Should there be illegal opinions?

[UnseenParticipant]

Consider this actual case:

[jakelafortParticipant]

White aint right. Woke aint smoke.

[RichRaelianParticipant]

Opinions should never be illegal.

[PopeBeanieModerator]

My quick scan wrt reasons why this topic came up.

IMO, my sense of a bigger picture has less to do with “freedom to express opinions”, and more to do with “fighting libtard culture”.

Youtube channel WILL (@WILawLiberty), Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, seems to be looking for support in fighting emotionally laden culture war issues increasingly framed politically as “evil, liberal values are destroying our country”. I could be wrong, but I’m guessing that WILL is being supported by the right, and intends to be friendly to stories that are at heart of a propagandistic nature.

I mean of course, what kind of response is reasonable to “Should there be illegal opinions?” other than “Well, like DUH, no!”.  Unseen, tell me if you don’t like my initial opinion in your thread, or you want me to support my first opinion more, which would require more time and space here for me to flesh out. Because I think another story is also relevant to a topic about Pro-Trumpian propaganda culture that’s also “all the rage now” in Youtube:

[unapologeticParticipant]

That first video is bullshit. Said nothing of value.

What exactly is she being sued for?

Who is Sueing her?

Slander, Libel, Defamation, are all illegal for good reasons. If she is unfairly accused, it will come out in the trial. Till then whatever she says in this video is just theater. We have no reason to believe the charges SHE makes in this vid.

[unapologeticParticipant]

“Should there be illegal opinions?”

There is nothing in that video, that case, or this thread that suggests to me that the law needs changing.

Wake me when a judge decides something.

[unapologeticParticipant]

I do believe that FoxNews needs to be muzzled. It’s whole business model is to divide the country and absolutely demonize the Democratic party and liberals.

[unapologeticParticipant]

I am disappointed that the term ‘woke’ is already being used for (I’m not sure what).

I think of dog believers as asleep, and we non-believers as awake. Being able to call ourselves ‘woke’ would have been nice. Oh well, lost opportunity.

[UnseenParticipant]

I regard myself as a flaming liberal, and to me liberalism cherishes freedom of thought and freedom of expression and establishing a space where all opinions are welcome as long as they remain opinions whether I like them or not. The Big Tent concept.

To base a lawsuit for defamation basically on her word choice of the term “woke” is curious since it would mean admitting that the term is defamatory and that being woke is a bad thing. I don’t see the courts ultimately siding with the plaintiff. Calling someone woke is no more defamatory than calling them liberal, conservative, or wrongheaded, It’s an opinion, no more or less.

 

[UnseenParticipant]

From the article Wisconsin mom appeals defamation suit citing First Amendment rights:

The lawsuit centers around social media posts made on X and Facebook, where Ms. Johnson criticized her school district’s employment of a “social justice coordinator” and used terms such as “woke,” “white savior[s] with a god complex,” “woke lunatics,” and “bullies.” Despite such language being common on social media, the plaintiff, who previously held the position criticized by Ms. Johnson, responded with a defamation lawsuit.

Legal precedent holds that for statements to be actionable as defamation, they must be “provably false,” as established in Milkovich v. Lorain J. Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990). Courts generally rule that subjective terms like “woke” and “bully” are not actionable because their meanings depend heavily on individual opinions.

WILL’s petition requests that the Court of Appeals permit an appeal now to prevent an inappropriate trial over speech protected by the First Amendment. The organization asks the court to affirm that such statements are not actionable as defamation under Wisconsin law.

WILL engages in litigation, education, and public discourse across various areas including Individual Liberties, Equality Under the Law, Constitutional Government and Rule of Law, Economic Freedom, and Education Reform. The organization reports success in approximately 80% of its cases.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

The lawsuit centers around social media posts made on X and Facebook, where Ms. Johnson criticized her school district’s employment of a “social justice coordinator” and used terms such as “woke,” “white savior[s] with a god complex,” “woke lunatics,” and “bullies.”

WWJJS?  Those names are opinions, and anyone is allowed to have an opinion.  It’s like having emotions.  They’re automatic reactions.  FFS.  Somebody in the school board must be pretty sensitive.  Then again, it has to be said that people with a God complex do get upset when they are criticised.

[Author]

Posts