digital penetration? holy shit the world is getting so fucking autistic

>>688420040
Depends on where he files the lawsuit, i'd say

File: image.jpg (1 MB, 3264x2448) Image search: [Google]

1 MB, 3264x2448

>>688420454
Well then assume he files it in California where he's not legally a rapist.

>>688420738
then he'd win, i think
because he isn't a rapist in california

>>688420738
Not a lawyerfag but I would think because the post originated in Ohio, it's not defamation. Then again, you could use the argument that "rapist" is a legal term and according to the California legal system he's not a rapist. I think tort law can sometimes be federal and then it would depend on the federal definition of rape.

>>688420319
I'm thinkin' Arby's! (Sorry, not a lawyer and I don't know the answer to your question.)

>>688420040
>can said journalist be successfully sued for defamation?
It would be a civil case, meaning anyone can sue anyone for any reason. Being able to afford an attorneys hundreds or thousands of dollar retainer while they figure out the case is the tricky part.

Yes, he can be sued. Doesn't matter if it's in California or Ohio. Brock would win.

>>688421012
Maybe you're correct. Since the "defamation" was actually committed in a state that it's not "defamation", the plaintiff would win. I would assume if a recreational weed vendor in Colorado put up a website offering to sell weed without specifying a location, some prosecutor in bumfuck Texas couldn't charge him with conspiracy to distribute, if he didn't actually sell to someone in Texas. Now if the feds got involved it's clearly a different story.

>>688421924
It being a civil case doesn't mean anything. The feds generally allow states to take care of their own defamation suits.

>>688420040
Digital penetration? DIGITAL PENETRATION? SO CAN I MAKE A FUCKING SONIC OC RAPE ME IN A FANFIC AND SUE THE CREATOR FOR DIGITAL PENETRATION?

>>688422345
If this is the case why isn't Brock bringing lawsuits against the over 9,000 websites and news sites calling him a rapist? Is it because he doesn't want to stoke the fire or because he doesn't have a case? I've literally seen him called a rapist on CNN's site.

>>688420040
10/10 would digitally penetrate

>>688423239
The fact that he's not might be the best argument for it not being defamation.

>>688421924
Actually a couple states have criminal defamation laws. Assume California is one of these states.

>>688420040
If the defamation occurred in a different state from the plaintiff and the claim is for more than 75k, you can file it in federal court. I believe the federal definition of rape includes digital penetration so you'd want to keep it out of federal court.

>>688422852
Digital as in fingers dumbass

it has to be filed in the locale that it was committed

wait so this dude didn't actually dick rape her?

>>688420040
Prelawfag here. This is what you want to look at:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_jurisdiction_in_Internet_cases_in_the_United_States

In short, the circuit courts have ruled both in favor of and against the defendant. To my knowledge it hasn't been heard by the SCOTUS so there's no tangible precedent.

Due to the treaty between states, the statement made by the journalist in their state could be considered defamation in the state of California, however an individual cannot be forced to face trial for an offence has not been committed. As it is not a crime in the state of Ohio, an individual cannot be held accountable for their actions infringing upon another state's Act's.
Furthermore, defamation only exists where the information is false, and affects the public image on an individual. In this case, the information, in the state of Ohio is factual.

Coming from a 4th year Law Student

>>688424927
Nah. He got 3 convictions:
Intent to rape. Penetration [not dick] of an intoxicated person. Penetration [not dick] of an unconscious person. These are felonious sexual assault charges but not "rape" in Cali because there was no peepee in vajayjay.

>>688427420
Interesting. Let me ask one more thing:
If the journalist wrote Brock was "convicted of rape" would he still not have a case? Sure, the definition of rape includes digital penetration in Ohio but he wasn't convicted in Ohio, and thus is guilty of sexual assault not rape. Is this any different because the journalist added "convicted of rape" instead of just calling him a rapist?

>>688420040
there are two levels of law: state and federal. State Law cannot override Federal level, or interfere with other state law.

as for defamation, the general rule in your case is slander- that is to say speaking falsehoods of a person in order to fuck with their reputation or well-being, etc.

