trump

[GREEN607]

Yes, how does that work in our legal system? If Trump said she was a publicity whore, would she have to prove it wasn't true (difficult) in order to prove her claim of defamation, or would Trump have to prove it was true (apparently a walk in the park) thus disproving defamation?

​Read his post, again...

 

[chipbennett]

No, I didn't "forget the purple".

You didn't read the post that I quoted. His question was, "If Trump said she was a publicity whore. would Fields have to prove that wasn't true?" His question asks if Trump as the accuser.... etc, etc....would she have to prove otherwise.
Read a little better there, Chip....

So, you're not talking about an actual courtroom, then? What are you talking about, with a jury involved? The "court" of public opinion?

EDIT:

Please go back and read the post by BugI02, that I quoted. His question inferred Trump accusing her of Publicity whoring. I well know the plaintiff (original accuser) from the 'respondent'. But that wasn't what his question asked about....

So, you're conflating a rhetorical accusation with a legal pleading, and then describing the burden of proof for the involved parties? Unless you're talking about an actual courtroom, in which Trump is the accused defamer, and Fields is the accuser, the burden of proof is meaningless.

In your rhetorical scenario, in which Trump "accused" Fields of being a publicity whore, Trump doesn't have to prove anything, and bears no penalty for failing to prove his accusation. The accused likewise does not have to prove or disprove anything, and bears no penalty for failing to prove or to disprove anything.

It is only in an actual courtroom, where Fields, as the pleading party, accuses Trump, as the responding party, of defamation, that a burden of proof exists - and that burden lies with Fields, as the pleading party (i.e. the accuser). In that role, Fields must prove a) that Trump said something falsely defamatory, b) did so knowingly (because Fields is a public figure), and c) such defamation caused demonstrable, material harm to Fields.

Trump, as the respondent (i.e. the accused), doesn't have to prove the veracity of his allegedly defamatory statement, if Fields fails to meet the burden of proof for all three elements. (That said, providing a preponderance of evidence that Fields is, in fact, a publicity whore, would be child's play.)

 

[BugI02]

Wait. I think I misunderstood, too, then.

When I say "accuser" I mean "plaintiff." The person suing for defamation. If defamer calls a woman a prostitute, the woman is the accuser/plaintiff against defamer.

^^^This strikes at the heart of my question^^^^^^^

 

[GREEN607]

So, you're not talking about an actual courtroom, then? What are you talking about, with a jury involved? The "court" of public opinion?



EDIT:



So, you're conflating a rhetorical accusation with a legal pleading, and then describing the burden of proof for the involved parties? Unless you're talking about an actual courtroom, in which Trump is the accused defamer, and Fields is the accuser, the burden of proof is meaningless.

In your rhetorical scenario, in which Trump "accused" Fields of being a publicity whore, Trump doesn't have to prove anything, and bears no penalty for failing to prove his accusation. The accused likewise does not have to prove or disprove anything, and bears no penalty for failing to prove or to disprove anything.

It is only in an actual courtroom, where Fields, as the pleading party, accuses Trump, as the responding party, of defamation, that a burden of proof exists - and that burden lies with Fields, as the pleading party (i.e. the accuser). In that role, Fields must prove a) that Trump said something falsely defamatory, b) did so knowingly (because Fields is a public figure), and c) such defamation caused demonstrable, material harm to Fields.

Trump, as the respondent (i.e. the accused), doesn't have to prove the veracity of his allegedly defamatory statement, if Fields fails to meet the burden of proof for all three elements. (That said, providing a preponderance of evidence that Fields is, in fact, a publicity whore, would be child's play.)

You're very easily confused, aren't you?!


................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. "Don!?"

 

[BugI02]

No. But don't feel bad, many people have mistaken Chip for him

View attachment 46660

 

[GREEN607]

No. But don't feel bad, many people have mistaken Chip for him

View attachment 46660

​Oh, I am sure of it.

 

[GREEN607]

No. But don't feel bad, many people have mistaken Chip for him

View attachment 46660

I was thinking, more like HIM...

 

[chipbennett]

I was thinking, more like HIM...

Are you kidding? That dude is way too cool/hipster to be me.

 

[chipbennett]

You're very easily confused, aren't you?!

