Can Kyle Rittenhouse Sue Everyone Who Called Him a Murderer?
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 03. 2022
- ⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️
Rittenhouse was acquitted. Can he get compensation?
🚀For a LIMITED TIME get CuriosityStream & Nebula for 26% OFF! legaleagle.link/curiositystream (And get access to the special exclusive companion video!)
Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! legaleagle.link/watchnebula
👔 Suits by Indochino! legaleagle.link/indochino
GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Send me an email: devin@legaleagle.show
MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! legaleagle.link/lawguide
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! legaleagle.link/copyrightcourse
SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter: legaleagle.link/twitter
Facebook: legaleagle.link/facebook
Tik Tok: legaleagle.link/tiktok
Instagram: legaleagle.link/instagram
Reddit: legaleagle.link/reddit
Podcast: legaleagle.link/podcast
OnlyFans legaleagle.link/onlyfans
Patreon legaleagle.link/patreon
BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Please email my agent & manager at legaleagle@standard.tv
LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images and AP Archives
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by pixelme.me (pxle.me/eagle)
Maps provided by MapTiler/Geolayers
👮♂ Do you agree with the law on this?
🚀 Watch my exclusive companion video here! legaleagle.link/curiositystream
Honestly the quickest way to even avoid the lawsuits (no matter who would likely win) is if those involved would just issue an apology to Rittinghouse
I learned that I’m allowed to be hyperbolic, and the actual dictionary literally gave up on the hard stance definition of the word literally.
What are your thoughts on calling him a white supremacist pile of crap, given that he has repeatedly associated himself with white supremacists?
@@williamgosvener47 Do you think it's fair to call someone who supports, praises, defends, and associates with white supremacists, a white supremacist?
3:30 false is misspelled "flase"
My takeaway from this video is that "a reasonable person" is a very high standard that most people don't seem to meet.
Said the Furry. Its funny how you notice when its a cop being arrested leftist say "Not guilty" but when its a right winger they say "Acquitted" I wonder why that is. Ps 1/6th was a riot not an insurrection and Trumps innocent. Kthxs.
I was thinking the same thing! Though obviously plenty of people see through these "opinion" pieces as manipulative, but the fact that far too many people fall for it is definitely concerning. From the standpoint of the law it may not be actionable, but if that's what you're using as a defense, that you were just using hyperbole and no one should take you seriously, then we should stop taking those people seriously and assume they are constantly engaging in hyperbole.
@@youwouldntclickalinkonyout6236 1/6 was morally and historically equivalent to the Beer Hall Putsch. Both were pathetic attempts to overthrow the government. Hopefully the parallels stop there.
Another problem is that very few, if any, of Fox viewers could be characterized as "reasonable".
@@youwouldntclickalinkonyout6236 IDK, but I would say that trying to violently overturn the results of a lawful election and keep your preferred party in power - remember, if Trump remained in office as president then most of his sycophants would have also stayed in power - qualifies as an insurrection.
my issue is with "no reasonable person would think the statements are true " seems way too open to interpretation and abusable
Find me a reasonable person and we'll talk...
@@TotallyNotRedneckYall find me something truly unbelievable
Kind of like the self defense laws in Wisconsin ironically enough, except the leniency in the law is working against instead of for him this time around.
@@namoma4922 the argument that 'gods exist'
I still don’t understand how a reasonable person could think this kid brought an assault rifle to a riot and he *didn’t* have the intent to murder someone.
Whoopie is an open a close case. They literally (Yes actual 'literally') said "To me is murder" expressing their opinionated definition of the word
if you think he will take on whoopie, you are dreaming.
@@bwana-ma-coo-bah425 hahaha like an AG thinks she can take on Trump who is far richer than whoopie
@@daveoc5770 pay very close attention. Whoopie made the comment on television. The network she works for will have far more money than trump.
@@bwana-ma-coo-bah425 cool. then they will settle for an astounding amount and tell her to stfu to prevent further losses. sounds like a win.
@@DarrinSKI don't think so, it will open up the doors and that will never happen.
This guy must be a great lawyer. He hits all the lawyer points of emphasis. "It is not about right and wrong, it is what you can prove in court" have got to be tattooed on his back.
@Brutally Goofy Buddha uh, no.
Video is the witness that doesn’t lie, so a lot of slam dunks. All you need to find is 12 common sense jurors with an IQ above 85. Which would eliminate most democrats.
Correct, and in this case they proved Kyle only fired his gun after he was attacked, everyone who didn't attack Kyle survived. It was a clear cut case of self defense no matter how you look at it.
Don't chase people down and attack them and you won't get shot, very simple.
Haha, that's explains why this kind of lawyers are not very respected. They don't care about right or wrong at all. They are just the robots for they legal system.
@@GotoHere no both Democrats and Republicans have rednecks
I'm Ok with news corps hiding behind "no reasonable person would believe what we say to be factual"... on the condition that if that argument is ever used, they must surrender any legal privileges associated with being a member of the press.
We're here to report news & give our opinions but we won't tell you when we go from one to the other.
" no reasonable person would believe what we say to be factual" ?? Yet Throughout Europe people noted being shocked to discover the " facts about Rittenhouse.
Many stated the facts were nothing like the " media" had led them to " believe" .
Yes .normal reasonable people "BElIVED " what the meadow said as if it were factual.
All countries need laws to govern misleading media reporting.they have too much voice without little to no accountability.
Agreed.
Once they begin spouting opinion and activism for one party over another they are no longer journalists and as such should not have their access or protections.
I think there are situations where hyperbole should be a defense.
For example, a statement like “This person is insane” or even “This person belongs in a straitjacket”. Any reasonable person would realize that the commentator doesn’t actually think the the person is clinically insane or belongs in a psychiatric hospital because it is common hyperbole.
But the example brought up in the video are different.
@@liamrivers3283 agreed.
"Bob is insane!" during a conversation is not remotely the same as "Kyle, a high ranking member of the KKK... "
Though to be fair they're calling these people white nationalists, as though being white or being a nationalist is a bad thing. They changed the definitions of words again and now pretend that white patriots are all racists. They can always fall back on "white nationalist doesn't mean racist" as a defense.
Kyle Rittenhouse aside, we should have some laws that protect people from media slander. I'm specifically thinking about people who are reported for crimes that they are being charged with, but when they are found not guilty, there is little to no coverage of it and their reputations are forever tainted by false allegations.
Ye, it’s a sticky wicket. Essentially, the media used to be limited but when the “Washington Papers Case” as well as the FEC one in the early 2000s, the media has been able to fall under the first amendment freedom of speech.
Couple that with the line between figurative and literal diction has become so grey that it looks like a cloud, it is very hard to prove defamation nowadays.
I would recommend a mini-series called 'The Lost Honour of Christopher Jefferies' which was a very famous case here in the UK. Long story short, a woman was murdered in her apartment, and it appeared to be a regular murder which usually disappears from the news quickly. A media outlet then ran an article on her landlord, who was a very eccentric looking guy with an odd manner, and then the rest of the media pretty much had him convicted of the murder. It turned out he was just eccentric and a genuinely nice guy, and they caught the real murderer after the media had ruined this guys life.
It's one of the best mini-series I've ever seen, and it sticks very closely to the facts, with something of a happy ending considering the horrible crime that it's about.
I am confused how he is a public figure in purpose for the lawsuit? Has he tried to become a celebrity by working in some media? Because otherwise it would seem his fame is just linked him defending himself in court and in public opinion and other people commenting about him in media. But maybe after he has tried to become a celebrity after a trial. I just don’t feel defending yourself in media should make you a public figure in sense that makes it more difficult for you to defend yourself in civil cases.
@@sarasamaletdin4574 Aye, it's a mess. I've seen people complain that he's done too much media, but the fact that some idiots are still claiming he crossed state lines with an 'assault rifle' just shows he hasn't done enough. That said, if people don't know even the basic facts of this case without spouting off their nonsense, no amount of media will help at this point.
@@sarasamaletdin4574 He is not a public figure, he may qualify as a Limited Purpose Public Figure. He explains it clearly at 4:12
Objection: Rittenhouse does not meet the standard for limited purpose public figure.
