Page #2
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 ...#90
New Comment Rating: 0 Similar topics: 1.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF 2.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF II 3.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF III 4.Be honest!! 5.Is this about you 🤷♂️, those that live in glass houses should not throw stones. Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
only registered users can see external links
Note this video was made in 2022, and they are talking about how bad the economyiis crashing! Who was pres then?
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
I only do business with 1 place that does not take cash and that is the county dump. And I complain to the commissioners all the time about it
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
No bills, no problems
No problems? One tiny infection can kill you.
What do you think his teeth are like? Would he still have some?
Maybe you would have more rational political insights, if you wouldn't romanticize
living like a wild animal or some caveman. You are probably still recovering somewhat from a medical intervention that saved your life, but instead of absorbing that into your worldview, you think people are better off living like we did 10,000 years ago.
Understand that even the poorest person in the modern world has a much better
quality of life than the people back then. About half the children died before the age of 5, from some disease, accident or being eaten by a predator.
Every Day Began With Uncertainty. A person woke up not knowing if they would eat that day. Seasons mattered brutally: winter or drought could mean days with almost nothing—maybe a handful of nuts, bitter roots, or dried meat if they had been lucky enough to store some.
Cold, heat, wind, and rain all mattered more than any predator.
Clothing was animal hide, often stiff, smelly, and poorly insulating. Shelters were drafty huts or temporary camps. A single storm could wipe out a group’s food stores, trap them indoors, or kill the very young and the very old.
Aches, injuries, and infections were simply part of existence.
- No painkillers beyond plants that dulled the senses
- No medical treatment for sprains, fractures, or infected wounds
- Teeth worn down from grit in stone-ground food
- Parasites, fleas, lice
Most adults lived with chronic pain that would send a modern person to the ER.
Large predators still roamed in many regions—lions, wolves, cave bears, saber-toothed cats (in earlier periods), hyenas.
Even more dangerous were simply:
Falls, Cuts that got infected, Snakebites, Fires and Conflict with other groups. Any of these could be fatal.
Parents expected to lose children; grief was constant, quiet, and communal.
Whether hunter-gatherer or early farmer, work was exhausting.
For hunters:
- Track animals for hours or days
- Carry heavy meat back to camp
- Face dangerous prey
For gatherers:
- Bend and kneel for hours collecting roots, seeds, nuts
- Process plants by scraping, pounding, grinding
For early farmers:
- Dig, plant, weed, haul water
- Defend fields from animals
- Store grain or risk starvation
While some individuals lived into their 50s or even 60s, the average life expectancy was dramatically pulled down by:
- infant deaths
- infections
- accidents
- childbirth risks
- malnutrition
Living to 30 was already an accomplishment.
Anxiety was a permanent companion:
- Will we eat tomorrow?
- Will the weather turn?
- Is that sound a predator?
- Are other tribes approaching?
There was wonder, community, and meaning—but also relentless uncertainty.
The only upside I see from that time is that the tribe helped each other to stay alive. Nowadays, people are completely isolated from each other. People are selfish, because that is idolized as the goal for self improvement. The sad thing is that people who support that selfish system often point to 10,000 years back, calling it "survival of the fittest".
That is very dishonest propaganda to justify inequality, because it is the opposite of what evolution teaches. Humans survived because of cooperation, resource sharing, division of labor, caring for the vulnerable and group solidarity.
they didn't have micro plastics in their water. They didn't have jet fuel particles falling on them from the sky. They didn't have covid,
So many things they didn't have that we have to deal with today.
IF 1 caveman stole another cavemans woman that cave man could wack the thief over the head and get his woman back.didn't have to go thru divorce either if they spilt up.
Question is, did a form of racism exist back then?
Is there an evolutionary explanation for racism?
Another theory from evolutionary psychology is that racism may have evolved as an “energy-saving” strategy. To interact or mate with ethnically different groups would have involved a lot of time and energy, through coordinating with different social norms.
right-wing news outlets, they were worried if they would survive the oncoming winter.
Coronaviruses have been around for millions of years, long before humans existed. Paleovirology has found some evidence that we inherited some resistance from the Neanderthals. Still, they died of so many diseases that we consider mild today.
And of course modern medicine has conquered several horrible diseases.
Unfortunately, modern anti-science is bringing some of them back.
