Originally published at: Michigan State Senator Mallory McMorrow forcefully responds to right-wing lies about "grooming" children | Boing Boing
…
24 Likes
65 Likes
Brilliant speech! Well done that woman!
34 Likes
Out of curiosity, is this proper grounds for libel (because email)?
32 Likes
Also, Senator McMorrow called out the hateful and hate-filled GOP state senator who attacked her for not even having the common courtesy of facing her as McMorrow spoke on the floor.
38 Likes
Now follow that up with a nice libel suit.
It’s really the only thing they understand.
30 Likes
I hope McMorrow’s fighting spirit inspires her fellow party members around the country. Any Dems who still believe that the other duopoly party hasn’t been thoroughly hijacked by lying fascists like Lana Theis are fooling themselves.
38 Likes
More of this, please.
And yet … it’s a goddamn shame that this speech is even necessary in 21st century America.
29 Likes
IANAL but this may fall short of the standard for libel. I’d appreciate real legal input (as I’m sure you and most others here would) but I think part of the reason the term “groomer” has become so popular is it’s just vague enough that those who use it can argue they’re not technically accusing anyone of a crime. That’s what makes it both ridiculous and dangerous since those who use it are applying it to anything, or nothing.
As I said I’m not a lawyer so take this with as much salt as you like but it’s important to be prepared for people who throw around the “groomer” accusation to try to backtrack by claiming it doesn’t mean anything.
3 Likes
26 Likes
Good job Senator McMorrow!!! Hopefully, the rest of the Dems will follow suit and finally fight back against these genocidal fascists.
24 Likes
IANAL, but I am in law school, which means I know just enough to be dangerous. There’s a pretty high bar to libel/defamation in US law. You’d have to prove not just that what she said wasn’t true, but that she knew it wasn’t true, and that she said it with the intent to harm the person she said it about. Here, all she probably would have to say is that it’s her opinion that being supportive of LGBTQ “behavior” among young people is tantamount to grooming, and that’s all she meant. The bar is also higher for public figures, which would, in a case like this, probably apply to a state Senator. Lastly, the Senator would have to prove actual damages as a result of the accusation. It’s probably not worth pursuing here.
22 Likes
The Democrats need to do just what this wonderful lady just did, turn up the heat and the volume on the GQP/KKKpublicans. That was righteous!
26 Likes
The one thing that might counter the vagueness of “grooming” in a legal sense is that it is a term that’s been used in psych literature for decades to describe the process of securing an abuse victim’s silence or compliance through non-physical forms of coercion and manipulation. I would be thrilled to testify that the way these folks are using the term has a very specific meaning in relation to sexual abuse!
19 Likes
OMG, I LOVE HER!
And I absolutely loved how she called out that the hate-mongers are contributing NOTHING useful.
This needs a hashtag and a #METOO-style echo around the entire country to rally folks to SAY good and then to DO good.
27 Likes
Bingo.
“If you don’t give money to my campaign then you must be in favor of pedophilia.”
16 Likes
I say, let a judge decide what words mean. Especially the word grooming.
Clearly it was not true. She knew it was not true. And she intended to harm the reputation of a political opponent by using that term.
4 Likes
We all know that. But the standard to prove that in a court of law is much higher, as it should be. We don’t want to open this door, because it will be used way more often to try to silence those on the left.
6 Likes
This is a loser as a defamation suit. And I think MI has an anti-SLAPP statute so it would be foolish to even attempt.
However, I was glad to see this speech yesterday and immediately went to Sen. McMorrow’s page and donated.
4 Likes
But, there’s a difference between “not being worth it” in terms of having a chance of actually winning a case vs. “being a big enough and expensive enough pain in the ass to make the jerkwad think twice about doing it again”…
1 Like
