• DarthFreyr@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Truly, am I more Sisyphus or Tantalus upon this day, or has Tartarus seen fit to bestow upon me an entirely new task!

    The difference between “he said XYZ” or “he feels this way about XYZ” versus “XYZ is true” is not semantics. It is the critical point that distinguishes invalid hearsay from legal testimony. And take note of how I directly establish my point and give supporting examples, not just parrot “no what you say proves me right”.

    That is the exact opposite of proving that “in the eye of the law he was wrong” if there was no case and no judgement.

    Freedom of speech is about consequences from the government, while the “freedom of [from] consequence” you brought up is about consequences from the free market, public opinion, etc. That you have no idea why that is relevant means you should do more research on what you are saying so that you are not stating lies.

    • bigmamoth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      Anything other than

      It s critical formulation that let not place to doubt. About your second point it s funny how the network owner didn’t even tried to go to court for a case that they could maybe win, like maybe it was also the consequence from the free market and opinions ?

      About stating lie, yes or no did he said the shooter was maga ?