Defamation doesn't require loss,
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.
Originally posted by Robtard
If we equalize everything as being the same no matter what, sure. But logic dictates we don't.This has nothing to do with Trump, so it seems once again it's you who suffers from "TDS" if that's a thing.
Since this story broke you've deflected multiple times to trump and trumpers.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Defamation doesn't require loss,
Plus Rob seems to feel experiencing mental anguish qualifies as a loss. So if a loss *was* needed it wouldn't matter cuz by Rob's own logic Nick Sandmann experienced a loss.
Originally posted by Robtard
I didn't say that was the law, I was asked for my opinion of what it should be. If you can't handle it, don't ask, kiddos.
No, you were asked if you were against defamation suits in general and your answer was.
Originally posted by Robtard
Defamation lawsuits need to prove that their was an actual loss sustained eg you lost your job because X-news said something false about you.Not something like Tom Cruise suing every time someone says he's a gay-homo and it hurts his little Scientology feelings.
If you follow the convo that was my opinion of what they should be, not what they are, otherwise there would be a whole lot less frivolous lawsuits(another point made). But you know that and are trying your time waster troll thing, which is likely a form of sexual gratification for you since you always do it.
Originally posted by Robtard
Going to assume you're asking something that's already been covered as another one of your little silly "gotcha!" attempts. Sorry, those are boring and do not further the conversation.
I want you to back up your logic. You said you feel there should be a "loss" proven in defamation cases.
Either you lied about feeling that way or you feel experiencing mental anguish counts as a form of loss.
And if it does then Nick Sandmann experienced loss.
Originally posted by Robtard
Oh joy, KMC Trumper squad is almost all here.
Am I part of the Trumper squad?
If so, yeah, other than the support for Trump part, I like them. They are easier to get along with, more reasonable to discuss things with, and more readily admit fault than the not-Trumper-Squad.
Minus TheLoneRanger. He's just...
Originally posted by dadudemonSo, they are more submissive and malleable DDM? 😖hifty:
Am I part of the Trumper squad?If so, yeah, other than the support for Trump part, I like them. They are easier to get along with, more reasonable to discuss things with, and more readily admit fault than the not-Trumper-Squad.
Minus TheLoneRanger. He's just...
Originally posted by Putinbot1
So, they are more submissive and malleable DDM? 😖hifty:
In psychology, what I described is called "agreeableness."
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-6494.00148
Originally posted by Silent Master
Defamation doesn't require loss,
It requires damages. A loss is a form of damages. It is right there in your example.
🙄
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It requires damages. A loss is a form of damages. It is right there in your example.🙄
Loss being one form of damages doesn't mean that loss is required, especially since it says "damages or some harm" as in, even damages isn't 100% required. nice attempt at using a semantic argument. maybe next time it'll work out for you.