Yes. I moderate Earth Science, Chemistry, and General Science & Technology. I must confess curiosity to what you think I have lied about or mischaracterized.
I consider that even if you consider the sign in a vacuum, it stands as a reasonable reading. I consider that this reading is strengthened by considering the context provided by the campaign that it was in response to, and the usage of Ayn Rands words in the advertising campaign, that have just enough removed from them to make denial plausable.
Right. It is if you want to assert that there was no defamation. So you are not asserting that there was no defamation, as a matter of fact. You're only pursuing the much more limited claim that such would make for a difficult case in court. Sure it is. You just invoked exactly the distinction in question above, in your retreat from your prior assertion. Which, by the way, you'd do well to avoid this sort of tactic wherein you retreat while beating your chest and insisting that you aren't. It doesn't fool anybody. You should be able to cite a precedent that tells us one way or the other, rather than waving your hands, on that question. Regardless, you still haven't advanced any substantive argument that no harm was done. Which I guess is no problem now that you have given up arguing that there was no defamation, and only that it would be difficult to establish such in court. You may recall that my whole original point in addressing you here was that you went too far in asserting that it was factually incorrect, or even a statement of fact at all. That consideration would only affect the details of which parties, exactly, could make a claim of defamation. Also, the poster does not refer to "enemies of Israel." It refers to "savages" and "jihad." The NYTimes article has more significant quotes from the ruling. I'm sure you could simply look up the text of the ruling itself if you were so inclined. So you are renouncing your previous assertion that it was an (incorrect) statement of fact, then. That is an awfully obtuse response to what I said, considering that you edited out the material on "mere vulgar abuse" defense that immediately follows it. Considering the fact that you quoted everything else I said in its entirety, it is difficult to believe that said editing was not intentional and mendacious. Anyway, let me refresh your memory: Maybe you can actually respond to that, instead of editing it out of your quotes and then replying as if I'd never heard of it. Such being an inane, dishonorable tactic, after all. Supposing, of course, that you don't make good on your whole crybaby threat to pick up and leave this thread, now that your bully tactics are backfiring on you. Again, you are eliding between the question of "sufficient to establish guilt in a court of law," and "defamatory as a question of fact." ANd you have not established that such criteria are impossible to meet, you have simply raised various difficulties and outstanding questions. There is no direct consideration fo the question of defamation, as the policy the judge is ruling on does not deal with defamation. As I've already said, he does equate it with protected political speech and characterize the statements as pure opinion (not fact). Nope. The MTA policy in question does not deal with defamation. It deals with "demeaning" individuals or various protected groups.
I was speaking from a legal standpoint, which is the only relevant perspective. Can something be defaming without legal implications? Neither do false accusations of retreat. I've talked all along about defamation as a legal concept. If the act does not meet certain criteria, it is not defamation. Precedent for what? For actual malice? I have not given up arguing that there was no defamation. I have said that it would be impossible to prove harm, and without meeting that criteria, it is not defamation. As far as I am aware, there is no "defamation in fact" outside of the legal definition. And that's just one of at least three criteria that must be met. And how am I to prove that no harm is done? How can I prove a negative? Interesting that you didn't bring the same complaint to Trippy, who made the opposite claim I made. But again, I am not aware of something being defamation without meeting the legal definition. It's like calling a killing a murder when it is actually manslaughter. It's a killing, sure, but unless it's legally a murder, then it isn't a murder. I've since found some more. You can stop pretending that I'm not interested in the facts of the case. I believe I've addressed this already. I did respond to it. Your assertion that it would not fall under "mere vulgar abuse" is incorrect. And you must know this, otherwise you wouldn't have been reduced to nitpicking the way in which I quote your post. It's not a good sign that you've already gotten off-topic. Oh, so you're just trolling! I should have known. You are on my ignore list, but I figured I'd give you a chance. That was apparently a mistake, as I've now opened myself to yet another useless exchange with someone who is only interested in having the appearance of correctness. And my "threat" was directed at Trippy, not at you. I was still hoping for something substantive from you, but I should have guessed that this olive branch was merely a Trojan Horse. I should expect nothing less from you. If you can't understand it, I can't help you. That's a 'you' problem. As for the "defamatory as a question of fact," I believe I've addressed that above. But if it is protected political speech, how can it be defamatory? If it isn't demeaning, then certainly it isn't defamatory, no?