He did not (a) voluntarily participate in a discussion nor did he (b) have access to the media to get his views across during the time period in question. Otherwise it is circular logic. Much like how the word “literally” can not be defined using the word “literally”; Rittenhouse cannot be made a public figure by means of public defamation. His fame was made manifest by the defamation itself.
If a private individual is defamed online by another and that media goes viral then the individual does not retroactively become limited purpose public figure. Otherwise there is no such thing as a private individual.
I object to your objection. He became famous for the shooting and killing, and the defamation followed subsequently.
He did appear on Fox.
@@steve6790 not according to the law
You add to this the fact that he used is right to silence makes him even less of a public figure.
@@steve6790 Shooting and killing doesnt make you a public figure
I am with you on the literally thing. it drives me nuts. Especially when I realize I have done it.
the court saying that viewers of tucker carlson are unlikely to take his statements literally is in my opinion wrong. Since there is tons of public evidence that many who watch his show take him literally, I have multiple relatives who believe he is the only trustworthy media source.
Frankly, it is disturbing how many statements of fact are being labeled as "opinion" by the courts.
Key word here is *reasonable* viewer
At least he had to go on record basically asserting that no reasonable person would take him seriously. That is good enough for me, but it is scary that you can lie and lie and lie, then stand up and tell the whole world that you are definitely a liar and anyone who believes you is an idiot, and conservatives will STILL believe everything you say.
@@ninjanomnomSK
Yeah, reasonable is the rub. That excludes the majority of Fox viewers, sadly.
@@jamessloven2204 Name some
Can we agree that news outlets shouldn’t be able to argue that their content isn’t intended to be taken literally? People watch the news to learn facts about what is happening in the world around them. If it really is a hyperbole, opinion or stretching of the truth it’s wrong to tell millions with them assuming it’s factual.
Edit- I’m all for freedom of speech but just like how you can’t run into a building and yell fire I don’t think news outlets should be giving uneducated opinions and presenting them as fact. Bring a specialist in get their opinion sure, but enforce the audience that that was an opinion.
also, the standard of "reasonable person" is too optimistic for today's people
Yea.... I don't know how someone can argue no reasonable person would take it literally while the logo 'Fox News' is predominately displayed through the ENTIRE show. It's.... insane.
someone must hold noted news platform Lebron James to account
@@dizzy2020 People had to write that encyclopedia as well. People also had to gather that information and produce studies on them. To act like an encyclopedia is free from bias if your going to be that pragmatic about the news (even if i do agree), is probably a bit disingenuous. At the end of the day the news is known to report facts, and therefore shouldn't be allowed to flagrantly use its label to push propaganda the way it does.
If tucker Carlson wants a talk show, that's one thing, but he has a damn news segment. They shouldn't get to give him that, and act like he has no responsibilities.
Yeah. Tucker Carlson isn't a late night comedy show or edutainment host. He proports to be pure news. It's not like John Oliver doing a piece on someone and saying that the subject has rat balls. Then he could reasonably say that part was a joke, and the actual substance of his piece was a joke.
You know, we should be holding media to a higher standard of telling the truth over reporting genuine misinformation and claiming someone who has been proven innocent in a court of law is, somehow, still the thing that he was accused of than your random citizen - not a lower one.
They have the reach to ruin lives far easier than a single person and yet the standards for them to be convicted of defamation are so impossibly high that they can act with utter impunity.
Rittenhouse was not "proven innocent." The jury in his case simply found that the prosecution had not met its burden, based upon the evidence they were allowed to present. The only way you can arguably be "proven innocent" is if a court of law makes a legal finding of innocence in your case. No court has made a legal finding of innocence on Rittenhouse's behalf. The idea that he's innocent just because he was acquitted....sorry, but that's not the law. Plenty of people have been acquitted only for new evidence to surface later that proves their guilt. But they can't be retried because of double jeopardy. That could conceivably happen, not just in Rittenhouse's case but in any case.
@@gspendlove The video footage alone proved he was innocent, the case never should have went to court.
@@gspendlove "Rittenhouse was not "proven innocent." "
He was emphatically. By default, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
"The jury in his case simply found that the prosecution had not met its burden, based upon the evidence they were allowed to present"
So innocent and not guilty then.
"The only way you can arguably be "proven innocent" is if a court of law makes a legal finding of innocence in your case. "
Like they did with Rittenhouse.
"No court has made a legal finding of innocence on Rittenhouse's behalf. "
Other than the court that found him not guilty of course
"The idea that he's innocent just because he was acquitted....sorry, but that's not the law."
It literally is, everyone is innocent unless found guilty. You cannot be a bit innocent or a bit guilty in law.
" Plenty of people have been acquitted only for new evidence to surface later that proves their guilt"
But until that evidence was discovered they remained innocent.
"But they can't be retried because of double jeopardy. That could conceivably happen, not just in Rittenhouse's case but in any case."
You could say that about anything, what a ridiculous argument.
@@lastrolo I'll bet you think O.J. Simpson was innocent, too. And that strippers like you.
@@gspendlove I did think he was the innocent first time around and hoped he was too. Strippers love me if I tip enough.
At the time of the alleged defamation, Kyle Rittenhouse was not a limited public figure, lowering the standard.
Most (all?) of the alleged defamation happened either before his trial was complete or in the immediate aftermath of the verdict, when it was a matter of public commentary. For later comments... if Rittenhouse had gone home and stayed away from TV cameras after the trial, maybe. But as the video explains, he went on tour and kept harping about the alleged injustice he suffered. Perhaps this is true, but appearing before the public a lot and rebranding himself as an activist of sorts keeps his status of limited public figure.
@@Snow_Fire_Flame Yeah but the claims that he was a murderer happened long before that, you have your timeline wrong.
What is the point of even having defamation laws, when everything can be written off as hyperbole or open to interpretation.
I think at some point, they're still good to protect non-public figures. If I went to your place of work and told your boss blatantly untrue facts about you in an effort to get you fired and succeeded, you would more than likely have a case to say "Hey, this guy said defamatory stuff about me and it cost me my job!"
Right???
@@ericvtheworld Obviously that would be defamation whether it's a public figure or not.
@@ericvtheworld then the court says "no reasonable person would believe some random guy who just walked in" and case closed
@@ericvtheworld depending on where you are, being called a racist can get you fired. The Supreme Court being called a racist is not defamation.
What I learned from this video:
If you defame people long and often enough, you get away with it cause it's somehow your character.
If you're a serious person and do it once, you get the hammer.
Long live the USA
You know it's not that simple.
@@Hoganply It literally is. That is the entire argument that Kyle is a public figure
@@gholland5840 how is a 17 y defending themselves vs a pedo and 2 other violent ex con a public figure?
@@gholland5840 kyle is a public figure because of blm and the medias attempt to get an innocent man locked up, while also "getting justice" for a pedophile and a domestic abuser, kinda blew up their faces lmao.
@@gholland5840 He is a public figure. The video was released on social media and became popular. People knew who he was within an hour or two. Being a public figure doesn't have to be a choice.
Maddow should have had to pay. The court literally speculated a reasonable viewer would understand the context of her statement. Our courts should not use a speculation or an assumption to make decisions.
She should at least have to pay a fine for using the word literally.
Hey, the 'literally' thing already has happened to the word 'terrific'. It originally related to 'terrible' like 'horrific' to 'horrible'. Now people in the USA use 'terrific' to mean the exact opposite of its literal meaning.
Regarding the definition of "literally", as a linguist, I have to say this sort of thing is so common we actually have a term for this. This is what linguists call semantic hyperbole. It happens when a word's meaning becomes exaggerated by overstatement. Usually, this change involves the meaning diluting rather than becoming its opposite. A good example of the usual way this process happens is the word "awfully," which used to have a more specific meaning but today is essentially a synonym for "very." Another example that more resembles what happened to "literally" is what happened to "terrific," which until the mid 20th century meant the same thing as "terrible." But then people started using it to refer to things that weren't scary but were exciting, like a "terrific" party, and over time this caused it to diverge into a new meaning. It's the same thing with "literally," but it's unlikely that the original sense of the word will die out, so "literally" will probably become a true contranym, where 2 or more of a word's senses are opposites. But who knows? Maybe because of confusion people will stop saying "literally" to mean "factual" and will use a different word, and then original meaning of "literally" may die out. Language is fun!