The behavioral tendencies for racism are probably very old, but back then tribalism overruled it. People didn't just distrust other races, they distrust everyone outside of their tribe. It's behavior that is even observed in apes.
What I've read about it is that we have evolutionary tendencies to determine in-groups and out-groups, but racism emerged from cultural, political, and economic forces.
Racism as we understand it today—fixed, hierarchical, and global—emerged primarily in the last 500 years, driven by:
- colonial expansion
- the transatlantic slave trade
- European imperial ideologies
- scientific racism in the 18th–19th centuries
Slave trading has been going on for thousands of years, but it wasn't based on race. Read the bible and see how the Jews had different rules about owning slaves for Jews and everyone else. That was not based on race, because everyone in that area looked the same. It was based on in-groups and out-groups.
I don't think it's based on energy conservation, I think it's based on power preservation.
For a dominant group, defining another group as “inferior,” “different,” or “dangerous” creates:
- a boundary around the in-group
- a rationale for unequal treatment
- a story that justifies their power
This makes it easier to maintain control without relying solely on force.
Racism provides ideological cover for distributing benefits unequally: land, jobs, political rights, education, wealth and safety.
By claiming that some groups are “naturally suited” to labor, or “less civilized,” or “less intelligent,” the ruling group can preserve advantages and restrict competition.
A key principle of power is: It’s easier to rule a population that is divided than one that is united. Racism:
- creates divisions among the working class or subordinate groups
- prevents coalitions that might challenge the dominant group
- redirects frustration toward minority groups instead of toward the powerful
It legitimizes coercive institutions. Cultural beliefs about racial difference allow the in-group to build institutions that reinforce inequality, such as:
- segregated schools
- restricted voting rights
- discriminatory policing
- immigration controls
- unequal legal systems
These become seen as “necessary” instead of oppressive.
It stabilizes the dominant group’s identity. Power is not only material—it is also psychological. Racism gives the in-group:
- a sense of superiority
- a justification for their privileged position
- a shared identity built around dominance
This creates emotional cohesion within the ruling group.
It masks the real mechanisms of power. Racism can make inequality appear:
- natural
- inevitable
- rooted in biology
- the “fault” of the oppressed group
This hides the structural causes, allowing the powerful to avoid accountability.
Thus, racism is not an evolutionary adaptation, it is a cultural strategy that societies can (and often do) use to maintain power structures.
only registered users can see external links
I guess the democrats run similar experiments on adults. give them everything then tell them the republicans are going to take it away! instilling fear in them at election time to win their votes yet again.
only registered users can see external links
was 81.9% at the end of the second quarter of 2025.
In the second quarter of 2025, the U.S. government's debt-to-GDP ratio was 119.4%.
If the EU is broke, the US is much more broke.
The EU is asking the UK for “billions”, but these are not arbitrary demands; they are part of a legally binding Brexit financial settlement. It’s the UK repaying agreed obligations as part of the Brexit exit deal.
So, you're just parroting filthy lies for a political reason.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
"Markets don't crash when things look bad, they crash when the forces
holding everything together finally break"
only registered users can see external links
Real economics destroying the wealthy's favorite lie.
Well apparently you CAN live without a brain!!!
only registered users can see external links
I don't think it's possible to live without any piece of brain.
Still that aint much.
the parrot has that much brain!and he can talk!
How about knowing early in the development of the zygote/fetus, that the child
will end up like this, and giving the woman the choice to end that pregnancy?
" oh this baby may have a iq lower than 125" abort abort abort!
You may rest easy killing the unborn, but i can't
Really? Do you think that people are thinking that, about their pregnancy?
You have strange ideas about people.
If there are people like that, I very much think they shouldn't have children.
But, let me answer your slippery slope fallacy, with a whataboutism.
If murder is illegal, how can people still defend themselves?
The answer: Because we "draw the line" with LAWS.
You may rest easy by killing people in boats, who are drugs smugglers at worst, without a day in court. Those are living and thinking people, the unborn are not.
Your ideas are forcing women to carry and give birth to a child like that,
and then have parents or society care for a vegetable 24/7 for it's life.
Personally, I don’t care one way or the other if abortion exists. I just don't want my tax dollars to fund what is, essentially, an elective medical procedure.
That was exactly in line with my meaning.
