I don't understand this. Wasnt the author quoting himself asking the interviewee a question? How can he retroactively change what words he used when asking the question?
There used to be a q and a in the NYT Sunday magazine. Turned out the interviewer was making up all sorts of shit. Some of the interviewees finally complained and she tried to defend her editorializing.
Date: July 23rd, 2020 2:20 AM Author: light trump supporter
one of the Gawker lawyers raised his voice when questioning one of their witnesses, for unknown reasons since she seemed to be answering the questions in good faith. I'm sure that scored them points with the jury. maybe he was just an uptight jerk
Hulk Hogan thought no one was looking, but I saw him use a razor blade to cut into his own forehead. I think these cuts are relatively painless, but the blood flow is impressive. This was at WrestleMania in the 1990s
Date: July 23rd, 2020 11:12 AM Author: Soul-stirring Cuckoldry
titcr. You have to prove damages by showing how your reputation changed as a result of the publication of the statement and how this led to lost income etc. The problem is that the falsehood here has virtually no impact on his reputation (already seen as an unemployable racist before publication of statement). The cost of litigation, going through discovery, and keeping his infamy in the public eye would be much worse than the nominal damages he might be able to get years later.
Date: July 23rd, 2020 11:18 AM Author: richard clock
I disagree on the damages bit, having a prominent national magazine publish falsehoods about you saying pretty much the most hateful thing possible in today's environment certainly is likely to make Charles more toxic than his otherwise edgy but perhaps explainable posts in other threads. And id welcome the fight if I were him if only to have a platform to put his remarks in context, rather than the CNN framing which was clearly designed to elicit reactions like those of Chotiner.
Date: July 23rd, 2020 11:55 AM Author: Soul-stirring Cuckoldry
Different law and completely different kind of case. Much more favorable ground there for plaintiff. It's not even clear that Charles would win on liability here. "Use" can definitely be parsed given the way he was posting and given the latitude afforded the press when dealing with public figures.
"This falsehood could prevent him from ever working again."
He has to show the difference between his prior reputation (news already describing him as white supremacist unemployable racist) and his reputation as a result of this publication. He has to show that this statement alone has damaged him. That's going to be tough given how this article is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to what was already said about him before. Does he have evidence of opportunities but for this random statement in a new yorker article? 99.9% of defamation cases against the media are total losers.
Date: July 23rd, 2020 12:00 PM Author: Lascivious black woman gas station
1. Yeah, and I'm sure you thought Hogan's case was a clear winner too at the time :rolleyes: If anything Charles is a better plaintiff than Hogan was.
2. "'Use' can definitely be parsed given the way he was posting and given the latitude afforded the press when dealing with public figures." Jesus this is retarded on several levels. First, no, 'use' cannot be 'parsed,' whatever the fuck that means. Charles did not use the word. Second, Charles is not a public figure.
3. There is an absolute difference between what he wrote and being accused of using the N-word. One is a go-away-for-a-while kind of damage and the other is a no-doubt career ender.
Date: July 23rd, 2020 12:13 PM Author: Soul-stirring Cuckoldry
1. I did. I've posted on this board for over a decade and celebrated gawker's demise.
2. He is a public figure after the incident. Likely a "limited public figure" but most certainly a public figure as far as discussion of cnn's revelations.
3. Again, good luck trying to parse that out with any evidence. That's why these cases are losers even when there's a clear lie. Damages are hard to prove.
Date: July 23rd, 2020 2:15 PM Author: fragrant ruby whorehouse
"He is a public figure after the incident. Likely a "limited public figure" but most certainly a public figure as far as discussion of cnn's revelations. "
this is the most insane part of Sullivan. X is rando. media reports on X. Suddenly X magically transsubstantiated into "public figure" and nothing media says can slander him.
Date: July 23rd, 2020 3:16 PM Author: richard clock
not sure charles would be a limited public figure here--he doesn't have any public platform to counteract the statements against him and hasn't sought out any publicity to shape the discussion on the issues since it happened
in fact defamation like that done by the new yorker makes charles so toxic that media is likely unwilling to provide him with any platform to respond
in a just world Charles himself, unfired, would reply to the author with “I didn’t say nigger but now that you mention it: NIGGER! Put that on record, nigger”
Date: July 23rd, 2020 2:38 PM Author: Dun house-broken bawdyhouse wrinkle
if someone was going on a Web site and saying, as Blake Neff did, some awful racist stuff, which I don’t even feel comfortable reading
if someone was going on a Web site and saying, as Blake Neff did, some awful racist stuff, which I don’t even feel comfortable reading
if someone was going on a Web site and saying, as Blake Neff did, some awful racist stuff, which I don’t even feel comfortable readingif someone was going on a Web site and saying, as Blake Neff did, some awful racist stuff, which I don’t even feel comfortable readingif someone was going on a Web site and saying, as Blake Neff did, some awful racist stuff, which I don’t even feel comfortable readingif someone was going on a Web site and saying, as Blake Neff did, some awful racist stuff, which I don’t even feel comfortable readingif someone was going on a Web site and saying, as Blake Neff did, some awful racist stuff, which I don’t even feel comfortable reading
WTF? Give us the quotes instead of characterizing it.
Date: July 23rd, 2020 4:19 PM Author: Chrome Cerebral Locus Useless Brakes
Journalists these days often report on the controversy rather than bothering to tell people what was actually said so they can evaluate it themselves. It's despicable.
Date: July 23rd, 2020 5:45 PM Author: fragrant ruby whorehouse
In the legal world you get your ass reamed six ways to Sunday for doing something like that, but we forget that 98% of America is accustomed to just saying whatever
That's what makes me sad about this whole episode. Darcy wrote his article misleadingly in such a way as to make it seem to the casual reader that Charles wrote all the threads that he merely replied to. He did it it with very clear intention and purpose, trying to touch the line of slander without actually crossing it.
Date: July 24th, 2020 1:57 AM Author: orange garrison roommate
Cr
You give it a quick read like you would any other article and you wind up thinking 'wow this C12 character is a huge racist who drops N-bombs all over the place, he absolutely got what was coming to him'.
Then you read it with a critical eye and it's jarring. You mean he didn't drop a single racial slur? The very worst thing he said was the 'black doods playing Call of Duty' quip?
Date: July 23rd, 2020 8:04 PM Author: Topaz Geriatric Mediation
was watching/listening to the Gerry Callahan podcast and one of his guests said the same thing (thought the title of the poast charles replied to was actually authored by charles). CNN was well aware that their article would create that confusion.