4 ms·

[0]Negligence is "a failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances." Essentially,

[0]Negligence is "a failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances." Essentially, it comes down to what a reasonable person would do. A reasonable person would probably not invent claims without evidence. Let's take the Kyle Rittenhouse case as the example since it's so recent and visible. The Twitter mob openly calls this individual a murderer, white supremacist, and terrorist, among other things. They also invent and distribute "facts" which are material to the case such as where the individual got the AR-15 used during the event, and the circumstances surrounding its use. [1]Significant effort is undertaken to obfuscate the truth through the editing of video footage and censoring of contrary opinions. > Elon musk called someone a "pedo guy" because he moved to Thailand, and was found to be fine because a reasonable person wouldn't take the statement seriously. This is clearly not the case when dealing with situations like the above, and many others which lead to individuals being deplatformed, harassed, or physically threatened, or even attacked. There can be no doubt that claims of racism, sexism, homophobia, or other bigotry are taken seriously by all the major platforms and society as a whole. It is common knowledge that such claims cause harm. A reasonable person would not make damaging claims without any supporting evidence, manufacture fake evidence, or aid in the distribution of either. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/negligence https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/negligence [1] https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/09/02/facebook-declares-kyle-rittenhouses-actions-a-mass-murder-wont-allow-posts-in-support/ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/09/02/facebook-declares-...