It's a slippery slope argument. Here is an example:
"If trespassing is illegal, then why are Jehovah's Witnesses not arrested?"
Reverse logic: "If listening to music is legal, then why can’t people
blast it at airplane-engine volume in the middle of the night?"
Why don't you want your tax dollars to fund elective medical procedures?
The only difference between emergency care and elective medical procedures
is that an emergency is needed to prevent the patient from dying right-now,
while elective medical procedures can be scheduled in advance, because
the life of the patient is not in immediate danger.
The next examples are all elective medical procedures:
- Hip replacements
- Knee replacement or reconstruction surgery
- Most hernia repairs
- Cataract surgery
- Gallbladder removal (when not emergent)
- Heart bypass surgery (when not done during an active crisis)
What makes it better for you, to fund these medical procedures through
for-profit insurance, instead of tax-dollars? Do you think that you will never
need an elective medical procedure?
Unless the Jehovahs had to defeat some sort of barrier, such as a locked gate, or they ignored a sign warning them to keep out, they may still enter, until such time you demand they leave. If they refuse to leave, or if had they defeated barriers or ignored signage, then they have committed the crime of trespass.
It seems a basic understanding of trespassing laws is in order here.
Then there is the elephant in the room. How can you equate joint replacement and other serious medical procedures with abortion? That is a false equivalence argument. It’s an apples-to-oranges comparison! One may be pregnant and still function normally in most physical activities, such as walking, reading, etc. How can one function if he cannot see or walk, or is living in constant severe pain? Really!
Abortion IS an elective procedure, one that historically has demanded that I fund it without my consent! You don’t have to get pregnant. It is a choice that involves a certain voluntary activity for a vast majority of the cases, whereas people rarely choose to lose the function of joints and organs. Pregnancy is 100% preventable! Aging is not!
I’m surprised you didn’t also throw insulin into that mess, with the attitude you’ve displayed thus far!
You’re scraping the bottom of the logic barrel, grasping at totally unrelated medical procedures in an attempt to justify using other people’s money for a procedure that could easily have been prevented!
That’s just lame.
that was the whole argument. I'm explaining the slippery slope argument to you, because you didn't understand it the first time, and it's going right over your head again.
I am arguing against pharts argument "where do you draw the line?",
saying "oh this baby may have a iq lower than 125, abort abort abort!"
The "line" that we draw is the law. The same law that defines the limit between Jehovahs entering your property and trespassing, which you specified.
So, there could be al law that keeps abortion legal, but excludes the reason that it's IQ would be lower than 125, or whatever other nonsense phart makes up.
We we talking about abortion for a fetus that develops without a brain, like the woman from the article that phart shared. Do you you have an opinion on that?
Do you think that every fetus with abnormalities or genetic diseases should be born, even if they are sure to live like a vegetable or will likely die immediately after birth? That's what Republicans are enforcing now, so your primitive thinking about who funds it, is a bit unsatisfactory for all those women who must deliver a baby that has no chance at a normal life, and the parents who have to care for it, the rest of it's life (if it dies young) or the rest of their life (if it doesn't die young).
We are talking about abortion being legal or not, not if it is funded with tax-dollars.
It was YOU who said that elective procedures shouldn't be funded by tax-dollars. That includes joint replacement and other serious medical procedures.
But, since we are talking about money. Do you understand the energy, time and MONEY that a severely disabled child costs? With your broken healthcare system, a child like that is unaffordable. If parents cannot meet that burden, is your government stepping in? Are you OK with your tax-dollars funding all those severely disabled people, because Republicans took away the CHOICE to abort them?
Is it a false equivalence to compare abortion with joint replacement and other serious medical procedures? It fucking well isn't, when Republicans are excluding abortions for DEAD fetuses. The total abortion ban has already caused 59 deaths of women with abnormal or death fetuses, and the ACPM estimates potentially 210 additional maternal deaths per year in certain states as a result of abortion bans. That makes abortion more important than a joint replacement, in a lot of cases. How can one function, when they are DEAD?
No, pregnancy is not 100% preventable. Many girls and women get r@ped. Republicans in some red states are already banning abortion for r@pe victims.
Do you think every fertile female should be on anti-conception, in case they get r@ped? Also, anti-conception is not 100% effective. The end result is that many women get pregnant unintentionally, without any fault of their own.
