dChan
Anonymous ID: 269629 March 1, 2020, 6:37 p.m. No.8296509   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6588

>>8296253

For Sandman it might be good to think about ultimate amounts of judgement and what they will actually pay. But in the larger picture it's not about the financial penalty - it's about the precedent regarding LIBEL.

 

Sandman is suing "news" orgs in civil court. Sandman was not a public figure when they libeled him.

 

Jim Watkins is suing the bitter cripple for cyber libel in Philippines - also a private individual (not the corporation Is It Wet Yet) and not a public figure.

 

POTUS' campaign is suing some "news" org for libel. While POTUS is a public figure, they stated and digitally published (equivalent of "printing") things they knew to be untrue, with malice, thus committed libel.

 

All 3 will be cases to watch to see what happens in each venue and the precedents they set.

Anonymous ID: 269629 March 1, 2020, 6:43 p.m. No.8296554   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6600

>>8296139

And yet he was (and is) referred to as a billionaire.

He did not have billions.

 

>>8296283 Market Update - China, T-Bonds, OIl

BAKER, NOTABLE

Finance cannot be divorced from politics - we see the ripple effects of Q/Q+ in the markets

 

TY marketupdatdeanon

Anonymous ID: 269629 March 1, 2020, 6:59 p.m. No.8296690   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>8296588

Correct - that's why each of the 3 cases will be very interesting to watch play out.

I forgot to mention the obvious with regards to Watkins/bitter cripple case - minions/idiots on twatter decrying the "irony" of owner of 'free speech site' going after hotwheels for libel, not acknowledging that libel is false. They are 'stuck' on the idea that it would apply to all anons as well.

 

The logical fallacy of this being about censorship will be played out in 2 cases (not Sandman's)