this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2024
67 points (97.2% liked)

politics

19277 readers
3095 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Nightwingdragon 14 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

This gives enough of a defense to satisfy the actual malice defamation standard in favor of ABC, and if not at a lower court, to appeal this as high as possible.

Emphasis mine. Remember what court is ultimately at the end of that chain, along with the incoming swath of MAGA judges to join the ranks of people like Aileen Cannon. Once you consider that, this route becomes much less appealing.

My only guess is that ABC is doing this as another act of preemptive compliance and obeisance, with much larger implications for how ABC will act in the future. Freedom of press being given up without even a fight.

This. This right here. It's why Joe Scarborough went to maralago to bend the knee. It's why Jeff Bezos declined to endorse Harris. They know that Trump has a hit list, and now has the will, desire, and ability to carry it out. ABC likely crunched the numbers and talked to the lawyers who probably told then that what Trump is doing is highly illegal, but there's nothing that can be done to stop him, and the best they could hope for would be a protracted battle that would cost them far more than $15 million, and could include jail time if Trump decides to make an example of the first company that dares to cross him. Trump calling for a boycott of ABC alone would likely cost the network far more than $15 million if the previous Target and Budweiser boycotts are an indication, and that would probably be just the start.

ABC is simply hedging its bets and shoving George Stephanopoulos onto his own sword whether he wants to fall on it or not. And there's a non-zero possibility that he's going along with it out of the fear that losing his job would be the least of his worries if he didn't.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago

It's absolutely disgusting to see these spineless oligarchs scurry to be first to submit to their new king.

[–] Alexstarfire 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'd be extremely shocked if SCOTUS, which is what I'm assuming you're referring to, would take on a defemation case.

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt 3 points 2 weeks ago

While you are correct, it isn't this case they are referring to. It's the one where ABC sues because trump retaliated in some way. Like revoking thier broadcast license or whatever. The Supreme court will just say, yeah, he can do that. Even if something in the constitution pretty clearly says he can't...