This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
IANAL but I think you'd have a very hard time winning a lawsuit over an unflattering fictionalized representation of you in a TV show. Think of all the celebrities and politicians who have been roasted in SNL, South Park, Family Guy, and on and on. Arguably they also can and do color the public's perception of the real person. L&O has been doing "ripped from the headlines" plots forever and this isn't the first time they've taken the real case and exaggerated it to make a stronger political point. Was this a mean-spirited and disingenuous portrayal? Yeah. I'm surprised they haven't done Kyle Rittenhouse gunning down black people and throwing White Power salutes yet. (Or maybe they have - I haven't watched L&O in years.) But I would hate to see us move towards the laws against "defamation of reputation" that exist in other countries.
I think there is a difference between parodying celebrities and random people. By definition celebrities are in the media, which means that they have a much better opportunity to show that they are not actually slurping embryos or being controlled by satan or whatever else South Park claims. This does not mean that any parody of them is morally acceptable. Being a cop accused of murder (or whatever the current state of affairs is) is very different from being Jeff Bezos. Parodying the former is kicking down, not up.
I don't watch L&O, but from the description it seems like there they are painting a boring, very black-and-white (is that phrasing still PC?) picture. Rapist cannibal zombie Nazis vs the heroes. I generally prefer my TV shows to have shades of grey in them (BSG, GoT, The Expanse come to mind).
Most people, especially the older people still watching network TV, don't. That's why shows like Bluebloods, FBI, 9 different CSI and NCIS's are all on the air and more popular than 99% of shows that get Emmy's.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Obvious counter he’s not a politician or celebrity.
I would assume they have lawyers and wouldn’t cross a line making them liable. But I think most people here would agree with my assumption the real Daniel Perry suffered reputational damage.
A NY jury this probably goes no where but a Texas jury a novel legal theory might work.
New York Times v. Sullivan only requires that the evidence of actual malice (a legal term that's not satisfied by hating someone) or reckless disregard for the truth be present for public figures or public officials (and later cases require this for any damages other than 'actual damages'). ((The courts have also recognized a limited public figure and involuntary limited public figure doctrine, though it's far from clear the former applies and the latter condition may well be extinct.))
Private citizens still have a really high bar to reach on a wide variety of other prongs. If you were bringing a left-aligned lawsuit in the northeast against a particularly hated enemy, maybe, but as bad as the Fifth Circuit has gotten, it's not gotten that bad.
More options
Context Copy link
He is a public figure, due to the coverage of what happened. Like, I'm sure there were parodies, TV films, and episodes of TV based off Scott & Laci Peterson. Those were not public figures initially either, and I'm sure not all of the above took great care, but they were OK. Ironically, if the right-wing press hadn't made such a martyr out of him, there'd be a slightly better case. Not enough to do anything about it, as 1st Amendment laws are fairly clear about this.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link