"As a linguist..." Sure you are.
@@reh3884 Odd thing to be sceptical about
@@reh3884 Fortunately the doubt of some rando on youtube doesn't affect my credentialing, but whether you believe me or not a quick google search will confirm my assertion.
This comment is literally awfully awesome
@@reh3884 how to say ‘as a dick’ without saying it. Don’t worry I believe you.
so let me get this straight. the more a tv host exaggerate, the less likely he is to be held liable.
so the more extreme he gets, the better it is for him, both in views and in court? so populism has already won then?
Define populism
Populism was already a thing long before, Tucker Carlson is an example of that...
A hazard of echo chambers and a sharply segmentated audience. I have two reasons this isn't the end of civilization it might sound like:
1) I think most people aren't that invested - they want to live their lives and, at least in their personal interactions, not be total asshats. I think most people will tend toward decency and appreciation. I think such people wind up supporting cruel or vindictive policies because the narrative has been reframed to make the cruel and vindictive seem caring and supporting. I think that's where we are with anti-trans laws. I don't think that reframing can go the distance as the harm such laws do invariably comes out.
2) A populist who encourages populist tendencies in their audience is playing with fire. Someone who's been taught to dehumanize can do the same with their leaders once those leaders have been proven no more than human. Recall Trump getting booed when he told his audience that actually getting vaccinated is a good thing.
Let's phrase this differently: the more obvious it is that the statements are not meant as literal truth, the more likely it is that a defamation suit will fail. Making obviously exaggerated statements is just one way of marking them as opinion.
Unfortunately it is becoming harder to tell whether a statement is exaggerated or the speaker really believes it to be an extreme fact.
Alex Jones set the precedent that tucker used.
Even without being extremist, you can claim that your show is for entertainment purposes and is not an actual representation of news
This allows you to talk about the news and report it while saying whatever you want with impunity
We need to hold the media accountable exactly the same way we hold police. In NYC, we have CCRB for the NYPD. Why don't we have a committee like that for the media?
As you say, likelihood. The more I work with judges the more I realize Judges don't always follow laws, facts, or procedures. Some just make decisions on what they feel like.
That makes them in dereliction of duty and they need to be in prison
dead fkn right. feelings should have no bearing on the case,
Thinking as a lawyer, here.
1. Sue as many as possible.
2. Negotiate and close with those un-willing to fight.
3. Withdraw from those wanting to fight.
4. Collect a massive payday. Lawyers win.
Good thing the Covington kid didn't took your advice, I mean, I don't think the Washington Post didn't wanna fight :)))))))
I don't think you know how the legal process works in this regard. Almost every single company will fight it to some extend.
What I hope you mean is those willing to actually take it to trial.
Although the problem with your premise is the second someone tries to take it to trial and they back down every single other firm will realize they backed down when it came to trial and all will then just file for motions to sent it to trial.
That may be beneficial for easy money, but it’s not the money that this is about. It’s about the outright lies and how they ought to be punished to keep it from continuing.
@@feartheghus you can't say an opinion is a lie dude, learn some grammar.
that only works if the person you sue never even talks to a lawyer and assumes they actually did something wrong. All they need to do is talk to a lawyer and they will say "ya, you didn't break the law and here are all the ways I can prove it in a court room" If you have no claim and make a baseless accusation, the lawyer will highly encourage the client not to settle out of court, because it's a free win for that lawyer, and you save money in the process.
I feel more respect for you agreeing that “literally” should not be coopted for “figuratively”
the destruction of the english language when the secondary meaning of a word means the opposite of that word. At least most other contranyms have to be used in a different way.
@@davidokinsky114 I believe in living languages should change and grow but this habit is so fuckinh annoying. Sarcasm isn't actual language use! It only works if everyone knows the correct definition and is in on the joke!
When close to half of elected official constantly dumb down the population to stay in power, as well as using slippery slope to fear monger their base, and changing the law/make ruling to protect themselves.
Well it happens to a lot of words, over time, similar to people saying "xerox" instead of "copy". Language erodes almost like rocks, exaggerations ("killer party") and slang (like "cool") become common and accepted at face-value.
@@davidokinsky114 It's slang. You people gonna cry "cool" doesn't actually relate to temperature in some cases? Was it destruction of language when your grandpa used his own slang? Get a grip.
Thank you for the video - very interesting and entertaining.
I love how so many people have been misusing the word 'literally' that the dictionary added a secondary definition.
Oh the irony of announcing a media accountability organization on Tucker Carlson's show. Let's us not forget Tucker's own lawyer's said his words cannot be trusted.
Damn, I never thought about that. LOLOLOLOL
I thought I was the only person thinking this.
But tucker isn’t a reporter, he is an opinion journalist and has stated as so. Unlike most of the other “reporters”
Like CNN
It was never intended to be an accountability organization. It was always intended to be a settling scores organization. It is a sure bet that this organization won't go after anything published on Fox or OAN.
As I told everyone at the time the media that was addicted to using "alleged" or "suspect", never used those words when talking about Rittenhouse. Those words are a hedge against a defamation claim.
That's because he's a murderer. Regardless of the verdict. He killed two people.
@@latenight7528 In self defense and it wasn't premediated. Both meaning not murder. Yes he killed 2 people. No it wasn't murder.
@@latenight7528 homicide does not mean murder...
My apologies. I'm not super knowledged when it comes to law. I understand what you are all saying now.
Because we saw it happen on video.
I agree with you in opposing a court's support of the corruption of "literally's" definition.
The whole literally vs. figuratively thing at 9:34 I totally agree with LegalEagle freaking out a little. It bugs me too :)
Like someone saying I literally jumped out of my skin. 😠
Oh well, it's sort of funny as well.
Two things I've learned about the law... It often depends and the wheels of justice turn slowly.
"Anything can happen in a jury trial."
Also never ask a question you don't already know the answer to
Judgement doesn't make things true... A murderer getting favorable legal outcome doesn't make them "innocent"...
The problem with slow justice is that justice delayed is justice denied.
It depends on how much money you have.
"can you sue..."
Yeah. It's the US, you can sue over anything.
The real question is "is there a chance of winning?"
Even for being called a murderer after you wave a gun around and murder two people.
"I'm suing for pain and suffering."
"Why?"
"My coworker farted in the elevator and it smelled like death."
@@thewhitewolf58 I mean you don’t run at someone with a gun with your own gun and hope to live, weather or not he went there with the purpose to kill he was ran at by people with firearms
@@jonahclark7442 Anyone who asserts that Kyle Rittenhouse is a murderer falls into one of two categories:
1) They never saw the footage of the incident
2) They saw the footage of the incident, but they don't believe in the right to self-defense
Thanks again for this. As a foreigner to your country I find your videos the most informative and interesting with regards to understanding American law.
Yeah....some people are dumb enough to believe things said as "Opinion" ...lawyers, and Judges, give people too much credit!
To hold the media accountable... On Tucker Carlson show. Really. The irony is painful.
But he's satire, no rational viewer would take what he says seriously.
he tells more truths then CNN abc and other new medias put together democrats just hate him cause hes not willing to conform to there way of thinking
@@OneEyeShadow ok but do rational people watch his show
@@eaglegundam1873 You are so deluded, it's actually laughable.
Tucker Carlson on Fox calling out CNN as "unreliable fake news" is the pot calling the kettle black. The only difference between the two is political leaning.
I doubt anyone could be sued if they said “arguably...” .
Whoopi also make a remark that she was opining. So with JLeBJ that's three down.
Arguable.
Argues with Some Dude.
