• @SleepyBear
    link
    319 hours ago

    It’s curious how when I google “Is Donald Trump a Rapist?” (He is), google for some reason omits the AI responses. This is because the AI is going to scour the internet and will most likely state, in fact, that Donald Trump is a Rapist. Just food for thought.

  • JaggedRobotPubes
    link
    English
    362 days ago

    We can measure the quality of a news source with the new Donald Trump Is A Rapist test. That’s the name of the test.

    It’s the name of the test because Donald Trump, who is a rapist, sometimes won’t be referred to as the rapist he is despite the fact that he, Donald Trump, is a rapist. A news source discussing the issue who is not sufficiently plain and unbothered about stating the fact that Donald Trump is a rapist would score very poorly on the Donald Trump Is A Rapist test.

    Remember to mention the test by its name, the Donald Trump Is A Rapist test. Otherwise people might be unsure what you mean. For handy convenience, you can capitalize the name of the test when writing it: Donald Trump Is A Rapist. This is to distinguish the name of the test, Donald Trump Is A Rapist, from the passing mention of a fact, say, for instance, that Donald Trump is a rapist.

    • @Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In
      link
      62 days ago

      But can that statement be defended in court?

      He is a convicted felon, but not because of rape.

      • @Dearth
        link
        122 hours ago

        He settled out of court instead of providing a dna sample to confirm it wasn’t his semen on the dress of a minor.

        So yes it can be proven in court.

        • @HowManyNimons
          link
          120 hours ago

          Also, he has been found legally liable for a sexual assault he committed. In court. So he’s a rapist.

    • @enbyecho
      link
      English
      4
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Yes.

      Trump is a rapist Trump is a rapist Trump is a rapist Trump is a rapistTrump is a rapist

      Edit: WTF? But I’ll let it stand. LOL.

    • @enbyecho
      link
      English
      32 days ago

      Yes.

      Trump is a rapist Trump is a rapist Trump is a rapist Trump is a rapistTrump is a rapistTrump is a rapist

    • @enbyecho
      link
      English
      22 days ago

      Yes.

      Trump is a rapist Trump is a rapist Trump is a rapist Trump is a rapist

  • circuitfarmer
    link
    fedilink
    202 days ago

    Potentially noteworthy: ABC is owned by Disney.

    With the Disney hate from the right, plus the very public squabbling between Disney and Ron DeSantis, it is extra frustrating that ABC just caved.

  • Maple Engineer
    link
    312 days ago

    Trump is a serial rapist but don’t say that over in c/conservative or they will remove your comment. Protect the echo bunker!

    • SatansMaggotyCumFart
      link
      82 days ago

      Conservative communities are echo chambers for snowflakes.

      One of the mods there is named after one of William Gibson’s AIs which shows their reading comprehension and maybe they’re lacking a bit of the I.

  • @njm1314
    link
    1123 days ago

    It’s amazing that they caved on this, I’m not going to guarantee they would have won but it seems very easy to argue. They have the judge’s own words to back up their reporting. They have the definition of rape from basically every other state. They can have myriads of witnesses to argue about a common colloquial definition of a word. Again I wouldn’t say Ironclad but with how hard it is to prove defamation I have trouble seeing how they would have lost. They just straight up kowtowed. This is basically a bribe. Or maybe a tribute is the better word.

    • Captain Howdy
      link
      fedilink
      022 hours ago

      Honestly I wish they had fought this, but I understand why they settled.

      Firstly, he was held liable for “sexual assault” which was legally different from rape at the time. (Obviously, he’s still a fucking rapist). He loves to tout this fact, as weird and sad as that is.

      Secondly, and most likely the biggest factor in their decision, fighting Trump’s BS suit would likely cost way more than $15M and he’s soon to be the president (uuuuuuugh) so that complicates things even further in his favor because the case would go on beyond his inauguration.

    • @Tangent5280
      link
      62 days ago

      Could just be a bribe in disguise, albeit maybe an unplanned one.

    • @Maggoty
      link
      172 days ago

      In a normal environment sure. But Trump has already threatened their broadcast license. So it doesn’t matter if they win in court, if he yanks the rug out from under their entire business.

