Didn’t Obama do away with the Smith-Mundt Act making it legal for the government to disseminate propaganda? If the government can disseminate propaganda, then can we? If a government feeds us propaganda, then how can they claim to represent us?
I've written on the topic and have enough knowledge of law to do so.
There is per se defamation and per quod.
Per se
In a per se defamation action, the statement itself is actionable on its own, the damages will be presumed and the malice element does not have to be proven, unless the plaintiff is a public figure.
Examples:
Accusing someone of a serious criminal offense.
Accusing someone of having an infectious disease.
Accusing someone of conduct incompatible with the person’s business, trade, position or office.
Accusing a woman of a lack of chastity.
Per quod
Defamation per quod cases are much more difficult to prove than per se cases because in per quod cases, the statements are typically a more backhanded than a straightforward per se statement.
You have a few elements to consider here that the defense was never allowed to address because of default.
Are the victims presumed public figures if they chose to do interviews on television?
Was there actual malice? Malice is a legal term referring to a party's intention to do injury to another party. Malice is either expressed or implied. For example, malice is expressed when there is manifested a deliberate intention to unlawfully take away the life of a human being.
These statutes only get you to a point of actually determining damages. The defense was never able to argue damages properly. In fact, that is all the trial was about after the default. However, the defense was gagged and not allowed to argue anything. It was merely a hearing on AJ finances and a bunch of other unrelated issues brought by prosecution that should have never been allowed.
Damages
Damages are meant to restore the injured parties to the de facto position they were in before they suffered harm. Consequently, damages are regarded as remedial measures rather than punitive or preventive, although punitive damages can be awarded for certain kinds of wrongful conduct.
The plaintiffs are in a better monetary position than before the 'defamation' which was never proved, but instead defaulted.
This leaves only one issue despite the default.
Did AJ correct the record? Yes.
Case closed, no damages could exist despite a formal correction of record. This could have occurred on the first day of trial. It did occur during the trial. There were no monetary damages. There were only gains by the plaintiffs in the form of funding campaigns. They also sued other parties and even arms manufacturers. Since AJ didn't kill anyone, he is not liable for the loss of life.
Case closed. One public apology and 1 day of trial later. That's if it was defaulted, which it shouldn't have been in the first place.
Wasn't he sued for defamation? That's a bit more precise than lying: it's lying about a person (companies are people too! 😑) in such a way that it hurts them financially (and likely in other ways?). I don't think you can sue celebrities for defaming the unvaccinated. That would be cool though.
I have been amazed at some of the celebs who have come out in support of this 1 billion sentence. Not even like 'Jones is a bad guy, but this is extreme' but all the way to 'A billion dollars ISN'T ENOUGH'.
Like JK Rowling, for example. She is left wing, but is considered Queen of the TERFs. Constantly stating that men aren't women and other forbidden realities. She came out in full support of this sentence. As though she is going to be safe from the courts when 'words are violence'. She is 'drumming up a base' to 'commit acts of hatred' by todays insane definitions. Why wouldn't she at least keep her mouth shut about it? What is the angle?
Someone is trying to program me and I don't like it.
first amendment still exists, i think he'll appeal all the way to scotus
News anchors should be sued into oblivion.
Along with hospitals, doctors offices, schools and colleges who took part in all the evil they pushed on us
Cannot. Propaganda is legal. Libel is not legal.
How about dispensing medical advice?
Didn’t Obama do away with the Smith-Mundt Act making it legal for the government to disseminate propaganda? If the government can disseminate propaganda, then can we? If a government feeds us propaganda, then how can they claim to represent us?
In typical Double Speak, it's now called the Smith Mundt Modernization Act.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/5736#:~:text=Smith%2DMundt%20Modernization%20Act%20of%202012%20%2D%20Amends%20the%20United%20States,abroad%20about%20the%20United%20States%2C
this whole aj thing is a joke, only to scare people to not speak the truth
Yep he's the controlled opposition clown they use to test all their oppression tactics before they roll them out on the public
100 %
a good precedent
Wait, since when has M.I.A. been based?
If y'all are forgetting who she is, remember this song?
https://youtu.be/ewRjZoRtu0Y
Wasn’t there a dig or drop that MIA came up in? Something to do with a track called paper planes??
She saw a vision of Jesus awhile back and converted to Christianity.
I've written on the topic and have enough knowledge of law to do so.
There is per se defamation and per quod.
Per se
Per quod
You have a few elements to consider here that the defense was never allowed to address because of default.
Are the victims presumed public figures if they chose to do interviews on television?
Was there actual malice? Malice is a legal term referring to a party's intention to do injury to another party. Malice is either expressed or implied. For example, malice is expressed when there is manifested a deliberate intention to unlawfully take away the life of a human being.
These statutes only get you to a point of actually determining damages. The defense was never able to argue damages properly. In fact, that is all the trial was about after the default. However, the defense was gagged and not allowed to argue anything. It was merely a hearing on AJ finances and a bunch of other unrelated issues brought by prosecution that should have never been allowed.
Damages
The plaintiffs are in a better monetary position than before the 'defamation' which was never proved, but instead defaulted.
This leaves only one issue despite the default.
Did AJ correct the record? Yes.
Case closed, no damages could exist despite a formal correction of record. This could have occurred on the first day of trial. It did occur during the trial. There were no monetary damages. There were only gains by the plaintiffs in the form of funding campaigns. They also sued other parties and even arms manufacturers. Since AJ didn't kill anyone, he is not liable for the loss of life.
Case closed. One public apology and 1 day of trial later. That's if it was defaulted, which it shouldn't have been in the first place.
Wasn't he sued for defamation? That's a bit more precise than lying: it's lying about a person (companies are people too! 😑) in such a way that it hurts them financially (and likely in other ways?). I don't think you can sue celebrities for defaming the unvaccinated. That would be cool though.
Any celebrity that used the words ‘safe’ or ‘effective’ when promoting the clot shot is ripe for a lawsuit.
If only! I do hear class action lawsuits are effective though...
And politician too
All part of the movie
Tweet See new Tweets Conversation M.I.A. @MIAuniverse If Alex jones pays for lying shouldn’t every celebrity pushing vaccines pay too ?
can I get an amen! well done M.I.A.
I have been amazed at some of the celebs who have come out in support of this 1 billion sentence. Not even like 'Jones is a bad guy, but this is extreme' but all the way to 'A billion dollars ISN'T ENOUGH'.
Like JK Rowling, for example. She is left wing, but is considered Queen of the TERFs. Constantly stating that men aren't women and other forbidden realities. She came out in full support of this sentence. As though she is going to be safe from the courts when 'words are violence'. She is 'drumming up a base' to 'commit acts of hatred' by todays insane definitions. Why wouldn't she at least keep her mouth shut about it? What is the angle?
Someone is trying to program me and I don't like it.
wow is MIA based?