7 days 30 days All time Recent Popular
How to avoid (successful) accusations of defamation on Twitter. A few thoughts from someone who is NOT a libel lawyer, but does say very critical things about named individuals. 1/

1. Facts are different from opinions. But stating an opinion can imply a fact.
https://t.co/1PkiI4olib


2. When I tweet I aim to be sure A. I show the *facts* I am basing my *opinion* on. B. I have good reason to believe the *facts* are true. C. My opinion is reasonable based on the facts.

Here I am calling Arron Banks a racist (opinion). Pointing out this is because he called for mosques to be demolished (fact). 4/


I can prove this fact - and others - about what Banks has said. And I can justify why in my opinion that shows he’s a racist. 5/
Much to say about yesterday’s pardons and commutations. Before getting to the updated chart, some general reflections.

Trump has upended the traditional criteria for clemency:
https://t.co/HkOXJwY4G7. The traditional guiding principle: “a pardon is granted on the basis of the petitioner's demonstrated good conduct for a substantial period of time after conviction and service of sentence.”

Request for pardon presumptively must wait 5 years after conviction or release. Traditional criteria include superlative post-conviction conduct & character; acceptance of responsibility & remorse; and hesitation to pardon serious offenses (violent crime, white collar fraud, etc)

V few of Trump’s clemency decisions meet these criteria. His pardons usually based on insider contacts, & are for v serious crimes that often dont satisfy 5-year rule, usually for people who do not express remorse. They almost always serve Trump’s personal or political interests.

As I told WP: “Other presidents have occasionally issued abusive, self-serving pardons based on insider connections. Almost all of Trump’s pardons fit that pattern. What other presidents did exceptionally, Trump does as a matter of course.”
The debate over law and order comes to the forefront yet again. Law and order - both can be maintained with equal zeal. One needs to take precedence over the other. Will that be Order over Law or Law over Order?


In other words, what do governments prefer - looking away the other side when law is broken with impunity in the fear that acting against the offender will lead to large scale rioting on the roads?

Or will the government gear up to uphold the sanctity of law and punish every single one trying to break it? There are many examples. Take the Tablighi Wuhan Wave. Or Bangalore Riots. Or the destruction of Temples in Andhra.

Now, if the perpetrators are punished, there is going to be large scale rioting. Pointing out Tablighi Wuhan Wave destroyed many a person in the Gulf when Pakistanis and their minions profiled every Indian and got them arrested for insulting Islam.

No one talks about the post to which the MLA's nephew responded to. Singhu Resort is another. What's stopping the government from clearing the protest site? Is it the same confusion between law and order?