It seems that you are intent on missing the point. Again: evading the point and misconstruing my position. Nobody (except yourself?) is fooled. For the quoted supposition, obviously: that speech on the topic of Israel's security is a question of the public interest and so subject to reduced protections against defamation. Yes, you have. You are only arguing that it would be difficult to prove in court: Doesn't follow. Difficulty in proving harm would mean that there would be no defamation conviction. That is a separate question from whether defamation occured as a matter of fact. That doesn't imply that difficulty in proving defamation in court means that no defamation occurred at all. Why are you going to such inane semantic lengths to avoid aknowledging this simple fact? Proof is only a problem with existential negatives. You aren't being asked to prove that Santa Claus does not exist. You would need to do basically the same thing that is required to establish that harm did occur: for example, identify some measurable aspect of the interests of the aggrieved party, and show that this ad did not have a significant effect on them. Are you going to insist that one can't prove that, say, a given beverage does not cause cancer? If I assert that water does not cause cancer, are you going to cry "you can't prove a negative!"? Do you really think that such is the standard of "proof" relevant to a court proceding? Your position is merely that it would be difficult to prove, in the legal sense, that harm occurred. To assert that no defamation occurred, you'd need to prove that no harm occurred. Thus, you are arguing that a defamation suit would be difficult to win, not that no defamation occurred as a question of fact. I am not addressing Trippy. Again, you are intentionally missing the point. There is no dispute over the legal definition of defamation. You are making statements about the difficulty of establishing the elements needed to meet the legal definition in a court of law. That is different from making statements about the presence of said elements as such. You do aknowledge that it is possible for something to happen, but for it to be difficult to establish that in court, right? That courts rule on whether there is sufficient evidence to convict, on not on the underlying questions of fact directly? That the fact that OJ Simpson was found not guilty, does not mean he did not commit murder? No pretense was involved in my vanilla, good-faith response to your open admission of ignorance of the facts of the case, nor the absence of due diligence implied by such. That you were embarassed by you own admission and acted on my suggestions as to where to find more information is hardly an indictment of me. If you mean that you've doubled down on your overt point-missing as part of your ass-covering tactic as you retreat from your earlier claims, then sure. If you mean that you've provided a substantive, satisfactory response, then you have not. You did not. You pretended that I never raised the issue, and then answered with a naked counter-assertion. You have signally failed to address my reasoning there. That is one reason why I had to repeat it for you (the implied misconstrual of my position being the other). This is just more bluster on your part, as part of your bully troll approach. If that's the best bullying you can muster, you should just give up on your whole program of browbeating. You're all empty bluster. Well, counter-trolling or troll-baiting, to be precise. Upshot being that you are in no position to complain. Given that your ignore list seems to consist entirely of people who throw wrenches into your trolling campaigns, I take that as a complement. Also, ignore lists are for weaklings with ego problems. Is that what you tell youself? No wonder you need to rely on an ignore list to sustain your hypersenstive ego. You can't handle substance. You're out to bully, and when you encounter people who present substantial disagreement and aren't cowed by your tactics you throw a hissy fit and go into double-time on your ego-protection and hectoring tactics. I would describe it as a test. You failed - as expected - but it can't be said that you didn't have the chance to behave honorably. One reason that I respect Trippy is that he has managed to pass such tests before. He is able to keep his ego in check, even in heated situations, admit honest mistakes and errors, and respond honorably. I am not having any difficulties understanding anything, nor have I evinced such. This is just more blustering tactics on your part. You have done nothing more than evade the point and attempt to browbeat me into letting you get away with it. It can't, but that begs the question of whether it was defamatory. The judge did not consider that question, from what I can tell. Moreover, there is the point that political speech is allowed extra leeway - things that would be clearly defamatory absent a political context, end up allowed. So if your position is simply that this stuff doesn't count as "defamation" because it's politics and our legal system says that politics is a "defame all you want!" zone, well, you're hanging your argument on a legal and semantic technicality that really won't impress anyone and which does not particularly address the objections of Trippy and others. Are you happy to characterize the speech in question as "repugnant, harmful, immoral and disgusting, but not 'defamation' under the strict legal definition?" I think it would go a long way towards your position in this thread to balance your energetic, tenacious defense of the legality of this speech, with constant disclaimers that it is nevertheless reprehensible and that the world would be a better place if Geller never said anything like this in public ever again. The legality of this kind of disgusting shit is a cost of free speech, and not an example of its benefits - yes? Misses the point: the MTA policy would allow defamatory speech, so long as it does not demean any particular individual or protected group. So the ruling that the MTA policy is unconstitutional does not say that a policy against defamatory speech would be unconstitutional. Defamation, in general, does not need to be "demeaning." I can publish a lie about a business competitor charging high prices, and thereby harm his business and so incur a libel charge, without saying anything "demeaning" about him or his business, except possibly in the most tenous sense.
Am example of not letting it go unopposed: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Source