Not in the slightest. I just refuse to engage in the semantic game you're playing.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Artist who painted nude Donald Trump threatened with lawsuit - NY Daily News

 

[jamil]

Artist who painted nude Donald Trump threatened with lawsuit - NY Daily News

Did they disproportionately misrepresent his "hand" size?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Did they disproportionately misrepresent his "hand" size?

Well this is the artists statement on the painting. “Because no matter what is in your pants, you can still be a big prick.” So take a guess...

She says she has another one coming out soon, but won't release the details because that would spoil it. Perhaps a painting of Trump with sand pouring out of an opening?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Did they disproportionately misrepresent his "hand" size?

Well this is the artists statement on the painting. “Because no matter what is in your pants, you can still be a big prick.” So take a guess...

She says she has another one coming out soon, but won't release the details because that would spoil it. Perhaps a painting of Trump with sand pouring out of an opening?

Gore said Trump’s legal team has tried stripping away her artistic freedom. She said his lawyers have called her twice threatening lawsuits over the hateful huckster’s right of publicity.

She said Facebook, too, has warned of legal action under for copyright violation under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Gore also accused the site, as well as eBay and Twitter, of censoring some posts of the painting.

Attorneys for Trump and Facebook could not immediately be reached for comment.

So what has she done that's worthy of being sued for? Or is this another one of those "stop being mean or we'll cost you a lot in legal fees" lawsuits?

Is art no longer a protected medium under a hypothetical and never-going-to-happen Trump presidency?

 

[T.Lex]

So what has she done that's worthy of being sued for? Or is this another one of those "stop being mean or we'll cost you a lot in legal fees" lawsuits?

Is art no longer a protected medium under a hypothetical and never-going-to-happen Trump presidency?

People v. Larry Flynt. Well, not really. More the lawsuit that actually did go to SCOTUS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

I thought there was another one where Hustler or Penthouse airbrushed (or whatever the analog version of photochopping was) someone's head onto a nude body and got sued for it.

I caution anyone searching for it that their search cache might get a bit NSFW/awkward.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Lewandowski Demoted to Dog on a Leash | The Resurgent

 

[jamil]

Lewandowski Demoted to Dog on a Leash | The Resurgent

Probably a good move. The prior strategy of "if you act like an ******* 1/3 of the people will love you", doesn't work for the general election. Time to start acting "presidential". He needs to find advisors who know what that looks like.

 

[T.Lex]

So, I found this interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/n...aign-trail-is-not-registered-to-fly.html?_r=0

Trump likes to fly is own planes around. Good brand advertising. He's done it for years. Of course, the planes are owned and operated by a single-member LLC, with him as the single member. He's had his own aircraft for years. He knows how it works.

Yet, with all the best people he's hired, he hasn't managed to pay for a $5 renewal.

Records kept with the Federal Aviation Administration show the aircraft’s registration lapsed on Jan. 31. Laura J. Brown, a spokeswoman for the Federal Aviation Administration, confirmed that the plane’s registration was not in good standing and said the owner had not renewed it.
...
Mr. Trump’s plane could be grounded for days, or even months, while the issue is sorted out. In the event of an accident, the company that insures the jet could cite the lapsed registration to decline any claims.
...
The F.A.A. warned Mr. Trump that the Cessna’s registration was set to expire, records show. On Dec. 1, DJT Operations CX L.L.C., the limited liability company owned by Mr. Trump that operates the Cessna, received a “final notice” from the F.A.A., according to records reviewed by The Times.

Then, on March 1, DJT Operations CX was notified that the registration had expired.
“The aircraft’s registration and airworthiness certificates no longer support the aircraft’s operation,” the agency wrote.

 

[JettaKnight]

Yet, with all the best people he's hired, he hasn't managed to pay for a $5 renewal.

That's just the establishment trying to keep him down on the ground, literally.




Can I vote for Trump now?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Can I vote for Trump now?

Damn straight, you're a red-blooded American and you can do whatever you want.

The real question, though: Can you respect yourself afterward?

 

[churchmouse]

Damn straight, you're a red-blooded American and you can do whatever you want.

The real question, though: Can you respect yourself afterward?

I have no respect for myself now so there is that.