Can't be that simple unfortunately. It'd just become the "in my opinion" excuse. "Arguably XYZ has this STI"
@@addymant I think the difference is that, in this case, it is literally arguable. Saying someone has an STI/STD can be proven false with a simple test. Kyle Rittenhouse had to argue his case in court, against all of the opinions from before it even got there. Now, initially, I believed what was said, due to lack of information. Only when the footage from the case came out, widely, did I actually start to believe him innocent of murder and instead decide it was self defense in my opinion. So yeah. The actual need/ability to argue the point to different conclusions makes it "arguably", and, therefore, an opinion.
Thanks, I was wondering about this issue.
thrilled you stood up for proper usage!!!
If calling an acquitted persona murderer were defamation O.J. Simpson would be wildly rich by now.
Kyles going to put out "If I did it" Part 2.
I'm looking at these situations from a purely moral, and not legal, perspective. From a purely moral perspective, there are key differences. I would point out that the media made tons and tons of money off of the deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, and the media never had to pay their families a dime as much of it delighted in their murders. There are other differences:
1) O.J. is extremely rich, although not from lawsuits.
2) O.J. was a public figure before the double-murder trial and intentionally sought publicity by trying to flee from justice.
3) O.J. was found liable for the deaths of the people in question.
4) O.J. has not had experienced a significant backlash even after being convicted of a different violent offense from a different incident than the infamous one: O.J. is still allowed and encouraged on Twitter, is welcome at universities, and has had no school administrators speak out against his acquittal in a professional capacity. O.J. was even rewarded with a show on MTV after the civil trial for wrongful death.
Honestly, OJ emerged from that double-murder trial as a real-life version of Pennywise the Clown from the first It movies with Tim Curry.
Doesn't he have millions of dollars?
@@teh-maxh Yep. OJ is probably worth about $100,000,000. For practical purposes, after being released from prison for armed robbery, OJ finds himself in a far more envious position socially than Kyle Rittenhouse. For example, OJ is encouraged to be active on Twitter, and no university has banned him.
Generally, I lean very heavilly towards freedom of speach, but with large media organizations and their comentators/journalists, I feel they should be held to a higher standard due to them being often viewed as authorities when it comes to disemination of facts and their ability to reach a very large audiance.
Exactly
I disagree
If you are presenting yourself as a objective teller of truth, you better be telling the objective truth to the best of your ability. When you put yourself into that position you take up the responsibility of truth to your audience.
"I support freedom of speech but.." = I only support freedom of speech when I agree with it. Don't try to disguise it as something else.
@@benjaminhoyt1421 I'm not disguising anything. I don't care what is being said and I think opposing viewpoints are important and I think people are entitled to say anything they want reguardless of how I feel on the matter. Media organisations are basically the only instance that has pushed my tolerance to the limit, because of how many people they can reach and how an average person can never have sufficient reach or clout to argue against them.
I'm not saying media shouldn't be able to talk freely, but I do think that if they are taken to court by someone, then the reach they have should be taken into consideration when they make hyperbolic and exagerated statements that could be damaging to a person, as their reach can have a much greater effect compared to a regular person.
You keep fighting the “literally battle” and I’ll keep fighting the “begs the question” battle!
Literally I agree with you, Mr. LegalEagle.
“Literally” has been hyperbolic for centuries, maybe always. In the Adventures of Tom Sawyer in 1876 it says “And when the middle of the afternoon came, from being a poor poverty-stricken boy in the morning, Tom was literally rolling in wealth.”
Even earlier than that, John Dryden, England's first Poet Laureate and the father of modern literary criticism, was using it hyperbolically in the early 1700s.
I'd be literally shitting bricks if i were on kyles hitlist
Should have scrolled down, I was just posting the same, but with the example of Charles Dickens in 1839 (“his looks were very haggard, and his limbs and body literally worn to the bone…” - Nicholas Nickleby). Linguistically, the argument 'literally' cannot be used to mean 'figuratively' was lost literally two centuries ago.
Are you taking about the word rolling on its own, the word wealth on its own, or the idiom 'rolling in wealth'?
Tom was not physically rolling in something.
Tom did not possess actual money.
Tom had obtained things of relative value as established by the other boys exchanging items to then be allowed to paint.
In the world of those youths Tom amassed wealth between morning and noon.
How is "literally rolling in wealth" not literal? Are you confusing the definition of the word "rolling"? He's not on the ground rolling in his wealth, but, the word "rolling" has more than one definition. One of those definitions is "done or happening in a steady and continuous way".
Tom WAS literally rolling in wealth. (not figuratively)
Kind of makes me think why so many people go crazy with the "allegedly" when reporting things. Looks like you can call a person pretty much whatever you want and almost nothing is actionable.
Yeah, the law is kept broad in scope so that people don't just sue anyone who says mean stuff about them...
Legal eagle gave an example of an actionable statement too
yeah. That's how freedom of speech works. Unless you can prove someone knowingly provides false facts about you, or unless you can prove they violated some contractual obligation, a person is not subject to legal retaliation. Otherwise any rich asshole with enough lawyers can sue anyone who calls him an asshole.
Especially leading up to trials, actual news agencies (ie, NOT Tucker Carlson) have to be wary of crossing the line into libel/slander/defamation, as well as impacting potential juries.
Sources lie, video & photos can be altered, & so on...if a journalist just says "Joe shot Bill," they can quickly get into hot legal water, & legit news agencies have repeatedly lost lawsuits or had to settle when they cross the line. Saying "Joe allegedly shot Bill" mitigates that risk. An example is the ongoing cases against Fox News by Dominion for repeatedly claiming that Dominion had actually committed crimes, rather than merely reporting that Trump et al allege that Dominion had committed crimes.
@@Metrion77 I wonder how many times that walking wig you called a ‘president’ for four years, tried it anyway. 🙄
What did you think Free Speech means?
Hey Can you offer tips for future lawyers taking the bar exam. Which jurisdiction you took? I am taking the FL bar
So my conclusion is you can effectively call someone anything you want and hide behind not being serious and exaggeration. Because I’m not sure how the most powerful man in the world calling you a white nationalist or powerful media figures calling you a murderer when you aren’t doesn’t count as defamation
@VaderxG What an ironic way to start a sentence.
free speech, conservatives love it until it's used against them.
People keep saying Kyle is going to sue, but he hasn’t yet and when is he going to?
@VaderxG Sometimes killing someone is okay, self defense laws exist for a reason. Nobody argues he didn't kill those people, he did. People who are right argue it clearly was in self defense and therefore justified.
@VaderxG Completely irrelevant.
The basic gist of defamation is, just don't pursue it as a case. 9/10 times defense just goes "oh, it's just my opinion" and you lose right there. It's basically impossible to land defamation.
I thought defamation also requires proof of injury. All the attention Rittenhouse has gotten turned him into a right wing celebrity; he's sustained no injury whatsoever
At least in America, its only really ever effective for big companies against journalists.
@@steveno2760 "emotional injury"
Well Nick Sandman won his case with CNN so I think Kyle has a case here because his name was blasted from day 1. Not sure against everyone listed though.
If Sarah Palin couldn’t win her case, this kid doesn’t have a chance in hell.
I am laughing so hard at fox news essentially being like "you listen to this guy?" About tucker Carlson. "Oh he's just making stuff up and everyone should know that bc that's like his whole show. It's all making stuff up. His reputation is shit too. Seriously"
Not to mention the double standard that conservative pundits express when they sue liberal pundits for defamation.
I feel like as funny as that is, it’s still kind of messed up that that works as a defense. Because a lot of people actually take Tucker Carlson at his word. He can basically say whatever he has said, and then go “I didn’t mean it.” And avoid legal repercussions for Slander. With a bunch of his audience either never knowing about it, or understanding that he only said “I didn’t mean it.” To get out of hot water.
Yes he has no integrity, but that’s because neither he, nor his audience, care.
but what people fail to mention is CNN and MSNBC have both gotten out of lawsuits with the same arguments
This is how fox has gotten out of trouble multiple times before, claiming it's entertainment and not actually news
@@samkeiser9776 To be fair, Carlson does frequently look like he's really, really confused. Perhaps this is because he cannot understand why any sane person would take him at his word.