Let's throw insulin into that mess. Who is grasping at totally unrelated medical ... , here? (it's not even a procedure)
I think it should be either 100% covered by insurance or funded by taxes.
With your attitude, I expect you don't.
Again, no one was talking about who pays for abortions, until YOU did. We were talking about abortions being allowed by law, or not. Most abortions can be performed with some pills. I am fine with people paying for them out of pocket.
In 75% of the cases, abortions in the US are performed because the woman
is not financially secure enough to take care of it. So, if you don't like abortions,
maybe start thinking about solving that. Even giving birth itself sets people back on average $2,743. Do you think giving birth is an elective procedure?
And even if some women are getting pregnant due to their own stupidity, do you think that those dumb-asses should be parents? How about having people wait with parenting, until they have some idea that they are up to the responsibility?
Why do people like you always support ideas that fuck up your country?
It's very clear that you don't have an IQ limit for abortions. DAMN!
**** is 1 of the few exceptions i would negotiate a settlement to make frivolous 1's illegal. I would like to know where you get the 75% number being because of money issues.
A quick googleing,
"The predominant themes identified as reasons for seeking abortion included financial reasons (40%), timing (36%), partner related reasons (31%), and the need to focus on other children (29%).Jul 5, 2013
Understanding why women seek abortions in the US - PMC
National Institutes of Health (.gov)"
That tells me alot, that tells me that most of them could very easily be prevented by simply keeping legs closed and zippers up or give the poor guy a "hoover" job and move along.
R@pe should be covered by the rapist with his assets being put in a trust to take care of the baby once born if the mother chooses to keep it or pay for the abortion and the fellows food while rotting in jail.
Convenience abortions should be paid for out of the woman's pocket or the mans pocket or both. since it took both to create the situation, ideally both should cover the cost. IF the woman even has a clue who's it's daddy.
Timing and partner reasons are mostly financial too. That's where the 75% comes from.
That mostly of them COULD be prevented is probably true. That's not reality though. Women get pregnant unintentionally, and the reason can be an argument for who pays for it, but not for it being illegal.
Do you think having children should be punishment, for being stupid?
I sort of agree that careless people need to pay for their own abortion,
but look at it this way: the people who cannot pay for it are in the worst position to take care of a child.
Why do you want all those unwanted children, being raised by stupid people,
in desperate financial need? Don't you think your country has enough losers?
You are complaining about your drugs problem, but that is not a supply problem, that is a demand problem. And your idea of putting more losers on this earth
is creating the demand.
“What about the **** victims?” they declare while wringing their hands.
Typical. It’s always the worst case scenario, every time, when abortion is questioned!
The vast majority of abortions NEVER involve sexual assault. They rarely do. Only a tiny percentage of “****” victims ever get pregnant from the assault.
This is the moral equivalent to saying, “In order to prevent drunk driving, we must force everyone blow into a breathalyzer in order to start their cars, because some of them like to drink and drive."
H.R. 3, with the exception of a few narrow categories that have been accepted for many years, provides that the Federal Government shall not make taxpayers pay for, subsidize, encourage, or facilitate abortions or insurance coverage that includes abortion.
I have no problem with being called stupid, if you can show me to be wrong on anything.
Instead, you show you don't understand basic concepts.
Wheel barrow,only works when pushed!
Don't work, and sit at home?, then loose your ass,
only registered users can see external links
10,000 dollar bonus for being there for the American people to insure their safety!
I am surprised the damn union let them work,
If their job IS providing safety, then when are they 'going beyond the call of duty'?
Here is an assessment of ChatGPT:
Overall Assessment
Yes, there is strong evidence that many TSA agents are serious about safety and do their job diligently. The high rate of firearm detection, combined with TSA’s public statements about security priorities, supports that view.
But no, the picture is not totally unblemished:
- There are genuine risks in how TSA handles internal misconduct (per the OIG report).
- There are serious policy and legal concerns around discrimination (e.g., transgender screening).
- There are tensions between security and operational efficiency.
- Labor unrest could erode performance or morale going forward.
That last sentence leads me to believe that they might deserve a raise, instead of a one time bonus. A bonus can be a good temporary motivation, but it doesn't attract new personnel. If they deserve $10K, better raise their wage by $5K-$8K and add a bonus program for achieving goals of $2K-$5K.
only registered users can see external links
He should have known to not be friends with people who challenge you to do stupid things.
