly couldn't sue if the claims he made then got to the social media feeds of some locals, which then caused local food banks run by those locals to stop offering food because they thought there's a chance it could be obtained by scammers instead of those in need.
Why couldn't one argue that Nick Shirley commited libel/slander. Their actions did in fact directly impact everyone involved? Did they claim you did something, yes. Did they do it with the intention to cause harm, yes. All harmed should be able to sue
They could. They being the individuals and organizations talked about. Not the community, bystanders, people affected by food stamps cuts, kids or their parents who go to the daycares, etc.
"Directly" is doing the heavy lifting here, and that's why this doesn't work. Trump cutting food stamps and Nick Shirley's claims against the daycares are entirely separate actions. Even if Nick Shirley had told Trump directly to cut food stamps, based on all the same lies, he wouldn't be sued, Trump would be sued for being the one who actually did the cuts.
They claimed some daycares did, not every individual affected by the food stamp cuts, which is another reason why those people can't sue.
Unfortunately that's something a court would have to debate for a very long time, and find hard evidence for. (e.g. messages saying "I know it's not true but I just hate those people" would be damn near incriminating in their own right)
Should? Probably, at least in this instance it seems like it'd be beneficial overall.
Will? That's another story. The legal system just isn't set up in a way for that type of thing to work, given what I've mentioned previously.