What about seeking restitution from a media agency such as CNN or MSNBC? One could argue that by parading out pundits and "experts" whom continue to put forth the narrative that Kyle is a murderer, while the individuals themselves may be giving their opinions, the Agencies are using those like minded opinions to impart a belief among their viewership that can and likely will cause some form of damages to Mr. Rittenhouse. Rather than going after each individual, take the group from each channel and use their words to convey a directed attack on Kyle by the ones employing them.
I feel the rage around the literally thing, as a Brit I hate it when I hear a person say “I could care less” because it LITERALLY means the opposite of what they’re trying to say
I'm so glad you added that rant about literally's definition. I was having that exact reaction right before you launched into it.
Lol that's what I was getting on here to say too
I love people on Twitter who say one of the witnesses ruined everything by admitting he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse.
If they'd said no, they would've been guilty of perjury.
True, but that’s OBJECTIVE REALITY. Don’t forget we’re talking about Twitter here lol, factual reality is meaningless to them.
Didn't he point the gun at him after Rittenhouse already shot someone? That's self defense right? The only thing this trial taught me was to always pull the trigger first. Seems like a bad lesson but idk.
@@Vexas345 rittenhouse was on the ground when the guy pointed an illegal gun at rittenhouse. This means that the guy was about to essentially execute someone who is on the ground while kyle didnt point his firearm at tge guy
@@taggymcshaggy6383 There are no illegal guns in the usa
@@Vexas345 That's the point, Rittenhouse shot someone ELSE that was chasing him down and trying to harm him.
Thank you for saying literally what I was literally thinking. Or figuratively, but more likely literally. :)
I don't know how you can call him a public figure, given that before the incident he was not active on social media. no one knew who he was prior to his shooting the three men! so how can you put him on the higher standard?
I would argue the same thing if I were his attorney. I do think some of his claims would be difficult to prove even under the lower standard but the more egregious ones from MSNBC and Biden have a lot of merit I think.
Making a judgment call on what is hyperbolic, what is rhetorical, and whether their use of "literally" meant "literally" or "not literally" seems like a hell of a slippery slope to me.
What's stopping anyone from phrasing LITERALLY anything in a way that can be considered hyperbolic, and therefore can't be considered defamation?
What CAN be sued then? Is anyone allowed to say anything from now on, because even facts can be considered opinion, even 'literally' can be considered not literally, everything can be considered rhetorical/hyperbolic, etc...
Good point. Could someone give an example of what would constitute defamation against Rittenhouse? It sounds like it would be completely legal to say on your TV show: "he's literally a Nazi. That's a fact. He wants to commit genocide against the Jews"
Problem is, this swings both ways. How to decide when hyperbole is meant seriously and when jokingly? The problem is that either everyone and their dog gets convicted for making jokes or nearly nobody (as it is now). As law seeks to not punish the not guilty, it will always choose the definition that lets some guilty people free over convicting innocent people.
What surprises me more is that public figures are not held to a higher standard. Like Goldberg said that he is a murderer in her opinion. I think such clarification is reasonable to expect, considering the wide audience they have. Either through clearly stating it is an opinion or through the format of the show. A comedian doesn't need to say that it is his opinion, because the format of his public presence makes it clear. A news show however should have to always state when it is opinion and not researched fact (i.e by saying "alleged murderer" or "one can assume he is a murderer").
I find it especially shocking that the white house/the president can post things that clearly ruin someones reputation. Again, the statement would be different if he said that they disavow someone who is allegedly a white supremacist. I don't think that it is asked too much of experienced public figures to clearly state what is opinion and what fact, especially in social media or speeches or prepared shows. Because many people will believe their words and take it for fact otherwise.
Only exception I would make is for live content where you can't prepare every word or a reasonable amount of what you will say.
@@denidale4701 I think the difference between a joke, and a claim, is rather obvious.
I'll say it right now, not ONE person who called Kyle a murderer/white supremacist/terrorist on the air, was 'joking' about it. They all believed he was all these things, and so they claimed it.
Better to slip too far in the direction of letting people say anything than slipping too far in the direction of controlling what people say.
Well that’s why judges must hold a judicial philosophy to come to a conclusion. Judges might each come to different conclusions.
After watching this in full, I feel that the law for defamation needs to be changed. It currently seems that public figures, who have access to large audiences, can make defamatory statements about individual people and neglect the facts of situations in regards to those individuals. However, the court of law will not punish these people because it was presented as a public statement based on public events. This prevents people from being held accountable for any actions that they take which can lead to the destruction of people's lives. Kyle Rittenhouse was banned from attending ASU because of the statements made from these public figures. To say that publics statement don't have consequential actions is blatantly untrue, whether the they were intended or not.
That is complete misinformation. Whoopi Goldberg does not dictate who can study at ASU 🤣 ASU took no steps to prevent Kyle Rittenhouse from attending. His course was mostly online and he was a student there for a short period. What could've influenced his decision to quit was the fact a bunch of students protested his attendance, which is completely within the bounds of free speech - many people believe what he did constituted murder, or at the very least illustrated the race disparity in legal judgement, i.e. there is simply no way a black man would've got off had he been running round Kenosha with a gun and shot multiple people. For those who don't view him as a folk hero, and there are many, he is an extremely repulsive character. I think the gun lobby need to come to terms with this.
It's not the law that needs to change, it's the idea news stations do not need to be help accountable for stating fact. FACT is, a reasonable person SHOULD believe news stations are providing facts to them. Problem is the news stations are so damn untrustworthy that a reasonable person would actually assume they are being lied to when they turn on the news in todays day and age which is a MASSIVE problem. People are right to assume the news is lying, because it's all they do.
Rittenhouse was not banned from attending ASU. He was enrolled in online classes at ASU for a few months but was no longer enrolled by the time of the trial. At no point did ASU take any action against Rittenhouse. Even if ASU had taken action against Rittenhouse there is no reason to believe it would be because of the influence of media. Universities are private institutions and association with them is a privilege that they have the right to remove for any reason they see fit. If a university decides that they don't want students attending public protests with firearms and publicly stating affiliation with the university then it is completely in their right to do so. If Rittenhouse were expelled from ASU because of this incident it would be a result of his public statement claiming to be a student at ASU and nothing else. They would have very little reason to expel him if he was not publicly associated with ASU. A great example to point to is that time an ASU student was expelled for posting pornographic photos where she was wearing an ASU shirt. You can post nudes, you can shoot people in self defense, you can't post nudes in an ASU sweatshirt, you can't shoot people in self defense in an ASU sweatshirt.
I'm not sure why I'm trying to explain this though, he wasn't expelled at all.
@@ToomanyFrancis much more comprehensive explanation than mine, cheers 😂👏🏽
@@CrypticCobra I support Rittenhouse , but I don't think the law needs to be changed . Because defamation is already itself an infringement of the first amendment & we don't want any more intrusion from the government in our Freedom of Speech . This is the slippery slope through which the government gradually creates law to censor speech & people see the short time dynamic but not the long term effects
It's weird how most of Kyle's harshest critics seem to often get the facts of the case wrong.
Also, there's a difference between legal language and moral language. A society come up with a law which states "Murder is the unlawful killing of a blue-eyed man by a green-eyed woman with a fork". However, most people currently, would still consider a green-eyed man shooting a brown-eyed woman murder. This is essentially what Whoopi was saying (and my personal view). Under US law what Rittenhaus did not meet the legal definition of murder. But that doesn't stop me from considering him a murderer. Calling that defamation would massively limit the ability to change unfair laws- you have to have separate discussions of morality and legal ethics to make sure that laws are fair and accurately represent how people view crimes.
I find it so ironic that Rittenhouse announced the Media Accountability Project on Fox News lol
@R4R 4R4 if he was a black man, cops would have shot him dead the minute he walked towards them in Kenosha with a rifle. That was why people were protesting. Unequal justice and unequal rights.
He killed people and probably he enjoyed it.
@R4R 4R4 and if he had stayed his ass at home. he wouldnt have been on trial to start with. play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
@@Bored_Barbarian you poor thing.
