• whataboutshutup@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Why it’s a newspaper’s problem if he’s a hateful moron. Imagine calling a child a faggot, even personally. It’s so wrong and sad. For a child, for a reporter, and for he is the one to play victim and charge them.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Can’t SLAAP be applied here? This sound like something that should qualify, to me, but not a lawyer and probably pretty ignorant.

    • utopianfiat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      SLAPP isn’t a law, it’s a way to describe abuse of the system that’s mostly legal as long as it doesn’t reach the point of frivolity.

      • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thanks, that’s a useful distinction. But I’m still curious why it wouldn’t apply here? The paper can clearly show that it reported in good-faith, so why isn’t it possible to countersue the politician who clearly is trying to harm them via the courts? I would think this would allow them to pursue financial relief for their legal troubles. I must be missing something fundamental about what SLAAP can and cannot provide.

        • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s not how the law works. You need to tell us why an anti-SLAAP action (which Wisconsin does not have as a cause of action) would apply here.