Town of 275 people, 89% black? Total of 30 white people? They should just individually name the problem people in the article
and open themselves up for 30 lawsuits?
lol no
Lol lawsuits for naming elected officials in a news article? Sounds like America.
It’s not naming them, it’s repeating a claim, which, if not proven would be defamation.
Are black politicians immune from lying?
Your understanding of US law is slightly off.
Unlike many countries, the burden of proof for defamation is on the accuser. You must prove at some bar (based on factors like celebrity status) that the other party spoke false information, and then in most cases you must also prove ill intent. You can’t usually win a defamation suit against anti-vaxers (for example) because they genuinely believe they’re saving people by spreading the misinformation they think is true.
We’re a VERY tough country for that kind of suit, and the First Amendment is cited as the reason.
I don’t know what you mean by anti vaxxers. What defamation cases arr you talking about?
As for the rest of it, defamation laws vary from state to state, and defamation very much is an exception to to the first ammendment.
I think you are a bit confused about how defamation cases work.
If your comments are not protected if they are defamatory. The decision is made in the trial, not “before” the trial.
The defamatory statements are presumed to be untrue, it is for defendant to prove that they are not true.
If you go on record as saying something defamatory, and it can be shown be harmful to reputation, then you HAVE to be able to prove it is true.
Otherwise people could just accuse anyone of anything all the time, and that would be utter chaos.
You can’t prove a negative.
So it you accuse me of molesting my patients, and I have beverage molested my patients, how can one prove it or doesn’t make sense.
Here are the tests for defamation in Alabama:
> To be defamatory:
- The statements must not be true but presented as facts (not opinions).
- The statements must be published or spoken.
- The statements must be read or heard by others.
- The statements must cause injury to your reputation.
- The statements are not protected under any kind of legal privilege.
If this black mayor guy is accusing others of racism, then they can sue him.
Obviously accusing government employees of racism and refusing to follow orders will harm their reputation.
There’s Tests to decide that, but it’s pretty obviously the case here.
The mayor has presented his opinions as facts. That is also clear.
Whether his remark are true or not would be for the court to decide, and would clearly be what the court case would be about.
The mayor has damaged to reputation of these people - and he will be found to have defamed them unless HE can prove his statements were true because HE is the one who made them.
Truth is a (the!) defence for defamation.
The last compounding factor would be whether he has a special kind of legal privelage. I don’t know how it works for them in that regard.
Sorry, but the longer I think about this the more I think it is you who are deeply confused about defamation law.
I feel like we need to have a more concerted focused effort against the racist bigoted trash people, wherever they are. Because they are the ones that don’t belong in this country.
From the looks of it it takes another civil war, where the less barbaric people remove the more barbaric people from power. Unfortunately i am afraid that nothing short of that will work, as the system is so unstanle that things like this can happen.
All a civil war will do is put a bigger boot on all our necks.
Nobody rational wants to see that happen.
Unless you enjoy the thought of American military might amped up to 11 and deployed on it’s own citizens.
From the other side of the world, it would be fun to see that happen.
Your racist uncultured citizens citizens duly deserve that and the collateral damage would be overlooked.
This dude sounds like a pretty weak mayor. He is literally the mayor, he can unilaterally appoint a new sheriff and arrest all 30 of the “white town leaders” for interfering with the official duties of the mayor. He has 100% of all official power that a local government has and I’d say at least 60% of the unofficial power, and yet he can’t stop <30 people from running amuck?
He is either a collaborator, or so clueless that he should have never been mayor to begin with. Similar to Obama honestly.Mid. Even if they did, you’d find some other reason to undermine the victim or defend the bigots like people like you always do.
I have zero power or soft power in that town. But if your projection of me can stop the elected mayor of a town from doing anything beneficial, it sounds like you are just looking for an excuse to support the status quo, like you and your kind always do.
Lol die mad bro, you’re racist and got called out. Nothing’s going to save you from your terrible stances except you. Go to a log cabin in the woods and go meditate on how it is you got to the point where you’re openly defending blatant racism. But don’t cry to me when you’re told the truth.
You are the one being instructed here, Mr. liberal defender of the status of the quo.
Tell me you don’t understand soft power without etc…
Yea, that’s what I’m saying, this dude has no fucking clue about soft-power, so why is he mayor and complaining to some random news conglomerate?
They’re arguing he isn’t the mayor, though, and intimidating anyone and everyone into not supporting him.
Oh no, 30 in a town of 275 are upset about something. Guess we just need to appease them no other options.
Typical out of touch oldhead who’s never had to think, “Hm, is there a probability that these 30 angry white folks in rural Alabama might cause me harm?”
There’s also something to be said about carrying yourself with tact. Do you think your idea elsewhere in this thread of man-handling his local government into accepting his position is going to win any favors with his constituents and community?
Oh no! The threat of violence to enforce the status quo? I’m sure 89% of people in that town have never considered that possibility. Perhaps if they just showed a bit more “tact” with the requests for equality, they would already have it by now? I’ll tell you this, if an elected official actually leveraged their power to end racism, I’d be elated! But I guess for people like you who benefit from the status quo, that would just be uncouth.
Sheriff is an elected position, not appointed.
So the 89% black town can elect a black mayor, but replacing the sheriff was just a bridge to far? Sounds like they have voted for what they want.
Well you have to wait for an election for sheriff to happen. It also sounds like there’s some general fuckery happening in that county. Maybe it’s a life or death situation to try to unseat the current sheriff. There are a lot of possible reasons why the sheriff may not represent the people’s choice.
I’m sure there is general fuckery happening, much like the previous 150 years. But if you want to change anything in America, you can’t play by the rules, and you can’t appeal to decency. If you aren’t willing to fight dirty, you aren’t the right person for the job.