@@cmdraftbrn no law requires you to stay at home. Quit being so sour.
@@cmdraftbrn I think those he ‘murdered’ definitely earned their stupid prizes
Objection:
The word 'false' is misspelled in defamation requirement number 2 at 3:32. Thus, all information built upon this requirement must be considered unreliable and removed from evidence.
ah, a redditor.
Is this is a phoenix wright quote
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
he was talking about the Fair Lawn Association for Special Education (FLASE) in that portion of the video.
What about settlement for two reasons like the cost of the suit or a jury siding with the plaintiff and awarding a large amount and the cost of appeals. I wrote this before the end so let’s see if you cover it.
Devin’s diatribe about “literally” is the best part of this video.
Short answer to video's title: Yes.
Longer answer: You can sue anyone for anything, up to and including God. Doesn't mean you'll win or you'll win money.
Slightly longer answer: Rittenhouse had a lot of personal information that wasn't allowed at trial that he wouldn't want to be subject of a lawsuit.
I'd love to see someone defend against this suit and take it to discovery.
(looks at video suggestions) Yep, you're right, LegalEagle did a video about suing God. Guess I'm watching that next!
💯 about discovery. He's only filing this garbage lawsuit because he knows it won't make it that far.
@@elizabethhenning778 that is funny as has has multiple high end lawyers that saw otherwise and people calling him a white supremacist, murderer, and terrorist are all easy to show is false so those calling him that are clearly guilty.
@@chrischandler889 you really didn't watch the video huh
Kyle Rittenhouse can try suing but all it'll do is make some lawyers get paid.
That being the point. Most lawsuits are for the purpose of bludgeoning a person into compliance by shackling them with so many Attorney Fees that they have to retreat.
@@Neddyhk LeBron has plenty of money and personal lawyers. Only person house would get beaten into submission is Kyle
@@Neddyhk
Rittenhouse's legal fees won't shackle other people, just him.
Which is why I suspect it is his lawyers that came up with the idea. They have already made millions off him, and his supporters are still willing to keep opening their wallets.
Its mostly just to throw some darts at the wall hoping at least one of them sticks.
Feels like it’s not rhetorical or hyperbole. It’s news reporters and things, who are supposed to be disseminating facts, that feels like it’s meant to be taken factually
I've enjoyed your videos before, but I subbed because of your reaction to people literally changing the definition of the word literally to it's literal opposite. I could not agree more.
This case presents an interesting conundrum. At the outset, Rittenhouse was not a public figure. He became one because of the nature off the media coverage of his case. The very material at issue in any potential defamation suit.
So your analysis implies that the media can make it harder for private citizens to sue them for defamation by simply choosing to treat that person as a public figure and making them so via the news coverage. He's not a public figure by choice, and in large part any damages he claims are going to be the result of how he was made into a public figure.
I'm not sure what the answer is here. But I'm not convinced that the case is as clear cut as your analysis implies.
Not a public figure by choice? Not sure about that since he is choosing to do all these interviews with the media. This seems like he's trying to have his cake and eat it too.
That "breakdown" was pretty funny the fakest crying i ever seen lol
Yup, plus multiple media outlets outright lied about facts of the case. Whether Kyle has a defamation suit or not isn't clear to me but it's absolutely atrocious that there seems to be no reprocussions for these outlets outright lying.
There was even the instance of the New York Times reporter (I forget which one) tweeting out that Rittenhouse shot Gage while Gage had the gun pointing in the air hours after Gage had testified in court that he was pointing the gun at Kyle when he was shot.
@@1EdgarA His interviews occurred after the media made him a public figure. The cat was already out of the bag so he decided to get his side out. You don’t need to like Rittenhouse to agree with OP. Media shouldn’t be able to make someone a public figure to avoid legal penalties.
Being that it is a summary of multiple days worth of trials, potential outcomes, and tried to explain legal nuances is 15 minutes... Yeah... Yeah it's not going to be as clear cut in reality as it is in this segment. 🙄
it still makes me laugh that tucker's legal defense was essentially *"no reasonable person would believe the things i say are actually true"*
That’s literally what happened with the Rachel Maddow suit. “A reasonable viewer viewer would not take the statement as factual” What makes me laugh is that anyone thinks that these are news outlets and not just opinionated propaganda on both sides.
@@PipsqueaQ but it depends who doing the talkig example if it was u people would believe u over a opinionated show like Tucker that purposely spreads hatred and division
@@drewmcdonald1077 And Maddow doesn't? XD
The defense was _"given Mr Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of scepticism about the statement he makes"_ and that he _"discusses and engages in non-literal commentary"._ His show is slated as an opinion-based show, not part of their primetime news, and you see this with all opinion-based shows. Rachel Maddow, for example, won her lawsuit by claiming she's not even a real journalist, and the court agreed, claiming her show is one of _"opinion and rhetorical hyperbole"_ and engages in _"exaggeration of the facts"_ .
@@WhiskeyPapa42 um Rachel Maddow doesn't spew rhetoric Tucker and other Trump people do
Can we all just take a moment to appreciate the editing @ 7:16, syncing the audio with the clips.
Slander by news organizations should be actionable.
Worth noting, if I’m remembering the wording correctly, that the Rittenhouse sentence didn’t even require them to think he _was_ engaged in self-defense, more that they could not unanimously conclude that he had acted _“beyond a reasonable doubt”_ in alignment with the charges. Any amount of reasonable doubt would mean the charges hadn’t been proven according to necessary standards.
Acquitted doesn’t always mean “proven innocent;” sometimes it means “failed to prove guilty” and there’s some nuance in meaning there between the legal and literal definitions. Also, that all is before you get into bad practices by prosecutors, defense attorneys, etc. which can result in deliberate or accidental mistaken guilty verdicts.
Edit: added "between the legal and literal definitions" to second paragraph
"Acquitted" is the same as innocent. By default all people are innocent until proven beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty. There is no need to "prove innocent", because a person is inherently innocent.
Isn't that one of the main principles of criminal law not only in the US, but in most democratic countries?
It *always* means failure to prove guilty. Or at least it should. That's the entire basis of the legal system.
Still, a person who hasn't been proven guilty of a crime can't be recklessly accused of the crime. In law if a person hasn't been proven guilty he is considered innocent.
@@Temo990 THe point being raised is that sometimes someone OBVIOUSLY in the wrong that is acquitted is still guilty in actuality. They are only innocent BEFORE THE LAW. innocent until proven guilty is a LEGAL standard, applied by our government, not us.
@@Temo990 He is guilty, the trial was a clown show and key evidence was witheld which pointed to a trend of criminality and vigilante behaviour, therefore if all the actual facts were taken into account I really doubt a reasonable person would find his ass "innocent", he is guilty, the court and the judge helped him get away with murder literally (not figuratively)
One thing that might vary in the lawsuit is what people said about Kyle Rittenhouse BEFORE he was a bit of public figure vs what people said AFTER he became a public figure.
Same thing with who media outlets said when he was still technically a minor vs what media outlets said when he was an adult.
Excellent points!
I mean, if people haven't been so hyperfocused with cases like Kyle Rittenhouse. He wouldn't sued people in the first place.
I don't know if this is a legal argument in favor Kyle but: Didn't the MSM and the justice system in Waukesha cause him to become a public figure with a trial and all the public exposure that the trial brought before and during the trial?
Do media outlets really get to use the public figure excuse when they were the ones that made him such...
@@Cevans1992 good question Captain America
Always interesting, thanks.
If they can get 1.5 billion out of Alex Jones the Kyle deserves at least a few million.
Out of curiosity, what is the definition of a "Public Figure"? While Rittenhouse certainly fits that definition now, he didn't make the initial choice to become one (the social media storm regarding his case did that for him).
I'm just curious if the public can essentially transform someone against their will INTO a public figure thus necessitating the highest standard of actual malice or if that person needs to choose to engage.
Further, is the actual malice standard applied based on the time the statements were made or the time of the defamation lawsuit?
I'm not from the US so US law isn't my strong suit.
