-->
@DavidAZZ
The allegation was first made public in her book in 2019. Get your facts straight
A man convicted of defaming an ordinary citizen about raping that same person…
Posts
Read-only
Total:
418
-->
@Best.Korea
He is not representing chrisians just a poitical party.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I don't know why the website only shows half of your response when I click on it.
What evidence would your wife have that she was raped? A video? No. A witness? No. Why would you believe her? Why should anyone?
In this case, her word to her HUSBAND, not a jury case. If you don't see the difference, maybe you should hit your head with a hammer, it might knock out some of the college trash out.
Sole victim per accusation? No corroborating evidence? Yes.
Really? So in 1972, long before dash cams and body cams, a police officer pulls over a driver on a deserted highway. The police officer ends up arresting the driver and charging him with resisting arrest. Besides the testimony of the police officer, what proof is there that the driver resisted arrest?
So the driver goes free, right?
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The allegation was first made public in her book in 2019. Get your facts straight
Touché
She practically lifted the entire story from a Law and Order tv show. Any of the book proceeds, no matter how meager, should have gone to Wolf Entertainment, not EJC.
-->
@DavidAZZ
AND a "it was him" 25 years later doesn't count.
So all these awards to children who were molested by catholic priests years ago, you think that was wrong? Because it was years before they came forward with their accusations.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Many of Trump's accusers have done television interviews, that doesn't make them public figures in any meaningful sense.They did television interviews accusing a public figure of serious offenses. That is about as meaningful as it gets.
Clearly, you didn't bother to read your own source:
"A public figure, according to Gertz v. Robert Welch, is an individual who has assumed roles of especial prominence in the affairs of a society or thrust themselves into the forefront of particular publiccontroversies to influence the resolution of the issues involved. Public figures also include individuals who have achieved pervasive fame or notoriety."
It lists two basic criteria; someone who has assumed roles of special prominence within the affairs of our society or someone have achieved pervasive fame or notoriety.
Again, (for what the 4th time?), Ms. Carroll is one of something like 26 of Trump's accusers. No one knows any of their names except Ms. Carroll and they only know her name because Trump attacked her repeatedly. She didn't put herself into the forefront of public controversies, Trump did, which is the entire point here.
Moreover, think of how absurd your argument is here. Accusing a public figure of rape makes you a public figure, which makes you immune from being defamed. So anyone who is in fact raped by a public figure either has to shut the fuck up or they lose their right against being defamed. That's ridiculous.
Lastly on this, this entire point came about after I explained why pubic figures are much harder to be defamed - because they are already well known within society so their reputation is mostly shaped already. It is difficult to defame someone everyone already knows, no significant number of people ever heard of E. Jean Carroll until Trump repeatedly attacked her. That is the point of Defamation.
Repetition has a greater impact on public perception than non repetition.The shaping of public opinion isn't the disqualifier. The nature as opinion and the impossibility of establishing the facts beyond a reasonable doubt are.
"Nature as opinion"? Really not sure what your point is here, maybe you misspoke.
The nature of public opinion isn't some side consideration, it's the consideration. That's literally what defamation means.
The fact is that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that repetition is worse than non-repetition when it comes to shaping the public perception of an individual.
I'll tell you what "excessive force" does not mean: communication.
We were talking about concepts. The concept of excessive force applies just the same rhetorically as it does physically.
If there was some legal rule of proportionality in public attacks (and there isn't circa the 1st amendment), it would be absurd to consider the accusation of rape to be anything but the highest tier of attack. It's an attack that could attract the attention of prosecutors and assassins rather than just a loss of reputation.
First of all, the first amendment does not give one the right to defame someone else, so that is irrelevant to this.
Second and more importantly, you are again asserting the allegation of rape itself is an attack, so in your world the act of being raped is itself a forfeiture of one's right to live free of being attacked should they ever tell anyone (as that would now be considered a counter attack, which according to your other argument is limitless). That is completely ridiculous.
Therefore, since you insist on comparing speech to violence: EJC dropped a hyper-sonic fusion cluster bomb on Donald Trump.
Complete nonsense. No one cared about EJC's claim until Donald Trump repeatedly attacked her, and even then no one cared about the underlying accusation, the story was the defamation trial. After Access Hollywood we all moved well beyond being shocked that Trump would commit sexual assault.
Irrelevant. Actually if there are a bunch of people "pushing you" you are in more danger. So if you believed your own analogy a relevant defense for "stabbing"
This has nothing to do with my analogy. You don't get to bottle up all of your frustrations built up from multiple aggressors and use it as an excuse to take it all out on one person.
