Why couldn’t one argue that Nick Shirley commited libel/slander. Their actions did in fact directly impact everyone involved? Did they claim you did something, yes. Did they do it with the intention to cause harm, yes. All harmed should be able to sue
Why couldn’t one argue that Nick Shirley commited libel/slander
They could. They being the individuals and organizations talked about. Not the community, bystanders, people affected by food stamps cuts, kids or their parents who go to the daycares, etc.
Their actions did in fact directly impact everyone involved?
“Directly” is doing the heavy lifting here, and that’s why this doesn’t work. Trump cutting food stamps and Nick Shirley’s claims against the daycares are entirely separate actions. Even if Nick Shirley had told Trump directly to cut food stamps, based on all the same lies, he wouldn’t be sued, Trump would be sued for being the one who actually did the cuts.
Did they claim you did something, yes
They claimed some daycares did, not every individual affected by the food stamp cuts, which is another reason why those people can’t sue.
Did they do it with the intention to cause harm, yes.
Unfortunately that’s something a court would have to debate for a very long time, and find hard evidence for. (e.g. messages saying “I know it’s not true but I just hate those people” would be damn near incriminating in their own right)
All harmed should be able to sue
Should? Probably, at least in this instance it seems like it’d be beneficial overall.
Will? That’s another story. The legal system just isn’t set up in a way for that type of thing to work, given what I’ve mentioned previously.
Why couldn’t one argue that Nick Shirley commited libel/slander. Their actions did in fact directly impact everyone involved? Did they claim you did something, yes. Did they do it with the intention to cause harm, yes. All harmed should be able to sue
They could. They being the individuals and organizations talked about. Not the community, bystanders, people affected by food stamps cuts, kids or their parents who go to the daycares, etc.
“Directly” is doing the heavy lifting here, and that’s why this doesn’t work. Trump cutting food stamps and Nick Shirley’s claims against the daycares are entirely separate actions. Even if Nick Shirley had told Trump directly to cut food stamps, based on all the same lies, he wouldn’t be sued, Trump would be sued for being the one who actually did the cuts.
They claimed some daycares did, not every individual affected by the food stamp cuts, which is another reason why those people can’t sue.
Unfortunately that’s something a court would have to debate for a very long time, and find hard evidence for. (e.g. messages saying “I know it’s not true but I just hate those people” would be damn near incriminating in their own right)
Should? Probably, at least in this instance it seems like it’d be beneficial overall.
Will? That’s another story. The legal system just isn’t set up in a way for that type of thing to work, given what I’ve mentioned previously.