Here's where I proof this story you can connect the maccobys to Silsby. It's a shoddy piece of research by the pizzagate community. https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2153386/10615474
It would be an interesting court case. If you rely on nonsense news sites as your source, are you responsible if you pass on their falsehoods as facts?
It's a shoddy piece of research by the pizzagate community.
Your debunk was not well received (to put it mildly).... and you didn't even bother to respond to the long and thorough rebuttal left on your "proof".
As far as the legal argument goes.... you are stuck in a conundrum. Are the sources for this information widely known as "nonsense" by the public? Or, are the sources not completely ridiculous... and are based upon part publicly acknowledged fact and partially upon the authors personal opinion.
Answer:
(Yes sources are objectively nonsense) => no (or minimal) damages. The article sources and the resulting post carries no weight in the public eye and thus nobodies reputation has been damaged.
(No sources are not objectively nonsense) => Author is not recklessly disregarding the truth. Using some of the information from the "nonsense" news sources is not objectively reckless, as a reasonable person could use some of the facts in good faith to write an opinion piece.
Furthermore most of the pizzagate posts and blog posts and articles are very obviously opinion pieces. Most present different possibilities for interpreting public facts. Opinion is constitutionally protected.
view the rest of the comments →
Are_we_sure ago
CIA? You mean the guy he defamed?
Oh wow, he's using he Silsby story I debunked. Starting here. https://youtu.be/XRZ1fH8j0g0?t=71
Here's where I proof this story you can connect the maccobys to Silsby. It's a shoddy piece of research by the pizzagate community.
https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2153386/10615474
It would be an interesting court case. If you rely on nonsense news sites as your source, are you responsible if you pass on their falsehoods as facts?
haggl ago
nice proof you got -13 votes lol
Are_we_sure ago
do you think that is how truth works?
Poot_McGarvey ago
Your debunk was not well received (to put it mildly).... and you didn't even bother to respond to the long and thorough rebuttal left on your "proof".
As far as the legal argument goes.... you are stuck in a conundrum. Are the sources for this information widely known as "nonsense" by the public? Or, are the sources not completely ridiculous... and are based upon part publicly acknowledged fact and partially upon the authors personal opinion.
Answer:
(Yes sources are objectively nonsense) => no (or minimal) damages. The article sources and the resulting post carries no weight in the public eye and thus nobodies reputation has been damaged.
(No sources are not objectively nonsense) => Author is not recklessly disregarding the truth. Using some of the information from the "nonsense" news sources is not objectively reckless, as a reasonable person could use some of the facts in good faith to write an opinion piece.
Furthermore most of the pizzagate posts and blog posts and articles are very obviously opinion pieces. Most present different possibilities for interpreting public facts. Opinion is constitutionally protected.
Are_we_sure ago
please point me to this.