Way too much nonsense to respond to. Will address the rest as I have time.
-->
@DavidAZZ
Touché
This is part of the problem. MAGA MORONS like yourself a pretty clueless when it comes to facts.
Partly because you don’t try to inform your opinions
Partly because of the bogus sources of information you choose to use.
Partly because you’re not very bright and lack education
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
So all these awards to children who were molested by catholic priests years ago, you think that was wrong? Because it was years before they came forward with their accusations.
Wow. Are you you a barber? Cause you really are splitting hairs here.
Not the same situation here.
-->
@DavidAZZ
In this case, her word to her HUSBAND, not a jury case. If you don't see the difference, maybe you should hit your head with a hammer, it might knock out some of the college trash out.
So now you are going to commit a crime, against an unknown assailant? How are you going to find him?
-->
@DavidAZZ
Cause you really are splitting hairs here. Not the same situation here.
Really? How so? How is this different?
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
This is part of the problem. . .
Really? The problem is the brainless liberal that can't think for themselves about how Corral actually would benefit from this.
If I missed a date that is, again, splitting hairs and not relevant to my point that she is taking advantage of Trump.
Are you sure you didn't go to barber college?
-->
@DavidAZZ
The problem is the brainless liberal that can't think for themselves about how Corral actually would benefit from this.
She’s getting money because Trump slandered her. Because he’s a moron.
If he had just kept his response to a denial rather than calling her a liar he would have avoided the 90 million dollar lawsuit.
-->
@DavidAZZ
So just to sum this up,
Children who were sexually assaulted by priests and make can their claims years later without witnesses and get financial compensation.
Women who were sexually assaulted by Trump and make their claims years later with some corroboration from people they told at the time should not get financial compensation.
Is that your position?
Sole victim per accusation? No corroborating evidence? Yes.[IWRA] Really? So in 1972, long before dash cams and body cams, a police officer pulls over a driver on a deserted highway. The police officer ends up arresting the driver and charging him with resisting arrest. Besides the testimony of the police officer, what proof is there that the driver resisted arrest?So the driver goes free, right?
He/she should. This is the reason that police worked in pairs before cameras.
Touché[IWRA] This is part of the problem. MAGA MORONS like yourself a pretty clueless when it comes to facts.
rofl, that's right. You haven't gotten any facts wrong in this thread or in general.
Oh wait:
Defamatory statements by IWRA:
What better place to start with the title of the thread
"A man convicted of defaming an ordinary citizen about raping that same person"
Man wasn't convicted, man wasn't found liable of rape.
LCC = 1, LRC = 1
As we've established, Donald Trump was not convicted of anything, nor was he found liable of rape by anyone (no matter how deranged). Also, according to the golden rule we must treat others as we would have them treat us, or more specifically judge them by their own standards. Since IWRA believes calling someone a liar when they told the truth is defamatory we have a special category here of IWRA defaming myself and other members of this forum.
[ADOL] simultaneously found not liable for rape but liable for denying that rape occurred.That’s a lie. You’re a liar. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422609]
Defaming members +1
Not Trump. Trump is a convicted sexual predator. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10380/posts/423060]
LCC = 2, LRC = 2
A dummy who supports a rapist to be President. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/423445]
LRC = 3, LRC = 3
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
So just to sum this up,Children who were sexually assaulted by priests and make can their claims years later without witnesses and get financial compensation.Women who were sexually assaulted by Trump and make their claims years later with some corroboration from people they told at the time should not get financial compensation.Is that your position?
I am saying that the proof has to be given. In my opinion, there was not enough proof in the Carrol case and she had motivation, other than justice, to bring this against him.
-->
@Double_R
Again, (for what the 4th time?), Ms. Carroll is one of something like 26 of Trump's accusers.
There is no global limit to special prominence.
Nobody knew the name "George Floyd" before the media went crazy. Publishing a book about a public figure or going onto a public TV broadcast to talk about a public figure are quintessential matters of public interest.
No one knows any of their names except Ms. Carroll and they only know her name because Trump attacked her repeatedly.
Trump wouldn't have counterattacked if no one knew her name.
She didn't put herself into the forefront of public controversies
She obviously did. That's what publishing a book with controversial accusations does. She didn't just put herself into a public controversy she manufactured one.
Moreover, think of how absurd your argument is here. Accusing a public figure of rape makes you a public figure, which makes you immune from being defamed.
