4 ms·

"Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?"

Yeul 2y ago
And when one of your followers has done the deed throw them under a bus.
ta8645 2y ago
Did he actually call for people to make threats or use violence? Did he even imply it? Do you apply the same standard to public figures who call Trump a fascist or a Nazi? Are they responsible for the person who shot him?
- tim333 2y ago
  Some examples of what he said >You’ve got parents laughing — ‘hahaha’ — and then they walk over to the camera and go ‘boo hoo hoo,’ and not just one but a bunch of parents doing this and then photos of kids that are still alive they said died? I mean, they think we’re so dumb.” >“Why did Hitler blow up the Reichstag — to get control! Why do governments stage these things — to get our guns! Why can’t people get that through their head?” https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/22/us/politics/heres-what-jones-has-said-about-sandy-hook.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/22/us/politics/heres-what-jo... Re double standards on Trump, I think people are ok with criticizing power hungry politicians, less so with parents who have had their kids killed. The Jones case was a civil case for damages. He's not going to prison or anything - just losing some assets. Trump is free to sue people who've implied he's a nazi (maybe he could start with JD) but I don't know how sympathetic a jury would be.
  - ta8645 2y ago
    We're not discussing the case generally. We're asking if the assertion that he THREATENED anyone, holds water. So far, nobody has been able to provide any evidence, that he has. Whatever you think about the case, it should be decided with factual statements, not emotional manipulative accusations that bend the truth.
    - tim333 2y ago
      Yeah, it seems he didn't directly threaten the families.
ToValueFunfetti 2y ago
I think that's a very different statement from "God, I hate that stupid priest. He's so meddlesome." Criticizing people should not count as incitement in a liberal society- consider whether people who told an audience that Trump was a fascist should be held accountable for the assassination attempts. This is defamation.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  A court already determined he is guilty. If he thought he was innocent, he had the opportunity to present any defense he wanted. Whether or not he is at fault isn't a point of discussion because it's already been determined for a fact.
  - ToValueFunfetti 2y ago
    Yes, he is guilty. But he's guilty of defamation, not incitement. It is an important distinction because "I thought that was true" is a defense in a defamation case, but not in incitement- you can't say "the pope is catholic, go kill him now", regardless of whether he is actually catholic. "He didn't present a defense therefore it has been determined for a fact that he is guilty" is not especially sound. You'd have to concede the existence of witches on the absurd end, and that everyone who makes a plea deal is guilty on the more rational end. He's guilty because he publicly made harmful defamatory statements that he privately did not believe, both of which are made clear by evidence.

Yeul 2y ago

And when one of your followers has done the deed throw them under a bus.

Did he actually call for people to make threats or use violence? Did he even imply it? Do you apply the same standard to public figures who call Trump a fascist or a Nazi? Are they responsible for the person who shot him?

tim333 2y ago
Some examples of what he said >You’ve got parents laughing — ‘hahaha’ — and then they walk over to the camera and go ‘boo hoo hoo,’ and not just one but a bunch of parents doing this and then photos of kids that are still alive they said died? I mean, they think we’re so dumb.” >“Why did Hitler blow up the Reichstag — to get control! Why do governments stage these things — to get our guns! Why can’t people get that through their head?” https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/22/us/politics/heres-what-jones-has-said-about-sandy-hook.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/22/us/politics/heres-what-jo... Re double standards on Trump, I think people are ok with criticizing power hungry politicians, less so with parents who have had their kids killed. The Jones case was a civil case for damages. He's not going to prison or anything - just losing some assets. Trump is free to sue people who've implied he's a nazi (maybe he could start with JD) but I don't know how sympathetic a jury would be.
- ta8645 2y ago
  We're not discussing the case generally. We're asking if the assertion that he THREATENED anyone, holds water. So far, nobody has been able to provide any evidence, that he has. Whatever you think about the case, it should be decided with factual statements, not emotional manipulative accusations that bend the truth.
  - tim333 2y ago
    Yeah, it seems he didn't directly threaten the families.

ToValueFunfetti 2y ago

I think that's a very different statement from "God, I hate that stupid priest. He's so meddlesome." Criticizing people should not count as incitement in a liberal society- consider whether people who told an audience that Trump was a fascist should be held accountable for the assassination attempts. This is defamation.

HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
A court already determined he is guilty. If he thought he was innocent, he had the opportunity to present any defense he wanted. Whether or not he is at fault isn't a point of discussion because it's already been determined for a fact.
- ToValueFunfetti 2y ago
  Yes, he is guilty. But he's guilty of defamation, not incitement. It is an important distinction because "I thought that was true" is a defense in a defamation case, but not in incitement- you can't say "the pope is catholic, go kill him now", regardless of whether he is actually catholic. "He didn't present a defense therefore it has been determined for a fact that he is guilty" is not especially sound. You'd have to concede the existence of witches on the absurd end, and that everyone who makes a plea deal is guilty on the more rational end. He's guilty because he publicly made harmful defamatory statements that he privately did not believe, both of which are made clear by evidence.