trump, the rapist

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Rex, Apr 23, 2023.

  1. Jmg

    Jmg Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2015
    Messages:
    10,706
    Likes Received:
    6,383
    not according to carroll. you dont know seem to know anything about this
     
  2. Rex

    Rex Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Messages:
    7,724
    Likes Received:
    766
    A great thing about this case: Carroll's already been awarded $5 million of her rapist's money, and because he's too damn stupid to keep his mouth shut about it she's suing him AGAIN for defamation, and is likely to be awarded a whole lot more. Of course, it might be difficult to actually collect from a bankrupt prisoner.
     
  3. Tiger in NC

    Tiger in NC There's a sucker born everyday...

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2011
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    1,806
    funny you brought this one up because why didn't trump claim that he had a first amendment right to defame Carroll? How did that jury make him pay up 5 million if he could have simply given them the old, FREE SPEECH argument?
     
  4. Jmg

    Jmg Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2015
    Messages:
    10,706
    Likes Received:
    6,383
    i would in fact argue that trump had the first amendment right to maintain his innocence

    is your position that if i claim i wasnt speeding, that i should be sued for claiming i wasnt speeding? defaming my accuser? even if i have never been proven to be speeding in criminal court? and the year i was supposedly speeding is unknown?
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2023
    shane0911 likes this.
  5. Tiger in NC

    Tiger in NC There's a sucker born everyday...

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2011
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    1,806
    correct. until the jury saw all the evidence and agreed that he defamed Ms. Carroll by lying about her and that he owed her 5 million for that and finger banging her without her consent. You have talked yourself in a circle pal....if Trump's argument is correct then he should have been able to say whatever he wanted about E Jean Carroll without ramifications. But his argument is, of course, incorrect because free speech isn't unlimited. You are free to yell Fire in a crowded theater but once you are arrested and brought before the court you will pay the penalty under the law, your free speech will not matter anymore because it is in the furtherance of a crime.
     
  6. Jmg

    Jmg Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2015
    Messages:
    10,706
    Likes Received:
    6,383
    well her claim was not limited to finger banging but penis banging. i guess the jury wasnt buying that. they said no to rape.
     
  7. Tiger in NC

    Tiger in NC There's a sucker born everyday...

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2011
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    1,806
    trying to move on from your freedom of speech argument huh? free speech doesn't sound too free when it costs you 5 million. and like you said, he didn't rape her, right? so they just gave that woman all that money for him lying about her? doesn't sound like free speech to me.
     
  8. Jmg

    Jmg Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2015
    Messages:
    10,706
    Likes Received:
    6,383
    no i still maintain my freedom of speech point.

    its not that i said he didnt rape her, its that the jury found "no" on that count. i can post the image again if you like.

    did you see the jury form that said no? what do you think they were saying no to?
     
  9. Tiger in NC

    Tiger in NC There's a sucker born everyday...

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2011
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    1,806
    then why did he have to pay her 5 million? had to be some reason, right? according to you and Trump he shouldn't have had to pay her for lying about her, right? That's free speech isn't it?
     
  10. Jmg

    Jmg Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2015
    Messages:
    10,706
    Likes Received:
    6,383
    correct i believe the court was wrong and just hates trump.

    to me it is absurd to not give a person a chance to present an alibi by not even telling them what year the event occurred.
     

Share This Page