A public figure in regards to the accusations yes, and in fact making any criminal accusations what so ever is a matter of public interest. If she had published no books and done no interviews and only filed a police report (a public record) her credibility becomes a matter of public interest.
Crimes are serious things, there isn't the slightest problem with people putting their reputation on the line when they accuse others because they are putting the reputation of others on the line.
So anyone who is in fact raped by a public figure either has to shut the fuck up or they lose their right against being defamed. That's ridiculous.
It's necessary. The alternative is violating the 1st amendment and creating a society where courts can't be questioned.
If we had such a society nobody would think OJ Simpson was guilty because anyone who suggested such a thing would have been silenced with defamation lawsuits.
If there was some legal rule of proportionality in public attacks (and there isn't circa the 1st amendment), it would be absurd to consider the accusation of rape to be anything but the highest tier of attack. It's an attack that could attract the attention of prosecutors and assassins rather than just a loss of reputation.First of all, the first amendment does not give one the right to defame someone else, so that is irrelevant to this.
Where the 1st amendment and your idea of defamation conflict the 1st amendment remains and your notion yields.
Second and more importantly, you are again asserting the allegation of rape itself is an attack
Insofar as speech is war, yes.
so in your world the act of being raped is itself a forfeiture of one's right to live free of being attacked should they ever tell anyone (as that would now be considered a counter attack
There is no right to live free of being "attacked" by other people's opinions of you.
Yes there are costs to accusing someone of a crime, even if you're right, even if 12 jurors agree with you. The alternatives are even worse. That's why the 1st amendment exists. People are allowed to disagree and question your credibility.
Therefore, since you insist on comparing speech to violence: EJC dropped a hyper-sonic fusion cluster bomb on Donald Trump.Complete nonsense. No one cared about EJC's claim until Donald Trump repeatedly attacked her, and even then no one cared about the underlying accusation
Then why did someone ask Trump about it?
Can you quantify the number of people that think any worse of EJC for a false statement of Trump's?
the story was the defamation trial.
If it was the defamation trial that damaged her reputation than how come Trump was found liable (by a pseudo-jury) as opposed to... well the plaintiff?
After Access Hollywood we all moved well beyond being shocked that Trump would commit sexual assault.
I see, so after that point Trump could not be defamed by accusing him of sexual assault because everyone already believed he was someone who would commit sexual assault.
Now, explain to me why you think the following person exists: Someone who believes Donald Trump is capable of sexual assault, who didn't know about EJC, but after Trump called her a liar, thought less of EJC.
You claimed that damage to reputation was a necessary condition of defamation and further implied that if people's minds were already made up there was no damage to be done. Square the round peg please.
You don't get to bottle up all of your frustrations built up from multiple aggressors and use it as an excuse to take it all out on one person.
You need to stab everyone equally. I see Trump's error now. He should have called all the people who accused him of rape liars regardless of whether they wrote books and went on TV.
What did you say:
That is completely ridiculous.
Yea I don't think your analogies and statements are working well together.
When you get back to it don't forget:
Trump isn't being charged for taking the documents home. He's being charged for lying to federal investigators and his flagrant attempts to stop the federal government from retaining it's property,
Sure, I've seen what the FBI calls "lying". Oh and woops you're wrong again:
[UNITED STATES OF AMERICAv.DONALD J. TRUMP andWALTINE NAUTA,] After his presidency, TRUMP was not authorized to possess or retain classified documents. [https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23839647/govuscourtsflsd64865330.pdf]
I'm sure you don't care, you'll just conveniently fail to respond to this and move onto something else that you want to repeat. What does that mean by your standards of behavior: "...you have no response to it. That's what unserious people who have no interest in facts or logic do."
AND:
You have failed to explain why the mechanics of defamation that you advanced would not result in criminal appeals being by definition defamatory. The argument to absurdity stands.
I am saying that the proof has to be given. In my opinion, there was not enough proof in the Carrol case and she had motivation, other than justice, to bring this against him.
I can just imagine all those little Catholic boys fretting over their book sales and trying to figure out a way to get CNN air time..... because the 2 situations are EXACTLY the same in some people's minds.... that's not just hair splitting, that's a bona fide scalping.
I can just imagine all those little Catholic boys
Ya I bet you close your eyes and imagine “those little Catholic boys” all the time.
That’s why you live alone.