joshuamorton 6y ago
But there is supporting evidence for all of those claims. It is not ironclad (or you may disagree with it). But they are not claims made without evidence. And reasonable people can, and do, disagree about specific pieces of evidence. Furthermore, repeating a rumor is not negligent. So if I make a claim without evidence, but you repeat it and cite me, only I have done something wrong. To get concrete, there is evidence that Kyle Rittenhouse murdered someone. He's been charged with first-degree intentional homicide, this is Wisconsin's equivalent of Murder. There is evidence that Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremacist. He travelled across state lines to disrupt and intimidate people at a protest for racial justice. While he may not be a card carrying neo-nazi, that's evidence. There is evidence that Kyle Rittenhouse is a terrorist. He (presumably) unlawfully used violence and intimidation against civilians for political purposes. He's listed on wikipedia's list of right-wing terrorists in the US[0]. So now you have to show that not only are the above statements false, but that they are so blatantly false, that it is unreasonable for a person to believe them, and that to reach those conclusions would require negligence. But of course, you can't really do that. Wikipedia agreeing with me pretty much proves that my claims aren't unreasonable. They may be wrong, but they aren't negligently so. > They also invent and distribute "facts" which are material to the case such as where the individual got the AR-15 used during the event, and the circumstances surrounding its use. Coming to incorrect conclusions after good faith investigation isn't negligent. At the moment, as far as I know, Rittenhouse got his rifle within the state of Wisconsin, from a friend. But not knowing that information, it is not unreasonable and negligent to state "He must have acquired the gun illegally, since he is underage and can't transport it across state lines." That's a reasonable conclusion. It's wrong, yes, but it's reasonable. > This is clearly not the case when dealing with situations like the above, Just to be clear, you are saying that it is reasonable for a person to call someone else a pedophile without any evidence, but calling someone who shot and killed someone else, on video, a murderer, is negligent? Am I getting that right? Previously I said that you misunderstand negligence. I'll repeat what I said and add that it appears that you, personally, have an extraordinary level of prudence. Which is totally acceptable, and perhaps even an admirable trait. But it is not ordinary. Legally speaking, you appear to be "unreasonable". [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism#United_St...
- Proziam 6y ago
  TLDR - At the time the claims were made, there was not enough evidence available to make any potentially defamatory claims. If the same standards were applied to financial reporting, the reporters would be in jail already. > To get concrete, there is evidence that Kyle Rittenhouse murdered someone. He's been charged with first-degree intentional homicide, this is Wisconsin's equivalent of Murder. These claims were coming out prior to him being charged and prior to any credible sources reporting details of the story. There was an organized attempt to get ahead of the narrative and paint a particular picture of the events. The fact that it's actually rather difficult to find the details of the 'victims' and their criminal histories is one indicator of that. The below cited debate on the wiki entry is another. And that is without diving into the twitter discourse where it's possible to find every level of bad faith "debate" > There is evidence that Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremacist. He travelled across state lines to disrupt and intimidate people at a protest for racial justice. While he may not be a card carrying neo-nazi, that's evidence. He worked in Kenosha as a lifeguard, and was there cleaning up the neighborhood [0]unarmed earlier in the day. Saying his presence there is evidence is like saying that my fingerprints inside my own home are evidence of whatever crime may have happened there. > There is evidence that Kyle Rittenhouse is a terrorist. He (presumably) unlawfully used violence and intimidation against civilians for political purposes. He's listed on wikipedia's list of right-wing terrorists in the US[0]. This "evidence" came into existence after the claims were already circulating. [1]The original entry was Kenosha Riots, and there is ongoing organized action to alter the title and information to change the narrative. None of the sources listed existed at the time that the defamatory claims were made. > Coming to incorrect conclusions after good faith investigation isn't negligent. There was no investigation, so there cannot have been good faith in the investigation. The individuals claiming he 'crossed state lines with an illegal AR-15' are making multiple false claims at once. He didn't cross state lines to participate, he was already there. He didn't cross with the AR-15, it was given to him by a WI state resident. Even the possession of the weapon itself may not have been illegal as the state statutes leave wiggle room that has yet to be explored. The ultimate point is that the people who initiated many of these claims are journalists and news publications who should have made a good faith effort to produce accurate reports. They failed miserably to do so, and their reports still carry significant inaccuracies. Some of these reports featured video clips that were edited to better support the narrative. None of these reports, at least that I've been able to find, show all of the video evidence that is public thus far. > Just to be clear, you are saying that it is reasonable for a person to call someone else a pedophile without any evidence, but calling someone who shot and killed someone else, on video, a murderer, is negligent? Am I getting that right? Not exactly. I'm saying that Elon Musk is one individual who has no following because of his 'investigative journalism' credentials. He's just a dude who is rather well known for being 'out there'. On the other hand, people absolutely do follow CNN & & & as a 'credible' source for such reporting. [0] https://nypost.com/2020/08/26/suspected-kenosha-gunman-kyle-rittenhouse-spotted-cleaning-graffiti/ https://nypost.com/2020/08/26/suspected-kenosha-gunman-kyle-... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kenosha_protests#Requested_move_25_August_2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kenosha_protests#Requeste...

joshuamorton 6y ago

But there is supporting evidence for all of those claims. It is not ironclad (or you may disagree with it). But they are not claims made without evidence. And reasonable people can, and do, disagree about specific pieces of evidence. Furthermore, repeating a rumor is not negligent. So if I make a claim without evidence, but you repeat it and cite me, only I have done something wrong. To get concrete, there is evidence that Kyle Rittenhouse murdered someone. He's been charged with first-degree intentional homicide, this is Wisconsin's equivalent of Murder. There is evidence that Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremacist. He travelled across state lines to disrupt and intimidate people at a protest for racial justice. While he may not be a card carrying neo-nazi, that's evidence. There is evidence that Kyle Rittenhouse is a terrorist. He (presumably) unlawfully used violence and intimidation against civilians for political purposes. He's listed on wikipedia's list of right-wing terrorists in the US[0]. So now you have to show that not only are the above statements false, but that they are so blatantly false, that it is unreasonable for a person to believe them, and that to reach those conclusions would require negligence. But of course, you can't really do that. Wikipedia agreeing with me pretty much proves that my claims aren't unreasonable. They may be wrong, but they aren't negligently so. > They also invent and distribute "facts" which are material to the case such as where the individual got the AR-15 used during the event, and the circumstances surrounding its use. Coming to incorrect conclusions after good faith investigation isn't negligent. At the moment, as far as I know, Rittenhouse got his rifle within the state of Wisconsin, from a friend. But not knowing that information, it is not unreasonable and negligent to state "He must have acquired the gun illegally, since he is underage and can't transport it across state lines." That's a reasonable conclusion. It's wrong, yes, but it's reasonable. > This is clearly not the case when dealing with situations like the above, Just to be clear, you are saying that it is reasonable for a person to call someone else a pedophile without any evidence, but calling someone who shot and killed someone else, on video, a murderer, is negligent? Am I getting that right? Previously I said that you misunderstand negligence. I'll repeat what I said and add that it appears that you, personally, have an extraordinary level of prudence. Which is totally acceptable, and perhaps even an admirable trait. But it is not ordinary. Legally speaking, you appear to be "unreasonable". [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism#United_St...

