politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Its about time there is some accountability for spreading such falsehoods. Does Libel not apply to this, or any law? Come on, he endangered an entire group of his own constituents. They are legally here.
People need to call it what it is, as often as needed: stochastic terrorism
blood libel
Lying bullshit would probably mean more to the masses
I'm down for whatever gets the spotlight shone
I agree with that
It's very similar to the concept of blood libel I think, just directed at a different group than that term usually refers to. Which, given what that kind of thing historically has led to, is extremely concerning coming from such a public figure.
It is extremely concerning, and it is not just this. They have been talking about mass deportations all year.
Accountability? For republicans? You must be new here.
The law doesn’t apply to them.
Unfortunately and with deep regrets, I think it'd be tough. From https://lipskylowe.com/when-are-false-accusations-of-racism-defamation/ there are four points:
Considering how hard he's publicly pushed the story as a true fact, I think prongs 1 and 2 have been met. Alas, I can see 3 being not reached (he checked with his constituents who claimed the story was true and a judge accepts that as sufficient due diligence).
And 4 would be the hardest - how does one prove damages (like a dollar amount) and that they were specifically caused by his comments?
It'd be hard but I thinks a case can be made by analyzing violence against the Haitian community before and after the comments. We have a date for when it was said, which can serve as our starting point for after. It might not be the easiest but its definitely within reason. On top of it all, I'm tired of this and thats by design. To so obviously be trashing and damaging these communities, but due to the law still have believable excuses. Its bullshit. We know and so do the rubes.
Agreed. While not an expert, I feel like the bar for prong 3 has been lowered since I wrote the above - the original author has confessed to making it up, but Vance continued to promote the story after this and never officially retracted it.
Prong 4 still is tough - to have standing to sue you'd have to be someone who was harmed. So likely a member of the Haitian immigrant community in Springfield (of which I am not a member) would have to be the one suing, AND would have to be able to personally demonstrate damages.
Tough, but definitely possible within reason.
Considering what else is at stake, that person would need solid legal representation.
Assuming you aren't a member either, the most you could do is lend support to folks out there, maybe reach out and see if anyone who has suffered is interested in a lawsuit and connect them to the right legal firms and such. Which is still enough to go a long way.