3 ms·

The parent posted relevant details to the case at hand. Your comment doesn't really add to the conversation and suggests that your opinion as a middle-schooler

The parent posted relevant details to the case at hand. Your comment doesn't really add to the conversation and suggests that your opinion as a middle-schooler 20-years ago about a video that has nothing to do with this case is a more important thing for us to consider. I disagree.

jacobolus 5y ago
My point is that everything I have ever seen Stossel write or show on video, decade after decade, is more or less misleading, disingenuous, often slanderous propaganda. With that well-established reputation, it is hard to take what he says at face value; we can safely assume that his comments in this case are also distorted and self-serving. Given the difficulty of winning a defamation lawsuit as a public figure in the USA, I would be shocked if he prevailed here.
- baryphonic 5y ago
  The outcome of the case really doesn't depend on whether you saw (by compulsion) a couple of segments he did for the (I guess) highly partisan and propagandistic ABC News two decades ago. His continued employment there for years after whenever those videos you watched were published would seem to indicate that his reputation suffered no serious harm as a result of them, as would his subsequent employment at Fox Business. (It's theoretically possible that Facebook could say he has no good reputation capable of being defamed, but, again, the facts, including those pleaded in the filing if true, would seem to cut against it.) As I said in GGGP, I agree that I'd be surprised if he won, but I think this has some likelihood of going to discovery. With high-profile defendants, documents and depositions are sometimes the goal.
- amscanne 5y ago
  Speaking of “slanderous propaganda”, I can’t help but feel reminded of the quote about accusing the other side of that of which you are guilty. With the view you’re expressing here, its actually easier to understand how the “fact-checkers” fact checked the video false without even seeing it. The job of a fact-checker is not to be a judge of character, nor is it to fact check based on assumptions.

jacobolus 5y ago

My point is that everything I have ever seen Stossel write or show on video, decade after decade, is more or less misleading, disingenuous, often slanderous propaganda. With that well-established reputation, it is hard to take what he says at face value; we can safely assume that his comments in this case are also distorted and self-serving. Given the difficulty of winning a defamation lawsuit as a public figure in the USA, I would be shocked if he prevailed here.

baryphonic 5y ago
The outcome of the case really doesn't depend on whether you saw (by compulsion) a couple of segments he did for the (I guess) highly partisan and propagandistic ABC News two decades ago. His continued employment there for years after whenever those videos you watched were published would seem to indicate that his reputation suffered no serious harm as a result of them, as would his subsequent employment at Fox Business. (It's theoretically possible that Facebook could say he has no good reputation capable of being defamed, but, again, the facts, including those pleaded in the filing if true, would seem to cut against it.) As I said in GGGP, I agree that I'd be surprised if he won, but I think this has some likelihood of going to discovery. With high-profile defendants, documents and depositions are sometimes the goal.
amscanne 5y ago
Speaking of “slanderous propaganda”, I can’t help but feel reminded of the quote about accusing the other side of that of which you are guilty. With the view you’re expressing here, its actually easier to understand how the “fact-checkers” fact checked the video false without even seeing it. The job of a fact-checker is not to be a judge of character, nor is it to fact check based on assumptions.