That's exactly what I don't like about a broad definition of satire. That's what the conservative types have been saying for years every time anyone tries to call them out for saying something outrageous. They'll say, "It was satire!" Remember when Limbaugh made those "phony soldier" comments? One of the ways he tried to get out of that was by claiming the comments were satire. If we use Scott's definition, then yes, you can say any outrageous thing you want and then claim it was satire.
Did I not just explain? It's OK if you call it satire. Let's say I write a horrible libelous article that caused a lot of damage. I honestly believed I was being satirical, but I sucked at it so much that it didn't come across to anybody. That's fine, it's satire. I'm still guilty of libel, and should still be sued for damages. It's no different than someone who accidentally crashes their car into your house. Sure, it was an accident, you just suck at driving. You still have to pay for this shit.
Are you talking about what you think or hope to be the case, or what actually happens in real life? In real life, satire can be a defense against libel, so it's unclear what you mean by saying that you can write bad satire and then be liable for libel.
Are you talking about what you think or hope to be the case, or what actually happens in real life? In real life, satire can be a defense against libel, so it's unclear what you mean by saying that you can write bad satire and then be liable for libel.
That's BS. What if I try to drive on the road, but I suck at it, should I not be held liable for the damage I cause? If I try to write a satire piece, and accidentally write a libel piece, should I not be held responsible for damages? Our legal system might change the charge based on intent (manslaughter vs. murder 1), but damage is damage no matter what you were trying to do.
Are you talking about what you think or hope to be the case, or what actually happens in real life? In real life, satire can be a defense against libel, so it's unclear what you mean by saying that you can write bad satire and then be liable for libel.
That's BS. What if I try to drive on the road, but I suck at it, should I not be held liable for the damage I cause? If I try to write a satire piece, and accidentally write a libel piece, should I not be held responsible for damages? Our legal system might change the charge based on intent (manslaughter vs. murder 1), but damage is damage no matter what you were trying to do.
He wasn't questioning your reasoning, just its context - which is still unclear. Do you mean that this is how it "should" work or how it "does" work?
He wasn't questioning your reasoning, just its context - which is still unclear. Do you mean that this is how it "should" work or how it "does" work?
Well, it's how it does work for cars. It's how it should work for libel. If your false published speech results can be shown to have caused real damages, you should be responsible even if you didn't mean it.
He wasn't questioning your reasoning, just its context - which is still unclear. Do you mean that this is how it "should" work or how it "does" work?
Well, it's how it does work for cars. It's how it should work for libel. If your false published speech results can be shown to have caused real damages, you should be responsible even if you didn't mean it.
That is not how it works for cars. Often someone that is not at fault (or their insurance) will have to pay for a bogus claim - perhaps a pittance settlement, but money will be exchanged. The reverse also happens, in which those that are responsible for accidents never pay a dime for a number of reasons. Civil litigation can only do so much.
That is not how it works for cars. Often someone that is not at fault (or their insurance) will have to pay for a bogus claim - perhaps a pittance settlement, but money will be exchanged. The reverse also happens, in which those that are responsible for accidents never pay a dime for a number of reasons. Civil litigation can only do so much.
That may be how it turns out, but at least on paper that's not supposed to happen. You may have no fault insurance, but the person who is at fault is supposed to be the one to get screwed, regardless of intent. Of course, if there is intent, there are much more serious consequences.
I still don't know if you're talking about what you want to be true or what you think actually works in real life. Even the Texas Supreme Court understands that satire is not libel.
I still don't know if you're talking about what you want to be true or what you think actually work("works", at least, though "happens" makes more sense) in real life.
I still don't know if you're talking about what you want to be true or what you think actually work in real life. Even the Texas Supreme Court understands thatsatire is not libel.
I think my use of the word should make it pretty clear what I'm saying.
I still don't know if you're talking about what you want to be true or what you think actually work in real life. Even the Texas Supreme Court understands thatsatire is not libel.
I think my use of the word should make it pretty clear what I'm saying.
Well then, you're wrong.
That may be how it turns out, but at least on paper that's not supposed to happen. You may have no fault insurance, but the person who is at fault is supposed to be the one to get screwed, regardless of intent.
What if there was an automobile accident in which one person was 51% at fault and the other person was 49% at fault? Should the person who was 51% at fault pay for all of the damages of the person who was 49% at fault? Should the person who was 49% at fault pay nothing?
What if there was an automobile accident in which one person was 51% at fault and the other person was 49% at fault? Should the person who was 51% at fault pay for all of the damages of the person who was 49% at fault? Should the person who was 49% at fault pay nothing?
No, the 51% at fault pays 51%, and the 49% at fault pays 49%. They're both at fault to some degree, they both pay for the part that was their fault.
You're getting away from my original point which is that justice should examine damage first and intent second.
If I were Scott, I'd limit that approach to civil law, or Joe's point, in my opinion, would be a problem.
Okay, how about
1. A intentionally takes B's car away from him, depriving him of its use (this is the intentional tort of conversion, for which A may be civilly liable), then brings the car back the next day. B suffers no damage.
2. A unintentionally runs over B's foot with his giant earth-mover dumptruck. B is treated by a doctor who is high on crack. B suffers injuries that result in the loss of his leg above the knee.