The journalist CAN be sued from Ohio, as long as the factors can be proven, typically the idea that the journalist acted with reckless indifference to the safety of the victim. It works better with false accusations, but in the event that someone is screaming "that convicted rapist is a rapist" reckless indifference is a strong case for it.

In this case I would say that given the facts, it's unlikely due to the fact that there are so many people aware of the situation.

The status/celebrity/class of a person is also considered for certain cases.

Hope that helps a bit lol

>>688427420
Prelawfag here again. Would a newsite like CNN be found to "establish minimum contacts" under personal jurisdiction law since through television/print/internet advertising, they're conducting business in California, even if the journalist working for CNN posted the defamation in Ohio?

>>688429098
I thought shit written online was libel and not slander though.

>>688430695
slander is going around talking shit basically.

Libel is publication. Lib-->literature--->written that's how I remember it

Honestly they're just the same tort separated that way for specifics

>>688430695
Like the other anon said it doesn't really matter but you are correct. Unless it's a podcast or video, text posted online is libel.

>>688428236
If he was not found guilty of rape full stop, and they published an article saying he had, then there would be an eligibility for a defamation trial, however a retraction would most likely happen before anything went to court.
Plus it would be incredibly difficult to prove that saying he was convicted of rape, instead of three other sexual-convictions would have affected the public's opinion of Brock in anyway.

The point being, either way the public will view him negatively, so the misdemeanour would most likely just result in a retration

>>688432014
Neato. But the penalties are still the same?

>>688432204
more or less based on the offense lol

he is a rapist though

>>688432815
right, so it is not defamation of character to state facts unless rapist can prove one hell of a case of malicious intent or reckless indifference for said defamation.

>>688432815
Irrelevant. he did not commit Penile penetration of the vagina, therefore in that state, cannot be called a rapist

>>688433176
then you can call it sexual battery

the fact is that he performed unconsensual, sexual acts

colloquially, we call that a rapist, whether or not it involved a penis in vagina

>>688434142
again, the fact that the state calls one thing rape, Federal law comes first. Federal definition of rape applies.

>>688433150
I think because a lot of these articles use "rapist" or "convicted rapist" in the headline or beginning of the story then go on to list the charges he was convicted of, it'd be easy to prove the writer knew his "rapist" comment was false. An attorney would simply just have to ask them, "Was rape included in the charges you listed?

>>688434142
Colloquial terms have landed many people in rough situations, and should be used very lightly by journalists

>>688434596
11A Rape (except Statutory Rape)
The carnal knowledge of a person, without the consent of the victim, including instances
where the victim is incapable of giving consent because of his/her age or because of
his/her temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity
11B Sodomy
Oral or anal sexual intercourse with another person, w
ithout the consent of the victim,
including instances where the victim is incapable of giving consent because of his/her
age or because of his/her temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity
11C Sexual Assault With An Object
To use an object or instrument to unlawfully penetrate, however slightly, the genital or
anal opening of the body of another person, without the consent of the victim, including
instances where the victim is incapable of giving consent because of his/her age or
because of his
/her temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity

theres your federal defenition

>>688434752
true

>>688434596
I don't think this is correct. The state gets to define it's own terms in state court or else no one could ever be convicted of weapons crimes that aren't illegal in another state.

>>688434733
yeah its a general statement, but it's like the sex offender registry, you can get caught urinating in public and be a registered sex offender, but your new neighbors will just assume you're a kid toucher when you're required to explain to them.

non consensual sexual activity is rape, don't try to argue semantics because society doesn't give a fuck.

>>688420040
what the fuck is digital penetration?
that sounds ridiculous

>>688420326
digital penetration is using your fingers, dingus.

>>688435323
simply because certain states have been fighting the federal decision to legalize gay marriage does not mean that states can disregard laws handed down to them from the federal level. There are so many facets of law however that state law is able to fine tune the laws based on the needs and unique infrastructure/whatever of that individual state, which can get even more elaborate down to shit like Home Owner's Associations. A lot of things are delegated to subordinate levels of law/interpreters of law, but major shit like protecting basic human rights stay at Federal level

>>688435598
Fingerbanging, you dumb shit.

