Comments by "XSportSeeker" (@XSpImmaLion) on "Can Kyle Rittenhouse Sue Everyone Who Called Him a Murderer?" video.

  1. I'm honestly not sure if I 100% agree with law on this, because at least to me, the bar has become too high and it seems to benefit particularly sensationalism at the cost of individuals. Funny enough, this may get some far left figures out there, but it's likely the GOP that would endanger itself the most with libel laws becoming more strict... but you know, separate discussion. Between all examples given, I think Whoopi Goldberg's one is the most clear that it cannot be actionable... because she prefaced it with "in my opinion". "arguably a domestic terrorist" goes in the same vein because of the "arguably" part - means it's a matter of opinion up for argument, not a statement of fact. MSNBC's case seems to be the worst, if it directly said "this little murderous white supremacist". I imagine it can be taken as opinion, sure, but it is more direct and pointed than the other examples. Dunno if libel/slander/defamation applies, but still. Biden's tweet doesn't seem to have nothing there as far as I can see, because Biden is not referring to the video, but rather on the fact that Trump didn't disavow white supremacists.... though I didn't watch the video itself, perhaps the video has content that would imply a pointed directness... like stating that "all these people are white supremacists" or something. At the same time, I do understand what Devin is saying there... in order for a suspect of murder acquitted by law to prove there was libel against him in respect to his case, judgement and status, it'd need to be something like a credible statement that he is in fact a murderer, because of an objective fact or proof not observed in court. That is to say, someone is still accusing him of murder despite the verdict. On one hand, I can understand that only this would be clear libel/slander. But from the angle of a victim, on damage of reputation, psychological damages and other similar effects, isn't the bar a bit too high there? I mean, there are real effects caused by sticking all these labels on top of an individual in public channels... if law isn't protecting individuals from stuff like that, does it mean people - and particularly public figures - don't have any grounds in law to protect themselves from constant attacks from media pundits, journalists and whatnot on TV? I am taking out my personal opinion on the case itself, but looking at it in broader terms.
    1