A decent lawyer could represent Michael Slager and sue that website for defamation. Libel lawsuits generate good money.

Short answer, yes.

He, personally, has done severe, possibly irreparable damage to our government and it's safeguards, and the rule of law, has been the most divisive president in my lifetime, a high bar, is driving the very companies he claimed to have saved overseas, like Harley Davidson, is starting multiple trade wars, even with our allies, wasting tens of billions already, and has been mired in criminal and moral scandals since before day negative 45 when he told the Russians he would remove sanctions over election tampering even as Obama was instigating them, well before taking office which is a crime if you don't know.
Trump himself has divided America, intentionally, with his own words and policies. Reporting on those words and policies is not slanderous or fake. If they lied about what he said, Trump would sue for slander/libel like he did over Steele, a case he just LOST. He hasn't, and he won't.

Again, you take the lying convict's word about the evidence and the law over court rulings and fact. I know you won't investigate, so you'll continue to be duped. That's a conscious choice you are making, to be wrong but righteous instead of correct and guilt ridden.
The investigation predated the Steele Dossier, and it was never a key bit of evidence or the cause of the investigation....and it is not some baseless fantasy fabrication like you believe, it beats any Trump speech for honesty and correctness by a factor of 10.

His Twitter is his official policy, they are clear about that. It is almost always bat shit, and is never civil or honorable.

When I see that I assume it's slander/libel insurance....protection from lawsuits by the real people for any mistakes or fudging of the facts.

Bob, I honestly believe you need to be psychology examined. You have apparently gone off the deep end into full blown delusional political paranoia....or perhaps you really are just a Russian troll.

Please acknowledge that your hero Trump has repeatedly suggested that slander and libel laws are too lax (except when applied to his baseless accusations against others) and that the press should be hobbled and stymied if they speak out against him or reveal what he's trying to hide, as in have their licenses and credentials revoked and be sued into bankruptcy or even charged with treason among other sanctions, but published lies that support him are totally acceptable, even praiseworthy.

I get the consent argument, but a lot of porn is about fantasy

Is it OK to think of some hot actress while you're having sex with your wife?

I guess you could take care of the consent thing by getting someone that looks remarkably like the hot actress and then pinning her face into a porn video where the actress from that video says it's OK; but I think we all know that's not going to happen; and it's possibly still libel unless it was explicitly marked as not being the actress

So rare and refreshing to hear about a libel case that actually has merit.

Fortunately even if Trump opens up those libel laws as he promised, she should be immune.

http://www.theonion.com/graphic/court-rules-meryl-streep-unable-to-be-tried-by-jur-26799

That's the point. Free speech can potentially be an act which causes harm to others.

I don't have the answer for this. When I was younger, I tended to be a free speech absolutist. My opinion was freedom of expression was absolute and that we just had to accept the consequences as a price to pay.

I no longer believe that.

As a general rule, I am opposed to censorship. People should be free to say what they want and others should be free to respond appropriately.

But it's naive to think that free speech is absolute. Nothing is. So we all have to be mature and accept the fact that (as distasteful as it is) some speech is not protected. At a bare minimum, we have things like libel and slander (which are important, but also open to abuse as well).

Back on the topic of hate speech.... it's a tricky one. For me, it comes down to how you define "hate speech", and there isn't really a widely accepted definition.

It ranges from nonsense like anti-blasphemy laws (victimless crime, IMO) to controversial things like holocaust denial (patently bullshit, but not actively harmful IMO) to reasonable provisions against incitement to violence (neo-nazis etc).

There's also the concept of "negative liberty". X has the right to free speech, but Y also has the right not to be threatened or intimidated in their daily life (note: they don't have the right not to be offended).

Again, I don't have all the answers. My point is simply that the world isn't black and white.

Ironically, I'm somewhat echoing the sentiments in the video, in that facing an uncomfortable truth requires you to think and that's not a bad thing. But my uncomfortable truth is that not all speech can be free.

Keep an eye out for how long the media runs with the PropOrNot complex before they let it quietly slip into the night. The claims made venture very far into libel terrority as it is, so it might already be too late to avoid lawsuits.

