That’s fair. A case could be made as such for sure. I’m not aware of any case law for our against that assertion.

That’s true. But I’m not sure your average cop in Miami counts as a public figure for the purposes of defamation.

Defamation requires 4 things:

1. An objectively false statement, portrayed as fact, not opinion.
2. Publication to a third party.
3. Negligence on the publisher, i.e. failure to attempt to confirm the truth of the matter.
4. Actual harm to the victim’s reputation and business.

So number 2 is clearly covered as they produced and released a film about it. Number 4 would arguably be covered by the defamation per se doctrine which says that accusation of a crime is de fact harmful to one’s reputation.

The problem with the suit is that the film makes so claims of fact. It is disclaimed as a dramatization. A fictional story only based on actual events. Essentially it’s historical fiction but with contemporary events as the basis of the history. The characters portrayed are neither named as our based on real cops.

Those things don’t necessarily protect them in and of itself, though. It really comes down to whether a reasonable person watching the film would come away thinking the events were fictional or a claim of facts. But I think the general audience is aware how accurate “based on a true story” films tend to be. No one reasonable is expecting the film to be a documentary.

Masuka almost certainly has committed some sort of sex crime. There’s no way he’s clean whether that was shown in the series or not. Dude has sex pest written all over him. No way he wasn’t stalking or touching women without consent. Even if only as a joke, I could see him desecrating some victim’s corpse. Dude had no chill and no filter or inhibitions

Can’t really be helped. I was getting a $50/mth stipend for it for about 3 years but then they turned that off.

I have company managed apps on my device. Teams, Outlook and Authenticator. Any idea if there might be any friction there with Graphene? It’s really the only thing from holding me back and I can’t really justify experimenting if it’s going to break things

I hope one day we can return to even a semblance of the country I like to think we once had (or at least once liked to pretend that we had) where we can have different values, ideologies, and strategies between parties, but at the very least we can agree on fair representation, mutual respect, compromise, cooperation, and basic humanity. I doubt these men and I agree on much, but as a Hoosier I am grateful that they didnt let this state succumb to Trump’s attempt to make my vote count even less than it already does in my red district. They have my deep respect in this one regard at least for having good principles and the backbone to stand by them. Their replacement will probably be our loss.

I’m human, I swear.

I’m really hoping we can flip Indiana District 9. The last time a non-Republican won the seat was in 2008. But the incumbent is Erin Houchin who is straight up Trump’s ass which hopefully hurts her this year. And Brad Meyer, who was my pick of the Democrats running, won the primary and seems to be a very good and smart guy with sensible policies. It’s the best chance we’ve had in years.

It’s possible to cut out sugar, yes. But also keep in mind sugar is literally everywhere and the cheapest easiest food substance to access. It’s on every menu, it’s at the check out counter of every store, it’s offered for free by coworkers bringing in treats or birthday cakes, offered in bowls at the exit from some restaurants or other businesses, it’s thrown out at parades, given away on Halloween, etc. It’s possible to avoid eating sugar, but avoiding temptation is basically impossible if you have a habit of leaving your home to work or shop. If you are addicted to sugar, it’s a constant struggle.

Also if you have basically an addiction to food, this is like telling a drug addict “just use less heroin!” And the survival rate of withdrawals from stopping cold turkey with food is approximately 0%. So you will be managing that addiction for your entire life.

Vile bigotry. Self-righteous idiocy. Heinous bitchery. That’s all this is.

It’s his job, guys. He has a responsibility to his Isreali constituents. He takes that very seriously. Also his imaginary Trump voting couple. Weird fucking guy.

https://www.audible.com/pd/B08V8B2CGV?source_code=ASSOR150021921000O

I’ve been relistening to the Dungeon Crawler Carl audiobooks, so you’ll have to forgive me…

“NEW ACHEIVEMENT! Your country’s debts now exceeds every single dime of annual production! Not only that, but its government is practically racing towards a full blown fascist dictatorship. Reward… No rewards for broke opressed bitches!”

“in considering the constitutionality of a districting scheme, courts must treat partisan advantage like any other race-neutral aim: a constitutionally permissible criterion that States may rely on as desired.”

Translation, if districting is done purely to disenfranchise voters of the opposition party, that’s just fucking aces. By the extension of that logic, what’s to stop them from creating laws that prevent the opposition party from being on the ballot? Or make a law that says you can vote for anyone you want a long as they’re Republican. Is that not “race-neutral” “partisan advantage” that would thus be “constitutionally permissible”?

He keeps arguing that voting laws, in general, whether they be gerrymandering or other laws that objectively and overwhelmingly disenfranchise select peoples, are fine so long as they are not (provably) intentionally discriminatory based on constitutionally protected class, but rather politically motivated/discriminatory. As if political discrimination for a constitutional right, let alone one that decides the ones who set these laws, is any better or more acceptable. At this point, he’d argue that a law requiring you to vote Republican is fine since it’s only politically discriminatory. Jesus Fucking Christ.

She’d be betting that she gets a presidential pardon for keeping her mouth shut or that the following administration does nothing about the cover up. The latter will almost certainly not be the case. And the former depends on Trump’s fickle mood and how much use you are to him. If he thinks she’s useless or she does anything, even minor, to piss him off, she’s left without protection. If she made a deal for immunity instead, though, it would be better for her.

Anonymity can be important though, and for legitimate reasons. Whistleblowing, for example, is much more dangerous if you can’t do so anonymously. Sharing any opinions on politics/international affairs, advocacy, or any other thing that will piss of a certain percentage of the internet exposes your personal details and those of your familial connections and personal associates to risk of IRL backlash. Women who post pictures online will open themselves to employment risks as well as stalkers. Anonymity is a double-edged sword, I know. Advertisers hiding behind fake ad testimonials. Bigots and fascists harassing people and spreading misinformation. Etc. But I still think that over-reaching laws and government control like this will expose people to unnecessary risks which I think is arguably a bigger concern.

I remember when they we attempting to shame Obama with a national debt ticker. Weird how they don’t do that now despite it’s continuous rise under the last 3 terms of the presidency too. It’s now triple what it was at that time