They just want to have a laugh at your expense.
only registered users can see external links
I don't know what you mean with "in theory". Do you understand that your freedom
of speech is dependent on someone else's freedom of speech?
If you can say by law: "I fucking hate 'N-word's", is it then also legal by law to say:
"If you say the 'N-word', I fucking kill you!"? It's all just speech isn't it?
That's why your Supreme Court has interpreted the amendment to allow for specific, narrow exceptions or limitations on certain categories of speech that are considered unprotected or have lesser protection. The government may regulate these types of speech, which include:
- Incitement to "imminent lawless action"
- True Threats
- Fighting Words
- Defamation
- Obscenity and Child Pornography
- Commercial Speech (false or misleading advertising)
- Content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions to expressive activity
So, do you think there should be 'truly freedom of speech', which is being able to say,
whatever you want say, without legal repercussions?
Or do you think there should be some legal limits?
I don't understand why you add 'unashamedly'. I would say that shame over speech is either dependent on your own morality or on the morality of 'common sense', which we are all contributing to. In any case, everyone is 'free' to say shameful things, because it doesn't result in restrictions of your literal freedom (prison, fines or damages). If you are ashamed yourself, by your own speech, that means that you stepped over your own norms of what is socially acceptable. If you get shamed by other people for your speech, it means that you stepped over THEIR norms of what is socially acceptable. For being able to say anything unashamedly, it means dropping all norms of what is socially acceptable.
One consequence is that any man can approach any women to express all his sexual desires, in explicit detail, even if he controls her professional and financial future.
I would say that dropping all social norms would be deleterious to society.
Stepping over norms what is socially acceptable to say, could result in people not liking you and excluding you socially and professionally. We call that cancellation nowadays.
To achieve free speech with regards to shame, cannot be accomplished by law. It means that society drops all social norms for how we treat each other. It means that people can say whatever they want to you, no matter how hateful or terrifying, without you thinking:
"I don't want to deal with this person anymore.".
Is this the world you want to live in?
Would it be possible in theory? What kind of society would it result into?
Or is the whole concept of society based on what is socially acceptable?
It's always "free speech for me, but not for thee".
I agree that being offended is not a reason to take people's speech away, but that's not what she is defending. Most of her ilk is defending literal incitement, threats, defamation and doxing, which is indeed 'offensive', but also puts people in danger, because there are always stupid people who act on the words of someone who thinks that they are only being 'offensive'.
She will probably also attack 'the left' for getting Charlie Kirk killed.
No one actually did incitement, threats, defamation or doxing against him,
but the left still gets blamed. If she wants 'true freedom of speech', I hope
she defended every liberal and lefty who ever criticized Charlie Kirk and defended
Jimmy Kimmel. Do I even have to look to know that she obviously didn't do that?
The fact that all your favorite politicians are still alive,
is evidence that Obama isn't doing what you think.
When liberals start killing, you wouldn't know what hit you,
because they outsmart you 10 to 1.
Don’t forget the largest armed force in the world are the hunters in the United States 🇺🇸 and 90 percent of them are republicans
Don’t take my word for it look it up for yourself
When you want to kill a snake, you cut off the head.
Sure, the tail will flop around aimlessly for a while, but it will die soon.
That's you, 'not knowing what hit you'.
That's why it's stupid to think that there is a mastermind behind Charlie Kirk's murder, unless it's right-wingers or Netanyahu. Charlie Kirk was a grifter for your cause, but he was having second thoughts about the genocide, mostly because
the young people he caters to don't like it. There is even a record of Charlie saying that he was afraid of getting killed for his defiance against Netanyahu and Trump.
Here is Netanyahu, feeling the need to reject the idea, in his own paper.
only registered users can see external links
That's a strong confirmation of my claim.
Anyone with a brain understands that killing Charlie Kirk would not help liberals and lefties. It removed ONE voice in thousands, and that voice was starting to diverge from the rest. Someone who is NOT diverging will fill his shoes.
It might be his widow, who is has been grifting off his death, before he was even in the ground. It's a sickening display, even for me, who really didn't like Charlie Kirk, but at least admired some of his skills. He was a goldmine for analysis of truth twisting and debating tricks. I miss him a lot more than Trump misses him.