BlackAgendaReport, Counterpunch, Truthdig, Truth-Out, NakedCapitalism --- riiiiight. Max Blumenthal deconstructed it nicely over at Alternet

Not until they actually file a case. Until then, a lawyer is a waste of money....and maybe even after then as well.
They have no case....at least in America where he did what they complain about (and where it's perfectly legal and not actionable if it's opinion or true, which is the best, and an absolute defense to a libel suit), and I think a civil judgement in Norway is not transferable to other countries, so means nothing outside Norway as far as I know.
Also....you can't get a civil judgement against a minor in America, at least not one worth the paper it's printed on.
He needs to wait to be served, then go on YouTube and beg for a decent pro-bono lawyer in Norway to defend him, I'm sure there's plenty of them out there, unemployed, that would love to take this case and counter sue the company for all it's worth for their 1/3 of the judgement.

I think his lawyer should countersue for slander and libel. The child sex mentor has now said publicly, and also claimed publicly in writing that the videographer falsified evidence to make money. If, as he claims, that's provably false, he should counter sue for the price of a high cost attorney to defend himself, a few million for loss of future earnings as a reporter, and 3X that in punitive damages.
I hope the 'child mentor' gets put in gen pop while awaiting trial...maybe they'll save us the time and money and won't ever make it to court.

Okay. You're right. He can be a politician. He is a politician. A stinking poor one, but since he is running for public office, he is by definition a "politician."

Doesn't change the fact he is unqualified to be President. He knows nothing. He promotes fear-mongering and encourages violence. He says he will do things as president that are clearly unconstitutional and outside his powers (banning Muslims, changing the libel laws so he can gain financially.) He is thin-skinned.

He has just revoked the press credentials of The Washington Post because he didn't like a front page story. The man doesn't understand the three branches of government plus the fourth estate of a free press.

I'm qualified to disqualify him because I am a thinking American who knows some history. Like Ken Burns. Like Mitt Romney.

Trump is a unifier, all right. For the first time in almost eight years, some Republicans are putting their love of country above partisanship. I've never been more proud of everyone who has the courage to tell the truth about Donald Trump.

He is patently unfit to serve our country. He has never done it before. He isn't interested in doing it now.

You want me to link to a dictionary?

What, you don't believe they exist?

Slander is verbal only, written untruths that hurt the reputation of the recipient are called "libel". For it to be slander OR libel, the statements must be untrue and they must do damage to the offended party, I can't see how my words would fit either of those definitions, since they were about the WORK and not the person. (yes I know I said he hasn't got a clue, but that's valid criticism, and you'll see worse on any given day on Rotten Tomatoes)

Secondly, I'm not going to link to my work. I'm anonymous here for a reason (mostly because I'm an asshole). The first professional work I did was on a series called Weird-Ohs. Feel free to look it up. I've worked on about a dozen other shows for forty, maybe fifty episodes plus some other work on the side.

I don't see how linking to some animation will somehow prove that I am one of the credited animators anyhow.

@ChaosEngine

i do not see anyone here defending anything.

now maybe we can view stephen's commentary "dismissive and belittling" as @entr0py pointed out,but i think the deeper issue was prefaced quite succinctly by stephen in his characterization of american,and western societies,as being "infantilized".

where words have become the final bastion of totality in communication and are judged strictly on a word by word basis.so much so that some on the left have been pushing harder and harder to have certain words removed from our lexicon,because they represent negative thoughts/feelings/actions or they may represent a trauma,or horrific violent memory for some people.

but this is the wrong approach.
excising words will not erase those feelings/thoughts/emotions.this will just force people to come up or use different terminology to express those feelings/thoughts.actions that once had words to at least to attempt to express those horrors and/or offenses.

which will just equate to a whole new slew of verbiage being found offensive and in dire need of being castrated from our collective vocabulary.

yet the left (extreme left i grant) appears hell bent on not only attempting to control speech but to also judge those who DO use speech that they find offensive.

this is censorship with prejudice and to claim otherwise is the lie.

just look at your first comment.
you "used" to like stephen fry's opinion,until he became callous and dismissive with what?

words.

but do you REALLY think his attitude and compassion towards those who have suffered emotional trauma is truly dismissive?

well..i do not think so.i have spoken to you enough times to have a modicum of understandings in regards to you,as a person,that you have far more depth of character.

yet it is the WORDS that have hung you up.

look man,words are inert.they are things that are only given life,meaning and context when we add our own subjectivity to them.

words are inadequate.they will ALWAYS be inadequate.
which is why we admire and praise those of us who have a command of words that can reach into our own understandings and extract meaning in a way that blossoms like a spring flower and can create worlds in which we can play,and even share with other people.

i am intimately aware of this deficiency.i do not have an economy of words,and only on rare occasions can i relay,convey and express with ANY form of reductionism.

i struggle to express not only my opinion,but the intent,humanity and compassion of my opinion.

