Connect with us

Everything

20 minutes could be libel

Published

on

In the age of social media, it is important to remember that while you may appear anonymous in your postings, chances are that you can be identified if someone works hard enough. If you handle your postings through Uzbekistan or Turkmenistan, you, might be harder to track, just ask the Democratic National Committee, but most Americans can be tracked down because we aren’t nearly devious enough. So if, in a political cat fight, you accuse a member of the other side of being a child molester, it could go badly for you.

Here’s the facts as laid out in a recently completed jury trial in Cherokee County, Georgia. The Tea Party Patriots and a rival group, the Tea Party Express, were having a tit-for-tat argument as rival political groups are want to do. Mr. James Lyle, the ultimate plaintiff in the case, was the significant other to Amy Kremer, who had left the Patriots and helped the Express get its footing. Lyles and Kremer were in the crosshairs of the Patriots because of supposed theft of email lists, contributor lists and such when Kremer left Patriots. Mr. Lee Martin, an officer of the Patriots, put up a post on Facebook, under a false identity of Dale Butterworth, accusing James Lyle of being a child molester. Butterworth, err Martin, made the accusation that Kremer’s daughter had accused Lyle of abusing her and that Kremer had kicked her own daughter out of the house. “Would you side with a child molester over your own daughter just to keep a roof over your head?” the post of Butterworth, err Martin, read.

It was alleged that the post was only viewable for 20 minutes before Butterworth, err Martin, took it down. The “24 hour rule” about not sending a snarly letter until you’ve had 24 hours to think about it would have been a good idea here.

A general law reminder here: Libel is when something false and damaging about someone is printed, slander is when something false and damaging about someone is spoken. Obviously someone can both slander and libel a person, but in this case, it is libel because it was printed (posted on Facebook).

After a jury trial, the jury returned a $833,000 verdict against Martin AND the Patriots. One of the interesting arguments for the Patriots being liable for Martin’s actions was that the Patriots picked the lawyer for Martin, therefore the Patriots were all in this case. The case may get appealed, as these things are wont to do, so a final decision may be a year away.

But in this age of Twitter, Instagram, Flickr, Tinder and Facebook, it is important to recognize that a post, tweet, text or whatever is potentially a libelous act. The length of time it is posted is relevant only for the issues of damages. The longer it remains up, the stronger the damages one can expect. And in  the political realm where people tend not to “forgive and forget”, calling someone a child molester may result in a hefty penalty. 

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Democrats

Why losing his Senate race was the best thing to happen to Beto O’Rourke

Published

on

Why losing his Senate race was the best thing to happen to Beto ORourke

When the next session of Congress begins, Beto O’Rourke will officially be an outsider. He will no longer be part of the swamp. He’ll be a private citizen because he lost his election bid to replace Ted Cruz as Senator in Texas. This loss will prove to be the best thing that could have happened to his political career.

Beto O’Rourke is on track to be one of the frontrunners for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.

It seems like everybody on the left loves this guy. Despite his destructive far-left ideology, he was able to get closer than anyone would have expected to unseating a Tea Party Republican in deep-red Texas. He was also able to raise more money than anyone else in the midterm elections, raking in more money than the #3 and #4 on the money list combined.

Had O’Rourke won his race, he would have been held to his promise of not running in 2020. Even though his promise was stretched to include winning or losing in 2018, the narrative is quickly changing. With no campaign promise that could come back to haunt him in 2024 had he won his Senate race, backtracking on his no-run 2020 promise is easy.

A recent MoveOn poll actually has him ahead of the competition for the first time, edging out Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. He even got more votes than Senators Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Amy Klobuchar, and Cory Booker combined.

Beto O’Rourke narrowly tops wide-open MoveOn 2020 presidential straw poll; Biden is runner-up

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/beto-o-rourke-narrowly-tops-moveon-2020-presidential-straw-poll-n946501The most popular potential candidate was O’Rourke, D-Texas, who was selected by 15.6 percent of respondents, followed by Biden at 14.9 percent, and then Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., with 13.1 percent.