>>688435598
your fingers are called digits dumbass

>>688435783
But you're wrong though

Gay marriage was federally legalized, yet in Alabama the court administrators just simply wouldn't give out marriage licenses to gay couples

That's Alabama, but you get the point, there are ways around federal law

>>688422345
He's 0/1 - probably needs a win...

>>688436026
don't base the functioning part of the United States of America on it's most incompetent people. They did that because they're boycotting the rule out of principle- it's not like the President said "OH ok everywhere but Alabama then because they don't like it"

they can rebel or refuse but it's the god damned law, and if the public representatives and or elected officials refuse to do the job they're paid to do, they can be replaced by someone who will follow the law.

the slut deserves it tbh. She goes to a college party that she doesn't even go to and gets pissed drunk and probably flirted with the guy that lead them to go out and do stuff. Slut also has a bf. Sucks for the dude, he just wanted to get his fingers wet and probably get off. Poor decisions by both parties

File: 1380917835729.jpg (57 KB, 500x667) Image search: [Google]

57 KB, 500x667

>>688436678

>>688436532
But like

They didn't

Gays got BTFO and not shit happened because it's Alabama, and the feds haven't done anything

>>688436958
if shit worked by your logic, every state would have their own currency and texas would be its own nation.

Clearing out every incompetent and unfit public official in an entire state doesn't just happen over night- you realize that right? They have to hire people and have elections for others

>>688435783
>but major shit like protecting basic human rights stay at Federal level
This is patently false. State to state Murder definitions as well as Rape definitions prove this wrong.

>>688437317
You're a schmuck. Section 10 of the constitution specifically bars states from printing their own currency.

I'm not sure what "digital penetration" is. Fingers, or do we actually mean digital like in the form of electronic digital?

too lazy to look it up.

anyway, the standard to prove defamation, with some state statute variation is that:

1) a statement must be made
2) That is not true
3) is harmful to the subject
4) The statement is made maliciously with intent to harm.
5) communicated to a third party

From there, a plaintiff has several people to sue, including the publisher. There are different elements for things like this.

Generally, the above is what you're looking for.

>>688420040
His status as a rapist is determined by him having been found guilty of rape in any location. As he was not tried and convicted anywhere, it's defamation in either jurisdiction. It being a crime elsewhere has no bearing on it. he's not a convicted rapist. you can't make that claim that he is based on the theoretical outcome of a trial where the circumstances of the act in question are transferred to a different jurisdiction.

>>688438413
>doesn't know an analogy when he sees one
>still argues
you're a fucking idiot you know that?

>>688438451
>being this late to the thread
>still unclear on a topic argued many times
>posts what law knowledge has already been posted several times
good contribution

>>688421397
I believe that because the publication is widely distributed beyond Ohio, (for example, we're talking about this online across the nation) the plaintiff could bring suit wherever the defamatory statement could have been heard.

>>688434142
That in and of itself brings up an issue though. There are a lot of issues in the story that could prove or disprove it ad being rape or sexual battery of an unconscious person.

The questions that were never answered was 1. How did she get out there, 2. Why did no one, including her sister, stop her from being taken outside assuming she was already unconscious, and 3. She claims to remember absolutely nothing after drinking, but people reported seeing them make out earlier in the evening.

I've seen a few false accusation of rape cases since I started college, but this one is definitely the strangest I've heard about.

>>688420040
Depends on if what the journalist said, how it was said and from what source he obtained the information. 99% they just have to retract the story and no action can be taken unless there is some sort of harm or loss from the claim.

>>688438826
>reads accurate information
>triggered due to timeliness
>adjusts fedora

just contributin brah.

>>688436943
>That image doesn't make you a fucking beta faggot

>>688438606
he was sentenced to 6 months...

>>688438826
The point was that your analogy was flawed because a state's printing of currency directly conflicts with Federal law. Calling federally-defined "rape" something else but still criminalizing it doesn't challenge the Supremacy Clause or any other constitutional law.
Lrn2college, numbnuts

>>688431066

Slander are oral statements.
Libel is anything else.

>>688440832
>he was sentenced to 6 months...
On charges that were not called "rape".