I don’t believe you get to choose to become a public figure or not in this case with how big it all got. Just sort of fact of what happens with something like that.
Rittenhouse also did interviews on national televison. Dude chose to be a public figure.
@@ELFanatic he definitely did by the end. Not not in the initial chaos.
@@nibblitman but then does that mean the media can blow up your profile and make themselves immune from that lower burden without you doing anything?
@@adamgribble3936 So my feelings on that is it all kind of depends on the starting point. In this case it is his actions that bring that spotlight so I would think that negates it. If they just picked ransoms guy and made fake stories and made it a big deal out of nothing that would likely be different.
Senk Weeger? It is more properly pronounced like Jenk You-ger.
No it's chunk yoghurt
@@michaelrobinson300 closer than Jay's pronunciation
*Cenk
@@michaelrobinson300 haha you love Cenk 💘😘💕
He couldn’t pronounce Jim Adler the other week sooooo
The takeaway for me seems like we need a true federal standard for defamation that both adequately protects free speech but also gives these massive media corporations, millionaires, and billionaires with outsize legal and public influence and means relative to the average person’s ability to defend their reputation pause before spewing what are often clearly malicious comments and statements hiding behind legal hurdles.
The standard for literal commentary or statements of fact should be that if it isn't prefaced with something like, "in my opinion", or, "I feel that", or is otherwise part of what is an obvious comedy or satire skit, it's a statement of fact and should be taken literally. "He is a murderer" is a declarative statement of fact without some kind of caveat to justify it, and should be actionable.
I honestly don't feel too comfortable with the integrity of journalism or anything for that matter, if "no reasonable person..." can be used as a valid defense against liability for wrongdoing, as if reasonable people aren't in short supply and less than reasonable people don't deserve the same rights, not to mention how nebulous the distinction between reasonable and otherwise really is.
Him announcing "a tool to...hold the media accountable for the lies they said and deal with them in court" on the Tucker Carlson Show is peak irony.
Remember how Trump called for making it easier for libel lawsuits during the 2016 election? I am still waiting for somebody to pass that level of irony.
Sadly, most media lied about Rittenhouse and defamed him. So, probably they were not willing to interview him after the trial
But do you think that other news outlets, like CNN or MSNBC are any better? Those are just propaganda. Remember the whole four years of "Russian collusion" that turned out to just be a giant smear campaign? It used to be that you could trust the media. Now, you just have to assume that everything is a lie.
@@harrkev Yes, they are a lot better. They still suck a lot, since literally ALL of our news in the U.S. sucks (I'm sure everyone can agree on that lol), but that doesn't mean that Fox News isn't SIGNIFICANTLY worse. It's genuinely not even close. The amount of damage done is not comparable. The overall intention is not comparable. The egregiousness of the lies are not [generally] comparable. It just isn't the same at all.
On a similar note, your average [U.S.] Republican and your average U.S. Liberal have _vastly_ different levels of capability when it comes to analyzing data and determining fact from fiction. Lastly, the "amount of truth" (if that makes any sense) in any given statement is not comparable. While MSNBC and CNN absolutely lie all the frickin time, there's usually _some_ truth to what they're saying. Not always, but usually. On the other hand, Fox News _routinely_ fabricates issues out of thin air with the sole purpose of enraging/scaring their viewers.
I'm not saying that we don't have a very real problem with ALL the news in this country. We absolutely do. That said, Fox News is just so, so, SO much worse than anything else is. There is just no debate to be had here (if you'd like to see this in action, go find a foreigner and show them CNN and Fox News. They'll hate all of it, and rightfully so, but they will be genuinely scared by Fox News. Because it IS actually kinda scary to anyone who hasn't already succumbed to their delusional worldview. The entire Republican platform is devoid of supporting evidence. There's literally almost nothing at all at this point.
While the rest of the world has been moving to the left (politically) and have been doing quite well from it (despite what Fox would tell you. Remember the fake "no-go zones" in European cities that only Muslims could go through? Totally fake lol). The solutions this country actually needs are to the left, and yet Republicans keep going further and further right, and it's actually scary. At this point, this just isn't a simple difference in politics. This is living in reality and caring about human rights vs. living in an increasingly delusional fantasy and not caring about anyone else. There just isn't any reason to continue to vote Conservative at this point. While _actual_ Conservatism can serve as a crucial balance to prevent gov't overreach, they've entirely abandoned that platform... now it's purely about "owning the libs". We do not have any real Conservatives left.. what we have now is a purely regressive party that longs to go back to a "better time" that has never actually existed in reality.
It's all kinda depressing.
@@harrkev Yes, a 4 year investigation that could have been wrapped up in a few weeks, if "innocent" people didn't act guilty as hell..... Innocent people aren't generally that combative or defensive. Innocent people generally want to prove their innocence as fast as possible.
Merriam-Webster should be sued into the dirt for changing that definition in their book. That is completely inexcusable and justifies any hate for M-W.
you should do a video on hypothetical lawsuits that would cause paradoxes in our how our laws are setup right now or on laws you find personally enraging. I love your "WTF?!" moments lol
The problem I have with this is that these same people are trying to have it both ways. When they’re in trouble, it’s “no reasonable person would believe what we were saying,” but when they want to lecture the rest of us from their ivory towers, it’s how “informed they are on the subject.” Sick of that crap
It’s like how Trump says “I was kidding” when he is in trouble and “I never kid” when the coast is clear.
💯💯💯💯
Thank you for the "literally" rant. I stand with you in support of the proper use of literally.
But do you figuratively or literally stand in support?
Misuse of literally is figuratively the worst!
I know it irks people, but in English, common usage IS correct usage. It's a very fluid and quick to evolve language. I'm a grammar pedant every day of the week, but you have to roll with these things.
@@tigerofdoom
I know people commonly use it that way. I'm generally okay with the evolution language. I just dont like that this word evolved to mean the opposite of what it means. And I will die on this hill. Everyone is wrong. Literally does not mean figuratively. All the goobers who use it wrong can fight me!
Both are 100% equally valid uses.
I watched this trial. Evidence clearly showed Rittenhouse being approached and pursued in an agressive manner by those that he shot. He could reasonably believe that they intended him significant physical harm. Video evidence supported that. That is why he self defense defense led to his acquittal.
I watched the trial too. It also showed that Rittenhouse was an immature idiot who panicked at the first sign of conflict.
Juries never come to the wrong conclusion and there's no such thing as a biased judge. Plus evidence of motive and intent never gets excluded from a trial.
@@gspendlove lmao
Good one.
@@leeartlee915 The trial DID indeed show that Rittenhouse was an immature idiot who panicked - when someone came at him in an aggressive manner. The videos clearly showed all of the ones the kid shot were coming for him, with clear intent to physically touch him, or in one case, had a gun themselves.
I do not think that kid should have been anywhere near that situation, and definitely shouldn't have been armed, but they were able to prove that Rittenhouse did not shoot unprovoked. Each shot could be reasonably considered self defense.
@@foreveryoungsiberianhuskie6771 I never argued otherwise. But just imagine the same situation minus Rittenhouse having a gun. If you do that, I don’t see anyone dying in that scenario. Him having a gun, him panicking, him being a afraid little bitch, that’s what led to people dying.
Legally, he was found not guilty. Doesn’t mean that the laws aren’t whack. If Rittenhouse had done the exact same thing in, say, Massachusetts, he likely would have been found guilty. Another thing of note. When Rittenhouse was “attacked” when he was fleeing the scene and had been killed by those men, it’s very likely they would have been found not guilty because it was “reasonable” for them to believe Rittenhouse was a danger to themselves and others (as he was an active shooter). Hell, there’s a good chance they wouldn’t have even been indicted.
I am so with you regarding "literally".
Personally I believe that if something has the moniker of "NEWS" everything they say should be actionable.
You’re obviously a Trumper that hates freedom of press
So you don’t believe in freedom of speech
@@Duhbaby2348h no, I'm a social democrat and I completely agree with Kenneth. Kyle was forced out of college because of the news coverage.
