• Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    116
    ·
    2 months ago

    Its about time there is some accountability for spreading such falsehoods. Does Libel not apply to this, or any law? Come on, he endangered an entire group of his own constituents. They are legally here.

    • boydster
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      99
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      People need to call it what it is, as often as needed: stochastic terrorism

    • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s very similar to the concept of blood libel I think, just directed at a different group than that term usually refers to. Which, given what that kind of thing historically has led to, is extremely concerning coming from such a public figure.

      • barsquid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        It is extremely concerning, and it is not just this. They have been talking about mass deportations all year.

    • Unfortunately and with deep regrets, I think it’d be tough. From https://lipskylowe.com/when-are-false-accusations-of-racism-defamation/ there are four points:

      False Statement about the target was stated as fact (not opinion)
      Publication or communication of that statement to a third person
      Fault on the part of the person making the statement amounting at least to negligence
      Harm to the subject of the statement (damages)

      Considering how hard he’s publicly pushed the story as a true fact, I think prongs 1 and 2 have been met. Alas, I can see 3 being not reached (he checked with his constituents who claimed the story was true and a judge accepts that as sufficient due diligence).

      And 4 would be the hardest - how does one prove damages (like a dollar amount) and that they were specifically caused by his comments?

      • Sanctus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’d be hard but I thinks a case can be made by analyzing violence against the Haitian community before and after the comments. We have a date for when it was said, which can serve as our starting point for after. It might not be the easiest but its definitely within reason. On top of it all, I’m tired of this and thats by design. To so obviously be trashing and damaging these communities, but due to the law still have believable excuses. Its bullshit. We know and so do the rubes.

        • abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Agreed. While not an expert, I feel like the bar for prong 3 has been lowered since I wrote the above - the original author has confessed to making it up, but Vance continued to promote the story after this and never officially retracted it.

          Prong 4 still is tough - to have standing to sue you’d have to be someone who was harmed. So likely a member of the Haitian immigrant community in Springfield (of which I am not a member) would have to be the one suing, AND would have to be able to personally demonstrate damages.

          Tough, but definitely possible within reason.

          Considering what else is at stake, that person would need solid legal representation.

          Assuming you aren’t a member either, the most you could do is lend support to folks out there, maybe reach out and see if anyone who has suffered is interested in a lawsuit and connect them to the right legal firms and such. Which is still enough to go a long way.