Rittenhouse: The 'Media Accountability' Project

[UnseenParticipant]

@Enco

“Murder,” like many words has a variety of definitions and uses ranging from legal to colloquial.

Because of this, and the danger of chilling the free press and adulterating the First Amendment, I don’t think Rittenhouse’s case will go anywhere, even in the Supreme Court. One thing both liberal and conservative justices (should) hold dear is that the First Amendment is the foundation and guarantee of all of the others.

[jakelafortParticipant]

Civil defamation claims are one of many exceptions or limitations to 1st amendment. It is unavailing to a defendant in a claim of slander or libel to assert 1st amendment. Truth is always a defense to defamation claims. There is also a different standard-more protective of private citizens than of celebrities.

The first thing Rittenhouse will need to establish is false allegation. And since he was out looking for trouble and had made known his far right bent and did kill three people he has a very tough road. Murder legally is illegal taking of a human life. If you are thinking well the guy was found not guilty that is not dispositive. Not guilty damn sure does not mean innocent. Under the circumstances it is well within one’s license to refer to him as a murderer without civil liability.

[—Participant]

Nicholas Sandmann who filed similar suits (yet arguably had a stronger claim) had this to say:

In Sandmann’s case, a number of agencies settled. It’s kind of a shame they did. The amounts are undisclosed, but given he was suing each for eight figure sums, it seems likely he at least managed seven figures. I suppose the fear of taking it to court isn’t just about the financial risk of a loss nor the negative publicity, but also the implications if a judge finds in favour of the complainant.

[UnseenParticipant]

@jake

Regarding the outcome of Rittenhouse’s trial. “Not guilty” or “Not proven”? And does it make a difference?

Also, as I noted above, “murder” has both legal and colloquial meanings, and colloquially murder can mean killing someone no matter the circumstances. So, was the NY Times describing his actions using a legal or a colloquial voice?

[jakelafortParticipant]

Unseen:

Regarding the outcome of Rittenhouse’s trial. “Not guilty” or “Not proven”? And does it make a difference?

Also, as I noted above, “murder” has both legal and colloquial meanings, and colloquially murder can mean killing someone no matter the circumstances. So, was the NY Times describing his actions using a legal or a colloquial voice?

Yes not proven and not guilty are compatible. American jurisprudence in criminal law carries the rationale and i paraphrase a famous quote…better to allow 1 thousand guilty to go free then it is to convict 1 innocent person. So if the state has not met its burden then the jury must acquit. And they may well think the defendant guilty but insufficient evidence mandates verdict of not guilty.

In terms of public perception it is a big help to a criminal defendant to be acquitted because i am assuming average joe and jane think that not guilty means innocent.

In terms of civil liability for an underlying crime when the elements of a civil claim and a criminal matter are identical the civil claim is an automatic win-it is called res judicata. The same elements having been tried to a higher burden of proof would render the civil claim an unwinnable exercise for the defendant. The claim becomes a hearing in damages.

In terms of the not guilty verdict in Rittenhouse-had he been found guilty then the defendant would have a near ironclad defense-TRUTH.

You are correct in what you are alluding to that the context of the relevant language counts. Unless in context it is clear that the NY Times meant legal definition of murder the NY Times will win under the first element of libel. In other words Rittenhouse will not be capable of establishing a false allegation. BTW NY Times v Sullivan is as i recall the supreme court case dealing with the differential standard of defamation for famous people. And perhaps the way Rittenhouse has become a media hoar he will fit that standard and have an even more difficult burden to prove his claim.

[jakelafortParticipant]

The part of the equation i neglected is the jury. When i first passed the bar i recall going to a seminar run by trial lawyers and they indicated that in trying a case to a jury ya absolutely had to discuss a case that was in the public imagination-the McDonald’s spill coffee and jury awarded silly money case. The anti lawyer propaganda had truly made hay with that aberrant result so much so that jury verdicts were stinking cuz jurors did not want to feed into the ya hit the lottery just cuz ya sued mentality.

As i mentioned having recently spoken to a D A the atmosphere is so charged against appearance of racism that it is entering the evaluation even if it has zero bearing on the case. So with Rittenhouse if he gets the favorable jury then he could win even though from my vantage he should not.

[DavisModerator]

It is really interesting and extremely telling Enco that the only time you seem to have any emotional response to “hate crime” it when it is very likely false. Your outrage about that is, in this case, probably just and calling out fake hate crimes makes people taking real hate crimes all the more difficult.

But from virtually everything you’ve said so far, you seem relatively indifferent or even hostile to the very idea of hate crimes as a serious problem, and I even get the feeling you see most of them as overblown and not as big of a problem as it really is.

I always find it curious when I read people online who don’t bat an eye over cases of hate speech, vaguely downplay its significance, deny how wide spread it is or worse ask people to just “brush it off” as “free speech is absolute” and yet get utterly enraged at the hurt that a fake claim of hate speech can cause its victim. That is: little reaction over the mountain of cases of undeniable harm that uncontrolled hate speech causes…and extremely outrage over the very few cases of fake claims and the harm that causes. If you ever need a sign of just how very very little progress has been made and how much more progress awaits us (if it ever comes)…such attitudes illustrate it all too well.

• This reply was modified 3 years, 2 months ago by  Davis.

