damn, son... you're really fucking mad, aren't you? lol.

hard to be "the fountainhead' stuck at home alone

The Arab and African slave trades were largely local and not significantly different from the slavery we've seen throughout most of human history.

Whereas the trans Atlantic slave trade is unique in it's scale and displacement. It's the only time in human history that such a massive concerted effort was made to displace so many individuals across such a long distance for such significant economic gain. The only comparison I can think of that even approaches this scale was Rome, but obviously it was a much lower scale and not based on race as much as it was based on who was conquered.

The reason one is so heavily taught and focused on is because it was an anomaly in human history, whereas the others are very typical in the context of all human history.

And lastly, one is a major event in American history, which is taught in every high school in America, and the others aren't.

It seems like either you or the sources you're reading are attempting to come up with a "leftist conspiracy" for why one thing is taught and the other isn't, when it simply becomes obvious when you are familiar with the subject matter.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Apr 11 2020 01:21pm

There comes a real question about consequences when you condense the truth into a dramatization that directly impugns someone still living, unduly directing hatred towards them.
Its one thing for hollywood to play fast and loose with the facts in order to produce entertainment that is better for either crass commercial or purely artistic endeavors. Yeah, Braveheart was a complete load of ahistorical tosh, but so was Amadeus. But what if Antonio Salieri was still alive? What if in our alternate history, an angry mob of Christians was banging on Salieri's door and demanding he be put to death for blasphemy as a result of a movie that blatantly misrepresented his life for dramatic purposes?

But that doesn't go to motive. A commercial/artistic motive is different than a political one. This netflix documentary was produced by those with a narrative to push even if they knew it was false. They relied upon fanning the flames of public outrage to make a profit. Whether the complaint will be able to show actual malice is a very high bar and I can just assume it will fail 10 times out of 10 and be right 9 times out of 10.

I do think GLYC has a point that everything they did going out of their way to destroy her life will be the crucial evidence. They might be able to handwave the entire contents of the documentary behind the shield of artistic privilege. But impugning her in online posts, seeking to have her awards withdrawn, etc, if she has legs to stand on thats it

This post was edited by Goomshill on Apr 11 2020 01:25pm

In the end it's always going to come down to the individual act, even if the person is still alive. That goes for entertainment media and, in my opinion, news outlets and political opinion shows.

We can actually take another modern example. It's pretty uncontroversial to say that Bill O'Reilly's actions on his talk show more or less directly lead to the murder of Dr. George Tiller. He was on national TV for weeks calling him "Dr. Tiller the Baby Killer" and blatantly lieing about him to fan the flames.

I'm not sure what legal liability should be maintained in either case, but I agree that it's good that it's a super high bar to clear. It might just be one of those cases where we have to shrug our shoulders and wag a finger at the media groups for the sake of preserving the larger freedom.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think this lawsuit comes after the Netflix show but not after the Ken Burns documentary from 2012? Is it just because of the popularity of the program? Or do the programs allege different facts about the prosecutors?

As I recall, Lederer was the one who was portrayed in a negative light (much moreso than Fairstein)



Ideally, law enforcement eventually gets the message that they are going to be held accountable for the instances where they break the law and violate internal policy. When they realize the accountability is there, the behavior will change. Then the relations with the community will change.

This post was edited by Kayeto on Apr 11 2020 01:40pm

That comes down to holding person A liable for person B's violation against person C, which is a much different concept than just whether person A commits a violation against person C.
Much of the cancel culture and moralizing crusades today echo the christian conservativism movement and moralizing crusades of the 90s in that rather than argue against defending people from harms directly perpetrated by others, they argue against the liability by the diffuse potential of harm ensuing from the actions of 3rd parties. Saying that rock music will drive kids to drugs and violence. That sort of nonsense. If you claim that Bill O'Reilly's words lead "directly" to the murder of Dr. George Tiller, you're dismissing the personal responsibility of Scott Roeder, who made the conscious decision and may or maybe not have ever listened to O'Reilly. The well founded precedence of free speech law is that the balance of protecting speech against regulating harms always falls onto the side of speech when it comes to the diffusion of harm.

Using the logic you have presented Linda Fairstein has no damages from the filmmakers since it wasn't the filmmakers who canceled contracts, forced her to resign, etc. etc.

You are yourself dismissing the personal responsibility of everybody Fairstein has claimed changed their behavior due to the movie.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Apr 11 2020 03:16pm

That's a good question. I have tried to access the Burn's documentary but have never seen this one due to not having access to it. I'm well aware of its existence though, and the controversy of it - being tied to parties involved with the settlement. The gag orders on law enforcement at the time.

My speculation is the Burn's documentary was likely omitting the law enforcement side - or at least important parts of it, and evidence, whereas 'When They See Us' does more than omit evidence.

They flat out make stuff up that has zero evidence of occurring, in fact, there's evidence supporting the contrary, that it never existed or played out in that manner. Add in direct usage of Fairsteins name, and depicting her in specific roles, taking specific actions and using specific language, when there is evidence proving she wasn't in that role or took those actions - which would be seen as damaging, especially considering that she was portrayed utilizing racism. That's a problem.

Combine that with the aggressive stances and language Locke and DuVernay have taken against Fairstein, and the actual damages that ensued following that. And the fact that it was routinely advertised by Netflix and the directors as being truth. I think you have a great lawsuit.

The Burn's documentary likely wouldn't have met the standard needed to win a civil trial for Defamation for a Public Official, or that's my assumption. Whereas this one likely does.

This post was edited by GLYC123 on Apr 11 2020 04:14pm

Lol there's no conspiracy tbh. I understand why one is important in the context of American history and the other not so much. There's no conspiracy however that the North African Arabs role in the discussion of slavery is largely ignored though.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Apr 11 2020 04:15pm