Comment on How does South Park get away with trashing identifiable people? Are they sued often?
nyctre@lemmy.world 7 months agoNo, the fact that a judge ruled that he raped someone is what protects one from a defamation suit. At that point you’re just quoting the judge
PlainSimpleGarak@lemm.ee 7 months ago
Jury. A jury in 2023 found him liable for sexual abuse/defamation where Carol was awarded $5 million.
apnews.com/…/trump-rape-carroll-trial-fe68259a4b9…
This year, another jury awarded her an additional $83 million for defamation.
I read three articles, and watched an NBC video, not one of them stated he was found liable for rape.
nyctre@lemmy.world 7 months ago
washingtonpost.com/…/trump-carroll-judge-rape/
This is what I was going off of. Sounded to me like rape. I’m no lawyer tho.
PlainSimpleGarak@lemm.ee 7 months ago
We don’t need something to “sound like rape”. If he was guilty of it, meaning there was sufficient evidence, in the jury’s opinion, the jury would have found him guilty of it. I’m sure they weren’t looking to do him any favors. Obviously the defense failed to prove their case relative to rape.
Now, did he do it? Probably. He’s a career criminal. But the line has to be drawn somewhere, and for me, if you’re found guilty of it, be it a criminal court room, or a civil one, that’s when I can safely say a person is what they’ve been found guilty of being.
Take emotions and opinions out of it, and just stick to the facts. He’s guilty in a civil case of defamation and sexual abuse.
nyctre@lemmy.world 7 months ago
I don’t particularly care what the legal system calls something that’s pretty much impossible to prove. And I don’t understand why you’re using my words as if it’s legally relevant. I’ll quote the article, because I don’t think you’ve read it: “A judge has now clarified that this is basically a legal distinction without a real-world difference.”