3 ms·

Example: Rittenhouse carried a gun. Left wing sources said it was illegal and he was charged with it. Right wing sources (e.g. Viva & Barnes) said it was actua

Example: Rittenhouse carried a gun. Left wing sources said it was illegal and he was charged with it. Right wing sources (e.g. Viva & Barnes) said it was actually legal because of how the law was written and predicted it would be dismissed by the judge. Politifact factchecked the claim that it was legal as false. The judge dismissed the charge. Politifact updated their page, not to admit they were wrong, but to double down that they were in fact right, not the judge. [1] In many cases, fact checking websites strawman the claims to dismiss everything. In this case instead of factchecking "Rittenhouse was legally carrying" they fact checked "Rittenhouse was PERFECTLY legally carrying" so that when it turns out it was legal they can say "Yes, but not PERFECTLY legal". [1]: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/28/facebook-posts/did-kyle-rittenhouse-break-law-carrying-assault-st/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/28/facebook-p...

taf2 5y ago
My current biases lead me to agree with your perspective.
Broken_Hippo 5y ago
A judge dismissing a charge doesn't mean that the gun was legal, though: There are a lot of different reasons to dismiss. Technicalities and not having enough strong evidence for that particular charge are two that come to mind.
- civilized 5y ago
  The judge dismissed because the statute is unclear, and a general legal principle says that unclear rules must be read to favor whoever they're being applied against. This principle is a basic protection against tyranny by arbitrary application of muddled rules. In other words, the legislature may have tried to make what Rittenhouse did illegal, but they failed to do so clearly enough, and that means it is legal. Even if we allow for a gray area of "legal but not perfectly legal", it's not the legitimate province of media fact-checkers to arbitrate the boundaries of that -- for the same reason it's not legitimate for the state to arbitrate the boundaries of its own vague laws. Media fact checks are, in part, a tool for the media to discredit and damage the reputations of people it doesn't like. So the media doesn't get to write the rules of what is a fact, and gray areas should be construed in favor of the person being criticized.

taf2 5y ago

My current biases lead me to agree with your perspective.

Broken_Hippo 5y ago

A judge dismissing a charge doesn't mean that the gun was legal, though: There are a lot of different reasons to dismiss. Technicalities and not having enough strong evidence for that particular charge are two that come to mind.

civilized 5y ago
The judge dismissed because the statute is unclear, and a general legal principle says that unclear rules must be read to favor whoever they're being applied against. This principle is a basic protection against tyranny by arbitrary application of muddled rules. In other words, the legislature may have tried to make what Rittenhouse did illegal, but they failed to do so clearly enough, and that means it is legal. Even if we allow for a gray area of "legal but not perfectly legal", it's not the legitimate province of media fact-checkers to arbitrate the boundaries of that -- for the same reason it's not legitimate for the state to arbitrate the boundaries of its own vague laws. Media fact checks are, in part, a tool for the media to discredit and damage the reputations of people it doesn't like. So the media doesn't get to write the rules of what is a fact, and gray areas should be construed in favor of the person being criticized.