Well, I'll give my opinions (again, we speak of "should") 1. If B suffered no damage, I see no reason for A to be civilly liable at all. 2. I'd say that both A and the doctor should be liable to some extent
Well, I'll give my opinions (again, we speak of "should") 1. If B suffered no damage, I see no reason for A to be civilly liable at all. 2. I'd say that both A and the doctor should be liable to some extent
But . . . if intent is so important, maybe we should make A liable in (1) and not liable in (2). A was clearly a bad actor in (1), but he was merely negligent in (2). What about the damages? Wouldn't you suffer if your car was stolen? Wouldn't you be worried sick? What if you missed an important interview?
Why should A be liable in (2) if he didn't intend for any damage to accrue to B? Why should A pay for the doctor's negligence?
In torts, there's a lot more going on in negligence than intent. A rule that you should measure damages first and then intent is kinda weird because most tort law doesn't even deal with intent.
That's BS. What if I try to drive on the road, but I suck at it, should I not be held liable for the damage I cause? If I try to write a satire piece, and accidentally write a libel piece, should I not be held responsible for damages? Our legal system might change the charge based on intent (manslaughter vs. murder 1), but damage is damage no matter what you were trying to do.
I think when he said "Damage first, intent second", this was merely to say that he considers the damage done to be the critical factor. I can't agree with this if we're speaking of, say, attempted murder vs manslaughter, but in civil law it seems more reasonable.
Tom Ancy (A) is a famous novelist who wrote a best-selling Cold War action novel called, The Stunt for Red December. The book was made into a movie, starring--among others--Cat as the Russian spy, Dab as an American politician, and Evi as Dab's unfaithful spouse. In one scene both the Russian spy (played by Cat) and the unfaithful spouse (played by Evi) are each supposed to put poison in a cup of coffee prepared for the American politician (played by Dab). The politician then "dies" instantly from the double dose. Of course something harmless like powdered cream is supposed to be used on the movie set instead of poison.
Fob, the prop man on the set, carelessly filled the movie set "poison" bottles with--instead of powdered cream--a strong cleanser used to clean movie equipment. The cleanser had been stored carefully on the set.
Cat by chance saw Fob make the mistake, but decided to act dumb, "in order to see how Dab would react." Cat thought that at most the cleanser would cause Dab to choke, cough, and sputter a little. Cat also thought that Evi's bottle still had powdered cream in it. Evi reasonably assumed that Evi's bottle was filled with powdered cream.
When the filming of the scene started, Cat spooned the "poison" into the coffee (and exited to the left). Evi did the same thing with Evi's "poison" and handed the cup to Dab, who smiled and drank some. Instead of falling over dramatically, Dab choked and spat the coffee out all over the set. The director said, "Cut!"
Unknown to anyone, Dab has a very sensitive stomach. As a result of drinking the polluted coffee, Dab had to be operated upon, and can now only eat baby food. Either of the two doses of the cleanser would alone have been sufficient to cause the same result.
For each of the following cases, should Dab recover? Explain, and deal with likely counter arguments.
1. Dab sues Ancy. 2. Dab sues Cat. 3. Dab sues Evi. 4. Dab sues Fob.
Interesting. I'll try applying common sense to it later, probably after I get some sleep, and see how that goes, but for now I'll say that I'll probably separate myself from Scott's opinion and stick with not having one of note.
John Stewart makes a statement on behalf of the Obama camp: "Barack Obama is in no way upset about the cartoon that depicts him as a Muslim extremist -- because you know who gets upset about cartoons? MUSLIM EXTREMISTS."
Just as your article says, there's nothing particularly funny about Obama. He's not stupid like GWB, he's not old like McCain, he's not robotic like Al Gore, etc.
A woman was assaulted for wearing an "Obama is my slave" T-shirt and she is suing the person that created/sold the T-Shirt.... WTF? This is so wrong on so many levels.
Exactly... this guy is just a racist that hates Muslims and is stupid enough to think that Obama is Muslim. F*ck him and his racist agenda. Did any one see the you tube video that claims that this guy (Apallo Braun) is the next Andy Warhol?! WTF, mate? Anyone that lives in/near NYC should go in his store and yell at him.
Comments
If you mean what you said, which word are you referring to?
You're getting away from my original point which is that justice should examine damage first and intent second.
But let's use your rule. What would happen in these cases:
1. A shoots B, intending to kill B, but misses. B experiences no harm.
2. A shoots at a target and unintentionally hits B. B dies.
1. A intentionally takes B's car away from him, depriving him of its use (this is the intentional tort of conversion, for which A may be civilly liable), then brings the car back the next day. B suffers no damage.
2. A unintentionally runs over B's foot with his giant earth-mover dumptruck. B is treated by a doctor who is high on crack. B suffers injuries that result in the loss of his leg above the knee.
1. If B suffered no damage, I see no reason for A to be civilly liable at all.
2. I'd say that both A and the doctor should be liable to some extent
Why should A be liable in (2) if he didn't intend for any damage to accrue to B? Why should A pay for the doctor's negligence?
In torts, there's a lot more going on in negligence than intent. A rule that you should measure damages first and then intent is kinda weird because most tort law doesn't even deal with intent.
I can't agree with this if we're speaking of, say, attempted murder vs manslaughter, but in civil law it seems more reasonable.
I'll try applying common sense to it later, probably after I get some sleep, and see how that goes, but for now I'll say that I'll probably separate myself from Scott's opinion and stick with not having one of note.
Ah, Daily Show. Your wit is cutting.
Also:
Why is everyone suddenly so easily offended? Can no one make an Obama joke these days?
Now, this sort of thing is hilarious.
This is so wrong on so many levels.
Anyone that lives in/near NYC should go in his store and yell at him.