Your honor, I was found liable for sexual abuse, dammit, not for rape. Yes, the judge said it's a legal distinction without a real world difference, writing that E. Jean Carrol did "prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.’" But still, can I have money now?
Reposted from
Andrew Fleischman
HELLO I WANT THE WORST ADVISED DEFAMATION LAWSIT YOU HAVE
NO THAT'S TOO ILL ADVISED
NO THAT'S TOO ILL ADVISED
Comments
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-signs-legislation-protect-survivors-hold-perpetrators-accountable-rape#:~:text=Legislation%20(S.-,3161%2FA.,contact%2C%20and%20anal%20sexual%20contact.
to pay Judge Paul
And on the first part, I don't think it's wrong to bring up the Streisand Effect except when it doesn't apply. In this case, an effort to suppress some info could shine a spotlight on that info, so it fits.
Do broadcasters have the legal capacity to fight it? Sure. Will the media, whose giant corporate owners with licenses, mergers, financing, taxes …
What would it do if he did the same with relatively poor podcasters or newspapers?
In this case, his target is ABC, which is owned by Disney, so they presumably have the money and lawyers to fight back (and maybe countersue).
But smaller and independent outlets don't.
January 6, description of future court cases, pundits, amount of coverage.