Law Racist Smirker hates the freedom of the press

lol!

not their race HAHAhaha!

It is this troll culture victim complex bullshit that is so pervasive today.

I think you are making a massive assumption based on how you think kids from Indiana or wherever expected a MAGA hat to be perceived. From the video of them, and of Sandmann in particular, far from being a troll, he didn't respond in kind to nasty racial insults and even tried to get his friend to tone down his response.

Serous question, have you watched the full video?
 
Right-wingers: Freedom of speech must be protected at all costs! It's the most sacred of all rights!

Also right-wingers: I hope this kid wins a fuckton of money suing a national newspaper for libel!

Then again, the freedom they fight for is to tell racist jokes, insult gays and women, you know, important shit. Freedom of the press? Fuck that.
 
I think you are making a massive assumption based on how you think kids from Indiana or wherever expected a MAGA hat to be perceived. From the video of them, and of Sandmann in particular, far from being a troll, he didn't respond in kind to nasty racial insults and even tried to get his friend to tone down his response.

Serous question, have you watched the full video?
I watched it.

I think the people doxing him or whatever the fuck are idiots too.

doxing and all that kind of bullshit to me is a part of internet troll culture too.
 
How hard is it to do this little research
There is no abortion rally there nor is there a clinic
So unless you went there to protest their rally there was no real way for you to be protested by them
Also this means anyone with a position you don’t like should die
This is so insane I am not sure how to respond. But I'll venture, nothing I have said suggests anyone I have discussed or implied discussing should in any way be physically harmed. Go away.
 
can you imagine the outrage if that Hogg kid pulled the same stunt after all the shit that was spread about him? Im sure all you guys saying "I hope he gets rich" would be saying the same thing right?
They had to bring criminal charges against one guy FFS. But it's ok because progressive I guess.
 
Right-wingers: Freedom of speech must be protected at all costs! It's the most sacred of all rights!

Also right-wingers: I hope this kid wins a fuckton of money suing a national newspaper for libel!

Then again, the freedom they fight for is to tell racist jokes, insult gays and women, you know, important shit. Freedom of the press? Fuck that.
Ya you're trash.
 
This is so insane I am not sure how to respond. But I'll venture, nothing I have said suggests anyone I have discussed or implied discussing should in any way be physically harmed. Go away.
They got death threats
You said they should suck it up
These are your words not mine
 
@JamesRussler About that other case, do you happen to know what she was awarded in damages?

You're referring to White v. Manchester Enterprise, 871 F. Supp. 934 (E.D.Ky. 1994)? I couldn't find anything about the final damage award. But FWIW, two years later, in the same case, the same court overruled itself with regard to punitive damages. White v. Manchester Enterprise, Inc., 910 F. Supp. 311 (E.D. Ky. 1996) (KY state statute requiring demand for retraction as prerequisite for punitive damages in defamation claims was unconstitutional under state's constitution). It probably settled after that.
 
1. How did Rational Poster get banned?

2. If there’s one thing the US can keep its the insanely bullshit litigious nature you all have. Fffffuck that
 
Right-wingers: Freedom of speech must be protected at all costs! It's the most sacred of all rights!

Also right-wingers: I hope this kid wins a fuckton of money suing a national newspaper for libel!

Then again, the freedom they fight for is to tell racist jokes, insult gays and women, you know, important shit. Freedom of the press? Fuck that.

Freedom of speech must be protected, but if there's deliberate intent to manufacture a hoax or spin a fake story for monetary gain, with negative consequences to the people involved, then some of that money ought to be returned to the people who were taken advantage of, who had their reputations sullied as a result of it.

In this case I do not think that such intent can be proven. The press can probably point to their incompetence, rather than greed, as having been the cause behind pushing a fake narrative.

Let's not act as if modern media is the equivalent of what was once upon a time, the "underdog" guy running his own individually funded newspaper, reporting about the things that people don't want to hear. Today, it is the media that is the "overlord", owned by the few, capable of pushing whatever narrative it wishes, and like any other ever-growing, bloated corporation, requires some form of regulation and a sense of responsibility, to stay in check.
 
Last edited:
You're referring to White v. Manchester Enterprise, 871 F. Supp. 934 (E.D.Ky. 1994)? I couldn't find anything about the final damage award. But FWIW, two years later, in the same case, the same court overruled itself with regard to punitive damages. White v. Manchester Enterprise, Inc., 910 F. Supp. 311 (E.D. Ky. 1996) (KY state statute requiring demand for retraction as prerequisite for punitive damages in defamation claims was unconstitutional under state's constitution). It probably settled after that.
This suggests if the media published a contrite retraction in this case, the kid doesn't appear to have a leg to stand on.
 
Back
Top