Defamation +1
[IwantRooseveltagain] Is someone who lives all alone since his mother died and has never been with a woman a weirdo? [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422851][Best.Korea] Yes. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422858][ADreamOfLiberty] Yea that crosses the line. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422862][IwantRooseveltagain] You are so ridiculous. Saying a woman wanted to be raped is acceptable to you but making fun of an obnoxious loser who is inadequate with women is over the line. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422866]
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
There is an absolute right to assert your innocence which means you have an absolute right to call your accusers liars.
No one is arguing that Trump does not have the right to assert his innocence, and the case is not about whether he called her a liar. I would explain what it's about, but that's what we've been talking about for days now. If you seriously think this statement is a retort of anything I have said then you are clearly not paying attention to the conversation you are engaging in nor have you bothered to read any of the actual material that explains the judges ruling or the jury's verdict, in which case I really don't know why you are bothering.
You cut off the next sentence: "the absolute certainty that they broke their oaths to deliberate on the evidence and render a decision regarding the law mean we know there is no legal force."
I cut it off because it is just gibberish nonsense. The jury deliberated, they reached a verdict. You disagree with their verdict. So what? Your disagreement doesn't make it unlawful. Your disagreement doesn't mean they violated their oaths. There was nothing contained within this statement of any intellectual value worth responding to.
If taking the mint was illegal, then Joe Biden committed a crime. If it wasn't then it doesn't matter if you argue with people who claim to own it.
Ok, we'll do the mint analogy.
Biden took one mint. Hell, we'll say he took two. Trump took an entire bag.
The restaurant didn't even notice the two mints were missing, they noticed the missing bag though.
Biden returned the missing two mints without being asked, the waiters had to chase Trump down in the parking lot.
When the waiters caught up to Trump, not only lied about having them, he had his date hide them in her purse and also tell the waiters she never saw them.
The restaurant called the police. When Trump found out they were on their way, he told his date to hide them in the trunk.
The police saw them trying to hide the mints in the trunk and searched it. After finding the mints they charged Trump for theft. Trump then claimed as his defense that the mints were his all along because as a patron of the restaurant he was entitled to take whatever he wanted.
Of course this defense is complete nonsense. If Trump really believed the mints were his he would have never lied about having them and tried to hide them in the first place.
These are not the same thing. Any sane and rational person knows that.
Sure, I've seen what the FBI calls "lying". Oh and woops you're wrong again:[UNITED STATES OF AMERICAv.DONALD J. TRUMP andWALTINE NAUTA,] After his presidency, TRUMP was not authorized to possess or retain classified documents. [https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23839647/govuscourtsflsd64865330.pdf]I'm sure you don't care, you'll just conveniently fail to respond to this and move onto something else that you want to repeat.
The link is 44 pages long. Not sifting through it to figure out what your point is. Make it by typing words and I'll be happy to dig into it.
Is someone who lives all alone since his mother died and has never been with a woman and imagines little Catholic boys a weirdo?
Defamatory statements by IWRA:
What better place to start with the title of the thread
"A man convicted of defaming an ordinary citizen about raping that same person"
Man wasn't convicted, man wasn't found liable of rape.
LCC = 1, LRC = 1
As we've established, Donald Trump was not convicted of anything, nor was he found liable of rape by anyone (no matter how deranged). Also, according to the golden rule we must treat others as we would have them treat us, or more specifically judge them by their own standards. Since IWRA believes calling someone a liar when they told the truth is defamatory we have a special category here of IWRA defaming myself and other members of this forum.
[ADOL] simultaneously found not liable for rape but liable for denying that rape occurred.That’s a lie. You’re a liar. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422609]
Defaming members +1
Not Trump. Trump is a convicted sexual predator. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10380/posts/423060]
LCC = 2, LRC = 2
A dummy who supports a rapist to be President. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/423445]
LRC = 3, LRC = 3
I can just imagine all those little Catholic boysYa I bet you close your eyes and imagine “those little Catholic boys” all the time.That’s why you live alone. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/423565]
Defaming members +1, Total = 2
Is someone who lives all alone since his mother died and has never been with a woman and imagines little Catholic boys a weirdo? [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/423576]
Defaming members +1, Total = 3
-->
@Greyparrot
I can just imagine all those little Catholic boys
I didnt know that you were gay.