[—Participant]

 

jakelafort wrote:

The part of the equation i neglected is the jury. When i first passed the bar i recall going to a seminar run by trial lawyers and they indicated that in trying a case to a jury ya absolutely had to discuss a case that was in the public imagination-the McDonald’s spill coffee and jury awarded silly money case. The anti lawyer propaganda had truly made hay with that aberrant result so much so that jury verdicts were stinking cuz jurors did not want to feed into the ya hit the lottery just cuz ya sued mentality. As i mentioned having recently spoken to a D A the atmosphere is so charged against appearance of racism that it is entering the evaluation even if it has zero bearing on the case. So with Rittenhouse if he gets the favorable jury then he could win even though from my vantage he should not.

In that vein, another variable may be jurisdiction. His legal team will have to try to shop around to avoid complaints being heard in states with strong anti-slapp legislation. Naturally, they’re going to want to do everything they can to actually get a judge to even accept the suit in the first place. From there, they have much more bargaining power to secure settlements. In the event this actually does go to court… well that’s going to be a loooooooong wait for a final decision.

 

[jakelafortParticipant]

Autumn,

i wasn’t familiar with SLAPP. However i made up my own acronym with SLAP-sounds like a plan.

Yah when claims are dubious at best adjusters hit attorneys with NO PAY! That means sew me or screw. Under the federal rules of civil procedure there is a procedure to challenge a lawsuit immediately-failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. During pendency of claim the defense can file for summary judgment-standard for that…accepting the facts in the best light possible for plaintiff no prima facie claim exists. So when plaintiffs survive summary judgment insurance adjusters worry about rogue juries giving ridiculous awards and that is where the offers begin.

My first time in Court i took a claim over(a no pay) from an attorney who told his client ya aint got a case. Anyways this nattily attired female attorney new i was greener than grass and tried to intimidate me. It was quite the initiation into the legal world. Crowded court and i prevailed. That afternoon i got a call offering 20k to settle. Not without a hassle i convinced my client to take it…

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Unseen,

Regarding the outcome of Rittenhouse’s trial. “Not guilty” or “Not proven”? And does it make a difference?

Also, as I noted above, “murder” has both legal and colloquial meanings, and colloquially murder can mean killing someone no matter the circumstances. So, was the NY Times describing his actions using a legal or a colloquial voice?

If The New York Times speaks of murder colloquially, that would be yet another reason to think of that paper as less than fish wrap and bird cage lining.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Unseen,

“Murder,” like many words has a variety of definitions and uses ranging from legal to colloquial.

Because of this, and the danger of chilling the free press and adulterating the First Amendment, I don’t think Rittenhouse’s case will go anywhere, even in the Supreme Court. One thing both liberal and conservative justices (should) hold dear is that the First Amendment is the foundation and guarantee of all of the others.

I will grant you that whether Kyle Rittenhouse can prove all elements of libel, slander, and defamation in a court of law is an open question.

Now, as for rights, the only three foundational or fundamental rights are Life, Liberty, and Property. The right to freedom of speech, expression, and the press are derivative of the above-mentioned fundamental rights.

The right to speech and expression is first exercised by the mind and the voice box or hands of the body and this derives from the right to own one’s mind and body.

The right to freedom of the press (and modern electronic media) is derived from the right to property of every individual involved in the manufacturing process and the right to purchase and own media equipment and facilities as property.

And as contradictions do not exist in reality, there can be no such thing as a “right” to violate another right and all individual rights exercised have to be compatible with every other individual right. And that goes for the rights to freedom of speech, expression, and the press.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Autumn,

Not sure. I’ve fallen out of touch with that. There are principles, convictions, dysfunction, and harm amongst a few other variables I tend to consider. But the whole good and evil thing for me has become gibberish. I’ve been in that bubble for so long that I’ve lost touch with what’s generally true regarding people’s sensibilities on good and evil.

Are you sure you want to say that? The nub of the jist of the legal concept of insanity is not knowing right from wrong.

Perhaps if my home were being invaded, I’d need to see the invaders as evil just to make some sort of sense out of the senseless. I can’t really imagine watching the pizza place next door get taken out by a wayward rocket and thinking, “Unfortunate, but it’s important to hear both sides in a disagreement.” I’d probably be shocked, then thinking about survival, and later on as my mind reeled to process traumatic events, maybe I’d think vehemently, “Those murdering fuck heads,” and want my pound of flesh.

Good. Then you’ve still got your sanity. There is right and wrong after all.

[—Participant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Autumn,

Not sure. I’ve fallen out of touch with that. There are principles, convictions, dysfunction, and harm amongst a few other variables I tend to consider. But the whole good and evil thing for me has become gibberish. I’ve been in that bubble for so long that I’ve lost touch with what’s generally true regarding people’s sensibilities on good and evil.

Are you sure you want to say that? The nub of the jist of the legal concept of insanity is not knowing right from wrong.

I wasn’t really planning on on standing trial for criminal matters any time soon. That said, a philosophical position that ‘good’ and ‘evil’ don’t exist per se might not impress a judge in a defence of mental disorder.

[UnseenParticipant]

@Enco

I was referring to the Bill of Rights rights, not more generally.

[UnseenParticipant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

The nub of the jist of the legal concept of insanity is not knowing right from wrong.

When you grab a military-style gun and head out the door to go to a protest already being supervised by the police, what does that say about your concept of right and wrong? How do you rationalize that going there with a lethal weapon is the right use of your time?

[Author]

Posts