if the extreme left gets their way,the tools we have to express ourselves becomes lesser.

and in the process,WE become lesser.because the tools for dissent,debate,discussion and even..ironically..to expose the more venal and bigoted of our society,will have been reduced to words that offend nobody.

there is danger here,and no good will come from it.no matter if the intent sounds just and the goal compassionate.

freedom of speech is the right to speak freely.
to espouse our opinions,philosophy and yes,our bigotry and prejudice,with legal immunity,but NOT social impunity.

so while we have a right to free speech.
we do not have a right to not be offended,and maybe we need to be offended sometimes.to shake us from our own self-induced apathy and our adoration of digital hallucinations.

so when the westboro baptist church says the most hateful,vitriolic and disgusting admonishments,all in the name of god.
we can be offended by them,and then ridicule them relentlessly.

would stripping words from the english language prevent this group from espousing their own brand of hate?

of course not.they would just find new words.

so what do we do then?
make words illegal?
criminally libel?

so don't judge mr fry too harshly.
he is just pointing to the dangers of controlling speech and the new trend of the perpetually offended.

the extreme right attempts to control morality,and there is serious danger in that practice.
the extreme left attempts to control how we communicate,and hence how we interact,and there is great danger in that as well.

@Jinx

you used a great word:"nuance" and i would add "context".

i know you identify as a social justice warrior,and many here on the sift do as well.i would even include myself on that list in certain instances.

but this video is not addressing the rational and reasonable people who have valid grievances and wish to stand up for:human rights,fairness,justice and equality.

this video is addressing those who abuse political correctness to further their own,personal agenda,dressed up as social justice.these people,who have co-opted,infiltrated and hijacked LEGITIMATE and VALID causes and corrupted them with an irrationality that should,and IS,being ridiculed.

why?
because in the free market of ideas,where there is a free flow of information and dialogue,is the place where bad ideas go to die.

but how do these extremist deal with criticism?
with scrutiny and examination of their call for justice?

well,they simply ACCUSE you of being a:racist,bigot,homophobe etc etc and that is where the conversation ends.the very act of accusing shuts down any dissenting voice by demonizing that person for having the audacity to even question their righteous crusade.

change takes time in a free society.this is a slow process.
so archaic,societal and cultural belief systems take time to shift,but what has ALWAYS been the successful trait in every single victory for social justice is:conversation and discussion.making people aware of the situation and then addressing the problem.

basically it takes people talking about it.

but that is not the tactic we see used by these perpetually offended and faux outraged.THEIR tactic is to shut the conversation down as viciously and violently as they can.they are allergic to dissent or disagreement,and to even attempt to point out the logical fallacies,or incongruities will get you labeled a racist,bigot or homophobe.

that is not justice.that is censorship with a large dose of fascist.

this video makes a solid case for pointing out how a small cadre of narcissistic cry-babies have hijacked groups who had actual grievances and created an atmosphere of fear,anxiety and paranoia simply to promote their own brand of social justice by latching onto real movements...and in the process..destroyed them.

did you SEE what they did to occupy?
or their current slow motion destruction of feminism?
or how about that semi-retarded atheism plus?
good lord..just go watch PZ meyers slowly become a former shadow of himself to pander to these fuckwits.

look man.
even YOU acknowledge that their are some who abuse political correctness for their own self-aggrandizement,and i suspect that even YOU do not identify with this small group of extremists.

well,that is who this video is addressing.

i mean.what fair and reasonable person is AGAINST women having equality or being treated fairly?
who would be AGAINST fighting corruption in our political and economic systems?

but this new batch of social justice warriors are all about THEIR rights.THEIR feelings.THEIR safe spaces and THEIR fascist ideologies on how a society should behave and act.

and if you happen to disagree they will unleash the most vile and vicious tactics to not only shut you up,but lose your job AND,in some cases,abuse a court system to make you criminally libel.all because of THEIR agenda.

free speech is only something THEY are entitled to,YOU get to shut the fuck up.

this ultra-authoritarian,cultural marxism is so anti-democratic and anti-free society,that it must be called out and ridiculed for it's own absurd lack of self-awareness.

they should be laughed at,ridiculed and chastised for the idiocy it proposes.

now maybe we disagree on this,and that is fine.disagreements will happen and they are healthy.

but just know i am not addressing those actual social justice warriors,but rather their more radical and fascist minority that appear to have hijacked the conversation.

and i truly highly doubt you are part of that minority,and if you are?
sorry man.we disagree.