>>30626073 How do you know that's a real Ben Garrison and we're not being played?
> Either we're being played
What Tyrone is saying is pretty much what a lot of people were saying on here after that Dean image went up. If you missed the discussion on why libel =/= free speech and the edited cartoons are not fair use, it's probably archived.
If the image of Tyrone is not a real Ben Garrison, then anyone whose fed up with this and wants /pol/ to get back to the important stuff could have done it. The risk to /pol/ is motivation enough.
> Or it's happening
Tyrone made a previous video about Ben Garrison. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wqFbkn05Ak
If I was Tyrone and Garrison contacted me, and said what was going on, I'd probably offer to do this too. And I would ask for a cartoon of me.
> Or a little of both???
See image with some of the earlier conversation. That could easily lead to this. I was saving it in case that millionaire poster followed through.
Garrison's original works are anti-big gov't and anti-bank, which most of /pol/ supports.
His cartoons are a good way to present our ideals to the public, they'd be seen as normal ideas as opposed to opinions of crazed conspiricy neckbeards in /pol/.
Editing Juden into his comics effectively kills any chance of that message being received. When you post in a Garrison thread, you effectively fuck over your own cause. Also wasn't it confirmed that kikes were actually the ones doing the editing?
>>30628341 Only a very small number of people tried to argue their freed speech was more powerful than libel laws. They were smacked down fast in the the earlier thread.
There was more discussion about copyright and whether it could be fair use because of parody, but it looks like that would only work if Garrison's signature wasn't on it, and if it was drawn from scratch rather than starting with one of his cartoons. Then you could probably get away with making something that was very similar to his cartoons. Someone actually did this with the Dean cartoon.
>>30628591 >Only a very small number of people tried to argue their freed speech was more powerful than libel laws. They were smacked down fast in the the earlier thread.
Sure. Look here, OPHI, or PIHO or w/e you represent...
you have no claim here and you never will. Good luck proving damages to Ben when he has a fucking website full of the originals and multiple posts stating what's going on. Any retard worth his large crayon could easily discern that Garrison was not making those edits.
No damages and no shred of evidence that it came from him = no issue.
You can keep calling it libel though, but that's only because no court will.
>>30629021 >Nope. Ben's doing fine, he's been bragging about he has no time to do cartoons becaud of how successful his commercial art business is. If this is true there's no way he can make a case for libel. US law requires proof of harm, proof of intent to harm, etc. It's basically impossible to prove.
>>30633179 >Harm doesn't mean broke, it means he has to have lost at least one commission, or have reduced opportunity to get commissions. Making a case for actual harm would be pretty easy. Okay, just post your evidence that he was harmed, then.
Does saying he is a Nazi adversely reflects on his fitness to conduct his trade of producing libertarian political cartoons? If yes, then it defamation per se and he would only need to prove that the plaintiff published the statements - nothing more.
>>30634130 >Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the standard of First Amendment protection against defamation claims brought by private individuals. The Court held that, so long as they do not impose liability without fault, states are free to establish their own standards of liability for defamatory statements made about private individuals. However, the Court also ruled that if the state standard is lower than actual malice, the standard applying to public figures, then only actual damages may be awarded. >The consequence is that strict liability for defamation is unconstitutional in the United States; the plaintiff must be able to show that the defendant acted negligently or with an even higher level of mens rea. In many other common law countries, strict liability for defamation is still the rule.
That is not a counter argument. You need to look into defamation per se.
Good pick up on the negligence aspect. Is publicly impersonating a libertarian artist to make them look like a Nazi something that a reasonable person would expect to impact on the artists ability to work? Seems pretty likely.
>>30634978 >You need to look into defamation per se. That's directly addressed in the text.
>>30634745 >if the state standard is lower than actual malice, the standard applying to public figures, then only actual damages may be awarded.
>>30634978 >Is publicly impersonating a libertarian artist to make them look like a Nazi something that a reasonable person would expect to impact on the artists ability to work?
Not in the context of /pol/ this is an anonymous image board with a relatively low viewership. It's highly unlikely that anyone familiar with the board would take for granted the authenticity of authorship. Images are frequently altered to change and invert their meanings. Still less likely that anyone who didn't see that the images had been crudely photoshopped would be a prospective client of Garrison's.
>>30634978 >Thanks Toby (or would you rather be bob?) Ol' Benny doesn't have to tell you his name.
>>30635878 >>Is publicly impersonating a libertarian artist to make them look like a Nazi something that a reasonable person would expect to impact on the artists ability to work? I forgot to point out that Garrisson is already proud of his publication on Jeff Rense's website, which publishes holocaust denial materials quite prominently. So, he's already associated himself with that kind of material in the past.
>>30635878 >That's directly addressed in the text.
No it isn't. There is a world of difference between defamation per se (which exists) and strict liability (which you are confusing it with)
>if the state standard is lower than actual malice, the standard applying to public figures, then only actual damages may be awarded.
That just destroys your argument. It is a limitation on damages, not a defense. The action in libel still exists.
>Not in the context of /pol/ this is an anonymous image board with a relatively low viewership. It's highly unlikely that anyone familiar with the board would take for granted the authenticity of authorship.
The problem is that the content isn't staying on /pol/. Someone making edits can't reasonable expect it to stay on /pol/, specially when there are fb pages using /pol/ to get their content.
>Still less likely that anyone who didn't see that the images had been crudely photoshopped would be a prospective client of Garrison's.
You tried doing a google image search for Ben Garrison lately? Many of those images were first posted here with comments like "Here's my edit!"
Both potential clients, and long term clients, are likely to search for Ben to look at his other work. That's not just possible, a reasonable person would expect it.
You guys know big man tyrone will say anything for money, right? Someone on here with money to waste could easily just pay tyrone to say he support's Ben Garrison's attack on the jews. He could even put up pic related on the monitor
>>30636690 You could try argued that to a court, sure. On the other hand, this is a public forum, so there is no reasonable expectation that things will stay private. More specifically, this has been going on with Ben Garrison for 5 years and most people here knows that. In light of that, "I didn't think that would happen" is not very convincing.
If a reasonable person was taken to mean a reasonable person who uses /pol/ things start looking a lot worse for the poster. The idea of a "reasonable person who uses /pol/" becoming a legal concept is pretty funny.
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.