Proziam 6y ago
TLDR - At the time the claims were made, there was not enough evidence available to make any potentially defamatory claims. If the same standards were applied to financial reporting, the reporters would be in jail already. > To get concrete, there is evidence that Kyle Rittenhouse murdered someone. He's been charged with first-degree intentional homicide, this is Wisconsin's equivalent of Murder. These claims were coming out prior to him being charged and prior to any credible sources reporting details of the story. There was an organized attempt to get ahead of the narrative and paint a particular picture of the events. The fact that it's actually rather difficult to find the details of the 'victims' and their criminal histories is one indicator of that. The below cited debate on the wiki entry is another. And that is without diving into the twitter discourse where it's possible to find every level of bad faith "debate" > There is evidence that Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremacist. He travelled across state lines to disrupt and intimidate people at a protest for racial justice. While he may not be a card carrying neo-nazi, that's evidence. He worked in Kenosha as a lifeguard, and was there cleaning up the neighborhood [0]unarmed earlier in the day. Saying his presence there is evidence is like saying that my fingerprints inside my own home are evidence of whatever crime may have happened there. > There is evidence that Kyle Rittenhouse is a terrorist. He (presumably) unlawfully used violence and intimidation against civilians for political purposes. He's listed on wikipedia's list of right-wing terrorists in the US[0]. This "evidence" came into existence after the claims were already circulating. [1]The original entry was Kenosha Riots, and there is ongoing organized action to alter the title and information to change the narrative. None of the sources listed existed at the time that the defamatory claims were made. > Coming to incorrect conclusions after good faith investigation isn't negligent. There was no investigation, so there cannot have been good faith in the investigation. The individuals claiming he 'crossed state lines with an illegal AR-15' are making multiple false claims at once. He didn't cross state lines to participate, he was already there. He didn't cross with the AR-15, it was given to him by a WI state resident. Even the possession of the weapon itself may not have been illegal as the state statutes leave wiggle room that has yet to be explored. The ultimate point is that the people who initiated many of these claims are journalists and news publications who should have made a good faith effort to produce accurate reports. They failed miserably to do so, and their reports still carry significant inaccuracies. Some of these reports featured video clips that were edited to better support the narrative. None of these reports, at least that I've been able to find, show all of the video evidence that is public thus far. > Just to be clear, you are saying that it is reasonable for a person to call someone else a pedophile without any evidence, but calling someone who shot and killed someone else, on video, a murderer, is negligent? Am I getting that right? Not exactly. I'm saying that Elon Musk is one individual who has no following because of his 'investigative journalism' credentials. He's just a dude who is rather well known for being 'out there'. On the other hand, people absolutely do follow CNN & & & as a 'credible' source for such reporting. [0] https://nypost.com/2020/08/26/suspected-kenosha-gunman-kyle-rittenhouse-spotted-cleaning-graffiti/ https://nypost.com/2020/08/26/suspected-kenosha-gunman-kyle-... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kenosha_protests#Requested_move_25_August_2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kenosha_protests#Requeste...