His biggest mistake was inserting himself into a dangerous situation that could have been avoided. We have to keep in mind he was 17 at the time, he had a good 8 years before his pre-frontal cortex finished developing and already needs to cope with the complex emotions of taking a life, and being on trial for life in prison for self defense.
The news media absolutely contributed to making his life much more difficult than it had to be.
@@Duhbaby2348h I do believe in the freedom of speech, and the freedom of the press, but "news" is supposed to be the truth, or at least an attempt at the truth. Anything less is false advertizement.
@@bobDotJS he was forced out by other students personal viewpoints on what happened. His own actions gave many people plenty of ammo to paint him as a racist.
9:55 - "I refuse to accept that 'literally' now means 'figuratively.'"
Testify! I understand that language needs to evolve, and I generally agree that definitions should be descriptive, not proscriptive, but I draw the line at contranyms. No word's accepted usage should include two mutually contradictory meanings. "Sanction" is bad enough. We don't need more contranyms.
Well, contronyms are an accepted part of the English language and really easy to parse based on context, so that's on you, not the rest of us.
@@RabblesTheBinx Cancer is an accepted part of medical science, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say we don't need more cancer, either.
As for inferring meaning from context, that isn't always clear, and words like "literally" allow the speaker to impart clarity to an otherwise possibly ambiguous statement. Or, at least, they used to.
@@RabblesTheBinx Eh, context doesn't always help in this case. Sure, if someone says, "I literally jumped out of my skin!" you know they're most likely exaggerating, particularly if you can't actually see any of their bone or muscle. But if someone says, "I was out running and I literally hit the wall," you'd have to hear more of the story before determining whether they actually meant "literally" or just didn't know how to properly use words.
While we're at it, can we also get rid of negative prefixes that aren't, such as "inflammable"?
I think all media entities that label themselves as news should have to : 1) Affirm that they will do their best to avoid bias and 2) Be transparent when a piece of media is the production of opinion, bias and or both. I know "opinion piece " is a tag line but that seems mostly to be a tool for companies to avoid responsibility for backlash.
I got a nebula ad that featured you on this video
So totally agreed about "literally". The word serves a useful and unique function; it de-metaphors a metaphor, and no other word does it nearly as well. We shouldn't let dullards define words for us.
Words are all made up, don't act like you own it
@@svenjorgensenn8418 I just don't think it's a good idea to redefine a word because dumb people don't understand the traditional meaning. Dumb people could always try learning a thing and becoming a little less dumb.
10:00 in regards to literally and figuratively.
I do agree with you there. I just chuckled because a lawyer would get that worked up over a word.
Getting that worked up over a word is literally (and yes, I mean literally) central to a lawyer's job.
@@Ahui87 *linguist's
Attorneys succeed & fail by their facility w the English language. Most of them pride themselves on it. And rightly so.
Sadly, the battle has already been lost over "really" and "hopefully".
@@DeGuerre In regards to "really" it really shows the need for punctuation denoting sarcasm.
Former Marine here and just wanted to point out that the "OK" hand symbol was used as part of game we played with each other. Essentially, if you could get someone to look at your hand making that symbol below your waste, you got to either slap them in the nuts or kick them in the butt (can't remember which since there was another game where you got someone to look at your genitals on accident and it had a different penalty). If you see photos of military members making this gesture, it may be as part of that old stupid game or joke where they are trying to get the person taking the photo to see them making the gesture. Just thought it was an interesting thing to share when I heard him mention that hand symbol.
The hand symbol was literally a trolling thing on Reddit or something. They wanted to start a rumor that only white supremacists used that symbol. The left-wing had a fit and think it's a real thing, when in fact it's just trolling them.
@@lastrolo Reddit was only 2 years old in the time period I am referring to so I don't think that is where it originated.
@@fynoxadavius127 It didn't originate from there, but the trolling of MSM/liberals was the origin of the OK hand signal and white supremacy.
The problem with what you're saying about opinion vs fact when it comes to the people he's trying to sue is that some of those people followed up their statements with "he's factually... " or "its a fact that... ". But in general I'd agree with what you're saying about vocalizing ones opinion in regards to the law.
With it being so hard to hold people accountable for outright lies that do real harm to individuals, I fear there is no way to fix our political discourse in America. The only way to fix such thing seems to be making the government the arbiter of truth. This is even worse than the original problem.
Just teach kids media litteracy
Or don't go as a kid to protests armed with a gun across state lines. It was only a few days before protesters whooped his ass prior when he tried to beat up a girl protester, then he comes back with a rifle and kills people looking for a fight.
@@Henbot you didn’t watch the trial at all did you
@@Henbot wrong, wrong on all counts.
@@demonslayer6588 No he didnt, just looked at whatever news article appeared first and took it as the whole 100% truth
I'm with the Eagle here on literally. I am literally disgusted with how communication is constantly being eroded by lazy use. Perhaps this could be solved with some old-school decimation.
Like the addition of “ain’t” to the dictionary.
Language evolves. Back in the 90s, "Ain't" was not in the dictionary. Now it is.
Your use of literally here doesn't make sense as an example. One would struggle to point out the differences between being "literally" discussed and "figuratively" disgusted. lol
You want to kill one out of ten soldiers in a legion? That's what "decimation" is.
@@aircraftcarrierwo-class Which is weird since it goes back to at least the 1700s and was even used by big names like Charles Dickens ("There ain't no teacher like Fagin!" - Oliver Twist). And similar "incorrect" contractions predate it, like the spiritual precursor "amn't" in the 1600s, and all the way back to Geoffrey Chaucer with other contractions considered "vulgar" at the time for their inconsistency with 'preferred' grammar.
9:50 If anyone read the rest of Merriam-Webster's discussion on the figurative use of 'literally', they would see the practice dates back to the mid-1700s and has been used by writers such as Fitzgerald, Joyce, Thackeray, Brontë, and Dickens. This secondary meaning has been included in the dictionary since 1909.
I particularly love MW's cheeky comment: 'Literally every modern dictionary includes a definition for the metaphoric or intensifying sense of the word literally.'
Language - particularly English - is not static. Speakers define the language, not the other way around. And figurative use of language is a cornerstone of communication; it's not 'misuse' when it's a long-established precedent.
9:54 I literally could not agree more, the modern disregard of linguistic knowledge and respect irks me to no end, I was just watching your videos here and there for being entertaining and educative, but now I will subscribe, have a good day.
It will be interesting to see if he actually sues and the arguments made
He will not - he’ll just accept donations from right wing idiots and then slink off with the money. He probably knows that the people cheering him on are idiots.
@@scifisyko 100% those hogs already replied to a fundraiser email
@@scifisyko not what the Covington kid did. If anything that sets precedent, or at least it may set, for the suit to be brought to an actual court. The pockets of these companies are very deep, why make off with 100,000 and a reputation you can never live down, when you could make 5 or 10 million just in settlements. At least bringing the lawyers to the table with the allowance to make the case would easily make that hundred or so thousand increase ten fold.
He’s been on multiple shows post verdict, would you stomach those “idiots” for what amounts to 2-5 years of an average salary, knowing you’ll likely never work again with that name?
I hope that murderer sues me. He can murder me in court.
@@AnimusPrime87 We can only hope
How do we determine when a person qualifies as a public figure? It feels like Rittenhouse was in this category without really choosing to once the trial started
Public figures can sue as Carol Burnett successfully sued the National Enquirer.
@@hydrolito depends on state if memory serves which is stupid to say the least the legality of defaming someone should be determined state by state but at the federal level.
Also I'm not well read on the laws but what about statements made prior to the trial is he automatically a public figure because the incident went viral? So did sandman yet he won. So the laws seem poor to say the least, anything said about Rittenhouse post trial may not be actionable in court given him making the rounds with interviews but pre-trial and during the trial I'd say it would be.
@@ralcogaming7674, sandman didn't win a court case. They settled.
@@Ridingrules10000 yeah why bother settling? Sandman wasn't rich he wasn't capable of having an extended legal battle.
@@ralcogaming7674, I suspect they were afraid of being the ones to set a precedent.
This just made me realise how good the media is at avoiding lawsuits lol