It’s another sign of O’Rourke’s surprising popularity among national Democrats and a potentially troubling indication for Sanders, whom MoveOn endorsed in the 2016 Democratic primary. That year, 78 percent of MoveOn members voted to back Sanders over Hillary Clinton

His popularity with the progressive far-left is evident, but he also has some mainstream Democrats turning to him as the best person to go up against President Trump in 2020. Now that he’s going to have free time on his hands, let’s look at three reasons why he should be considered the early frontrunner:

  1. Nationwide Appeal: He may be from Texas, but Democrats won’t hold that against him. If anything, it will have the opposite effect by giving him credibility for doing so well in a red state. It helps that he was in a punk rock band and brandishes a style that’s not stereotypical of any place in America. You won’t see him wearing a cowboy hat any time soon.
  2. Fundraising Prowess: Ted Cruz was the best GOP fundraiser during the 2016 primaries and Beto O’Rourke dominated him in 2018. The only person who could be considered in the same sentence with O’Rourke on the money side is President Obama. If they teamed up (and they will if he gets the nomination), they could draw some serious cash that will dwarf Hillary Clinton’s impressive 2016 haul.
  3. Time and Energy: No need to rush back to Washington for an important vote like the half-dozen Senators who are probably running for president. He also won’t be hampered by 70=year-old legs like Biden and Michael Bloomberg. O’Rourke, is young, energetic, and has nothing better to do than prepare his 2020 bid.

It’s discouraging to know this far-left, gun-grabbing progressive has an inside track to the Democratic nomination. The thought that he could be President should terrify every right-thinking American.

Continue Reading

News

UK’s May wins no-confidence vote by MPs unhappy over Brexit

Published

on

UKs May wins no-confidence vote by MPs unhappy over Brexit

LONDON (AP) — British Prime Minister Theresa May survived a political crisis over her Brexit deal Wednesday, winning a no-confidence vote by Conservative lawmakers that would have ended her leadership of party and country.

But the margin of victory — 200 votes to 117 — leaves May a weakened leader who has lost the support of a big chunk of her party over her handling of Britain’s exit from the European Union. It also came at a steep price as she promised not to run for re-election in 2022. Britain’s Brexit problem, meanwhile, remains unsolved as May seeks changes to her EU divorce deal in order to make it more palatable to Parliament.

May said she was “pleased to have received the backing of my colleagues” but acknowledged that “a significant number” had voted against her in Wednesday evening’s secret ballot.

“I have listened to what they said,” May promised as she stood in a darkened Downing St. after what she called a “long and challenging day.”

The threat to May had been building as pro-Brexit Conservative lawmakers grew increasingly frustrated with the prime minister’s handling of Brexit. Many supporters of Brexit say May’s deal, a compromise that retains close economic ties with the EU, fails to deliver on the clean break with the bloc that they want.

The balloting came after May’s Conservative opponents, who circled the beleaguered prime minister for weeks hoping to spark a no-confidence vote, finally got the numbers they needed to call one.

The vote was triggered when at least 48 lawmakers —15 percent of Conservative legislators — wrote letters asking for a no-confidence ballot.

On Monday, May postponed a vote to approve the divorce deal to avoid all-but-certain defeat. She has until Jan. 21 to bring it back to Parliament after— she hopes — winning concessions from the EU.

The result of the vote was announced to loud cheers from lawmakers gathered in a stuffy, ornately wallpapered room in the House of Commons. Under party rules, May cannot be challenged again by fellow Conservatives for a year.

Transport Secretary Chris Grayling, an ally, said the result showed that May “has the support of her party.”

“This is a clear statement by the parliamentary party they want her to go forward, they want her to lead us through Brexit,” he told Sky News.

But pro-Brexit lawmaker Mark Francois said the result was “devastating” for May, who has lost the support of a third of her party in Parliament.

“If I were her, I wouldn’t be pleased with this at all,” Francois said. “I think she needs to think very carefully about what to do now.”

Before the vote Wednesday, May had vowed to fight for the leadership of her party and the country “with everything I’ve got,” and spent the day holed up in the House of Commons trying to win over enough lawmakers to secure victory.

In a bid to win over wavering lawmakers, May indicated she would step down before the next election, due in 2022.

Solicitor-General Robert Buckland said May told lawmakers at a meeting that “it is not her intention to lead the party in the 2022 general election.”

May’s victory is a reprieve but does not lay to rest uncertainty about Britain’s EU departure, due on March 29.

Opposition lawmakers expressed astonishment and outrage at the Conservative civil war erupting in the middle of the fraught Brexit process.