    • d00phy
      link
      English
      253 days ago

      “Tribute” is the perfect word.

      • @finitebanjo
        link
        83 days ago

        In their defence, Trump is about to inaugurated POTUS again.

        Sure they could win, but is winning beneficial?

        • Optional
          link
          222 hours ago

          Depends on if truth means anything.

          • @finitebanjo
            link
            020 hours ago

            Clearly doesn’t to the people of the USA.

    • @KAYDUBELL
      link
      203 days ago

      Not to mention for a public figure to win on defamation they have to prove “malicious intent.” No way this is malicious when it’s literally the truth and public record lol

      • @Lauchs
        link
        72 days ago

        when it’s literally the truth and public record lol

        It ain’t and that’s the crux of the lawsuit. Stephanopolous said trump had been liable for rape when in reality he’d been found liable for sexual assault. Rape is a different charge.

        It’s a subtle difference but it is one a veteran journalist would be expected to know, which is why the bar of him acting “with a reckless disregard for the truth” wouldn’t be unthinkable.

        Morally, yeah, I’m with you. But legally, ABC was on dicey ground. Maybe could win but damn, that’d be a battle. Stephanopolous would have to, in court, claim he didn’t understand the difference between the charges which isn’t a great look for an anchor.

        • Optional
          link
          122 hours ago

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

          Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll

          Archive

          “The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ ” Kaplan wrote.

          He added: “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”

          • @Lauchs
            link
            122 hours ago

            Exactly, the key bit being "Ms Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law

            In other words, even though he wasn’t found liable for rape, she was raped as the word is commonly understood. Unfortunately, Stephanopolous made the claim (repeatedly I believe) that trump had been found liable for rape.

        • @pyre
          link
          82 days ago

          I thought the judge specifically said it was rape, despite the wording of the crime. that’s like saying they used the word “stole” when the public record says “embezzlement”. hardly an argument.

          • @nzeayn
            link
            32 days ago

            a difference between rape and sexual assult is an argument designed into the system. not because theres an actual difference in the crime. because theres a difference between who each charge will be applied to. just like theft vs embezzlement.

    • @Lauchs
      link
      53 days ago

      The standards for a news reporter are probably a lot higher than for a normal citizen. Colloquial definition almost certainly doesn’t cut it.

      Especially as Stephanopolous somewhat goofed and repeatedly asserted trump had been found** liable of a crime** which was different from the crimes which he was actually guilty. (Ironically, I almost wonder if he’d been better off saying he raped Carroll as then you could more easily invoke the colloquial meaning defence whereas saying trump was found liable for rape changes the meaning subtly but meaningfully.)

      As a news reporter, he should have known that from a legal perspective trump had not been “found liable for rape.” It’s splitting hairs but that’s a lot of law. I would not want to argue it wasn’t reckless and injurious to trump’s “reputation”.

  • Fuck Yankies
    link
    fedilink
    143 days ago

    The thing is, there has been no rape case on Trump - not really. I mean we all know, but the victims have been sufficiently suppressed, and without their testimony their case wouldn’t have a foot to stand on.

    But, this begs the question: why hasn’t Fox News been sued into oblivion?

    • @finitebanjo
      link
      323 days ago

      Actually that is incorrect Trump was found to have Raped E. Jean Carroll and paid $5 Million Dollars as a result. SOURCE

      • @9tr6gyp3
        link
        163 days ago

        First paragraph:

        A New York jury found former President Donald Trump liable Tuesday for sexually abusing writer E. Jean Carroll in a Manhattan department store in the 1990s but not liable for her alleged rape.

          • @9tr6gyp3
            link
            102 days ago

            Its really fucked up that New York doesn’t consider it rape.

          • @Lauchs
            link
            72 days ago

            But also notes that he was found liable for something different. The judge makes clear that in colloquial terms, yeah, it’s rape. But legally, there is a difference. And Stephanopolous said he’d been found liable for rape, which is a very specific charge and a claim which is demonstrably false, even if we all understand his actions to be rape.

            Law is fucked but in the confines of the law, trump’s legal team has a point and, it seems, the law on their side.

        • @finitebanjo
          link
          33 days ago

          A distinction without difference, the definition varies by state.