-->
@Best.Korea
[IwantRooseveltagain] Is someone who lives all alone since his mother died and has never been with a woman a weirdo? [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422851][Best.Korea] Yes. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422858][ADreamOfLiberty] Yea that crosses the line. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422862][IwantRooseveltagain] You are so ridiculous. Saying a woman wanted to be raped is acceptable to you but making fun of an obnoxious loser who is inadequate with women is over the line. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422866]
Defamatory statements by Best.Korea:
He was found guilty on sexual abuse [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422589]
LCC = 1
Demonize the victim because she was raped at the time when most people would blame her for being raped? [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422654]
LRC = 1
Demonize the victim because she was raped in circumstances where rape victims didnt have any support, and because she had no way of dealing with it at the time? [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422654]
LRC = 2
mock rape victims [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422877]
LRC = 3
Well, saying that rape victim gave hints of wanting to be raped is a horrible way to defend Trump [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422912]
LRC = 4
saying that rape victim wanted to roleplay rape is also a horrible way of defending Trump [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422917]
LRC = 5
You again lied that she said "rape is sexy" [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422921]
Unfortunately, that's just not a claim Korea can prove; and as the thread shows everybody is in agreement that calling someone a liar is defamatory.
Defaming members +1
while lying that you didnt claim how she wanted to be raped [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422921]
Defaming members +1
while lying about her that she has a rape fetish [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422921]
Defaming members +1
again you assumed that people who were raped cant have rape fetish [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422921]
Defaming members +1
to support that she wasnt raped by again lying that she has a rape fetish. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422921]
Defaming members +1
What woman doesnt want to listen to Gp's endless conspiracy theories, link spam, whining, promoting civil wars, and lying about rape victims? [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422977]
Defaming members (GP) +1
LRC = 6
Not if they derail those who promote civil war and who lie about rape victims. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10387/posts/423265]
Defaming members +1
LRC = 7
[Greyparrot out of context] I can just imagine all those little Catholic boys[Best.Korea] I didnt know that you were gay. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/423586]
Defaming members (GP) +1
Total defamation against members = 8
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Again, (for what the 4th time?), Ms. Carroll is one of something like 26 of Trump's accusers.There is no global limit to special prominence.
Again, you haven't listened to a word I've said.
You continue to pretend this is a black or white issue, as if you're either a public figure or you're not, and all public figures are exactly the same. That's silly.
Defamation is about causing reputational harm, if the person is barely known within their society it will be much easier to defame them. If everyone in society knows them already it will be much harder. This is common sense.
Publishing a book about a public figure or going onto a public TV broadcast to talk about a public figure are quintessential matters of public interest.
And yet no one in the public seemed to be concerned about this until Trump played right into it.
She didn't put herself into the forefront of public controversiesShe obviously did. That's what publishing a book with controversial accusations does.
That's why I put "forefront" in italics. Anyone can accuse someone, that doesn't mean anyone else will care. As I've have repeated half a dozen times already, EJC was one out of over 20 accusers of a man who has been heard by damn near everyone on planet earth admitting that he enjoys sexually assaulting women. And that was before he was elected president of the United States. This was not a major story at the forefront of public discourse. To the extent this story was noteworthy at all, it's because of how useful it is in illustrating the total insanity of our state of politics when an accusation of rape could be such a backseat story to everything else going on with this man.
I could repeat this point a hundred times and you will continue to respond as if I never made it or as if this point is not relevant when it absolutely is. NO ONE CARED ABOUT EJC UNTIL DJT MADE HER THE FOCUS OF HIS IRE. He is why she was elevated. He is why everyone ended up talking about her.
Trump wouldn't have counterattacked if no one knew her name.
lol ok bro. Trump spent the whole republican convention in 2016 feuding with a gold star family because they criticized him. The man has deep insecurity issues.
So anyone who is in fact raped by a public figure either has to shut the fuck up or they lose their right against being defamed. That's ridiculous.It's necessary. The alternative is violating the 1st amendment and creating a society where courts can't be questioned.
The first amendment does not protect against defamation. If it did there would not be a defamation statute in the first place.
If we had such a society nobody would think OJ Simpson was guilty because anyone who suggested such a thing would have been silenced with defamation lawsuits.
And yet again... Everyone in our society already had an opinion of OJ Simpson. There is almost nothing that a single person on planet earth could have said about him that could have caused him significant reputational harm, so to assert that the mere suggestion that he was guilty - something even most people in his own inner circle had already figured out - would have been a case for defamation is beyond stupid. I don't even know if you're serious by this point, either way you are clearly not trying very hard.
Again, just too much nonsense to respond to do I'll respond to the rest later.
Defaming members (GP) +1
Lol