“This government is a farce, the Tory party is in chaos, the prime minister is a disgrace,” Scottish National Party leader Ian Blackford said during a pugnacious Prime Minister’s Questions session in the House of Commons.

British business figures expressed exasperation at the continuing political uncertainty.

“With news that the prime minister remains in place, business communities will hope that these political games can finally be put to bed,” said Adam Marshall, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce.

“Westminster must now focus all its energy on urgently giving businesses clarity on the future and avoiding a messy or disorderly Brexit.”

The vote confirms May’s reputation as a dogged, determined political survivor. But on Thursday she will head to an EU summit in Brussels facing another difficult task. She is seeking changes to the withdrawal agreement that can win support in Britain’s Parliament. But EU leaders say the legally binding text won’t be reopened, and the best they can offer are “clarifications.”

May said she would “be seeking legal and political assurances that will assuage the concerns” of lawmakers.

Among EU leaders there is sympathy for May’s predicament — but also exasperation at Britain’s political mess.

The European Parliament’s Brexit point man, Guy Verhofstadt, could not contain a note of annoyance, tweeting: “Once again, the fate of EU-U.K. relations, the prosperity of businesses & citizens’ rights are consumed by an internal Conservative party catfight over Europe.”

On the streets of London, some felt sympathy for the embattled leader.

“It’s embarrassing for a start to the rest of the world and I feel really sorry for Theresa May — she’s being battered by everybody,” said Abby Handbridge, who was selling Christmas cards and wrapping paper at a London street market.

“I hope she stays in power and sorts it out.”

___

Follow AP’s full coverage of Brexit crisis at: https://www.apnews.com/Brexit

___

Associated Press writers Danica Kirka, Jo Kearney and Gregory Katz in London contributed.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Yes, the President really is in trouble this time

Published

on

Yes the President really is in trouble this time

For over two years now, we’ve heard the leftist mainstream media and their Democratic Party puppet masters claiming every incident involving the President is the big one. We’ve heard that every “bombshell” means the beginning of the end, how the walls are closing in on him, and how we’ve reached a tipping point.

They even made a video about it.

Hilarious video: Bombshell, the beginning of the end, walls closing in, the tipping point

http://noqreport.com/2018/10/19/hilarious-video-bombshell-beginning-end-walls-closing-tipping-point/Most leftists remember it like a previous generation remembers when they heard JFK was killed. It was the moment they realized Donald Trump would become President of the United States. Since then, mainstream media has been incessant in their proclamations that his days are numbered.

Perhaps it’s comforting to them to continuously hear about how the latest bombshell means it’s the beginning of the end because the walls are closing in on a presidency that has reached a tipping point. Or something.

He has not only survived but thrived through these controversies. This time, it’s different. President Trump’s former attorney, Michael Cohen, and AMI, the parent company of his beloved National Enquirer, are both claiming they participated in paying hush money to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, respectively. These payments were allegedly made with the sole purpose of keeping their stories of extra-marital sexual affairs off the radar before the 2016 election.

In essence, these were unreported campaign expenditures and/or contributions. They can therefore be considered campaign finance violations, leaving only three questions unanswered:

  1. Can special counsel Robert Mueller’s or SDNY U.S. Attorney’s investigations prove then-candidate Trump participated in the crimes?
  2. If they can prove it, what actions can they take now or later?
  3. How will Democrats use this to sink the President before the 2020 election?

What’s not a question is whether or not this will affect the President’s 2020 prospects. It will. If nothing else happens with this, the damage is done. Unfortunately for the President, there are very likely many things that will now happen with this.

Prosecutors have to decide whether they want to open up the can of worms regarding indicting a sitting President. They could announce a delay in the indictments until after his term is completed. They could try to go after others in his campaign or family who are not protected by the presidential seal.

Then, there’s the Democrats. When they take over the House of Representatives next year, the possibilities are endless. They could investigate and subpoena him ceaselessly, revealing all sorts of additional dirt on him. Even if they don’t formally impeach him, the dirt they can glean from the investigative process will almost certainly reveal other corrupt, unethical, or illegal skeletons in his huge closets.

The Cohen and National Enquirer revelations are much more damaging than anything the President has faced to date. Many of his supporters won’t admit it or will refuse to see it, but this is a major blow to his reelection hopes.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report