Here is the grieving widow, dressed like a couch, to woo her new love:
Bye Usha!
It's your own side that claims that Charlie Kirk feared Netanyahu.
Since the murder, one weird claim after another has been surfacing.
The constant redressing, the constant assembly and disassembly of the rifle, the messages that don't sound like a young adult who was fully engaged in gamer culture, but confirm every move in the FBI story. It's exactly what you expect from a corrupt and incompetent FBI, which is what it turned into under Kash Patel.
He has shown the world what a bad liar he is, when he claimed that there is no credible information that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked women and under@ge girls
to anyone other than himself. Really? What about the island and all those flights?
Prince Andrew lost his royal style, titles, and honours, including the title of "prince" and "His Royal Highness", because of Epstein's trafficking. Maybe Patel thinks that YOU are stupid enough to believe him, but the rest of the world doesn't have shit in their heads.
It's also several people on your own side who have expressed public criticism
or even outrage over the interaction between Erika Kirk and J.D. Vance.
If this happened between liberals, you would not shut up about it for years.
She said on camera: “No one will ever replace Charlie, but I do see some similarities of my husband in JD, Vice President JD Vance,”. Note how she put "but" in that sentence. She is definitely thinking about replacing Charlie, there.
Before that even happened there was already talk about Usha wanting a divorce.
There is no need to limit protected speech, no matter how offensive or how much it bothers you, as long as it does not threaten harm or violate the rights of others. You are free to refute any statements or opinions with which you may disagree with your own protected speech. In the alternative, you may also ignore it, if you choose. Silencing or threatening to silence others with whom you may disagree is, indeed, a slippery slope down which we must not go.
Who is to say your own ideologies or opinions may not also someday be subjected to censorship, should circumstances change?
That is what free speech means. It means you don’t have to play, if you don’t want to, or, you may play, if you want. It also means you are not allowed to stop others from playing, as long as they’re not violating the rights of others.
Your rights end where mine begin. Always keep that in mind.
In reference to cancellation, this is already the world in which we live today. People are cancelled regularly for having differing opinions. Denying that this exists is either done in ignorance, or else, ii is an effort to support an insidious agenda to restrict ideologies that counter one’s own. There is nothing new about this, however. Cancellation is as old as humanity itself. Homicide and attempted homicide are part of that cancellation, as recent events have shown us.
That, too, is as old as humanity.
Read again what you wrote, because your either intending to say:
"Categorizing unprotected harmful speech as part of “free speech” opens the door to people's rights being violated."
or "Categorizing “free speech” as part of “harmful speech” opens the door to the censorship of opinions.."
I know what you mean, and I agree. That is not the limits of freedom of speech
that I'm talking about.
"There is no need to limit protected speech, no matter how offensive or how much it bothers you, as long as it does not threaten harm or violate the rights of others."
"There is no need to limit protected speech" Exactly!
Why are you arguing against something that I'm NOT saying?
"as long as it does not threaten harm or violate the rights of others." Exactly!
You are agreeing with my exact position on the matter.
I am definitely NOT denying that cancellation exists.
And indeed (attempted) homicide is the most extreme version of cancellation.
According to your first amendment, the law is responsible for protecting free speech,
but ALSO to protect people when their rights WERE violated by the speech of someone else, primarily through civil lawsuits for specific types of "unprotected" speech, such as defamation, harassment, or true threats.
The law in my country is very much similar, and I fully support it.
When Trump is using his FCC Chairman, Brendan Carr, to put pressure on ABC and
its parent company, Disney, to take action against Jimmy Kimmel, which led to the temporary suspension of Kimmel's show in September 2025, for speech that DIDN'T threaten, harm or violate the rights of anyone, that was clear censorship and a clear violation of the First Amendment.
If Jimmy Kimmel was doing defamation, then the victim has a right to start a civil lawsuit against him. However, the president is not just a private citizen. Government officials are protected against defamation, but they face a much higher standard of proof, compared to private individuals when they sue someone for speech related to their official conduct.
Trump would have clearly lost a civil lawsuit against Jimmy Kimmel, so he decided to cancel him, using his FCC Chairman. Trump has admitted this and shows clear intent
of doing more like it to lots of others.
New Comment Go to top