The Media Accountability Project (TMAP) does bring up a lot of legal and philosophical issues.

Kyle Rittenhouse basically spearheaded the thing and I hope that he wins two defamation cases in particular; but, it's rightfully difficult to win defamation suits in the USA.

In order to win a defamation suit in this country, you need to prove all of the following:

• Reporting of falsehoods
• Knowledge of the falsehoods
• Malicious intent
• That the falsehoods caused damages

One and four are easy to prove when it comes to almost every news organization in the world in regard to Rittenhouse; but, you need to prove all four.

I would argue that that standard is a good thing. Rittenhouse mentioned Whoopi Goldberg by name as somebody that he's planning to hold accountable. In that regard, I don't think that he does or should have a case. Yes, she said something that was false (that she still thinks that he's a murderer) and that is clearly contributing to Rittenhouse and his family needing a security detail for the foreseeable future. Still, Goldberg, just like everybody else on The View, is an idiot. When you're dealing with morons, it's hard to prove knowledge and malice.

The law of the land essentially defends a person's right to say stupid shit. If we didn't have that protection, half the country could be sued over comments that they made about Rittenhouse and all of us could be sued for some stupid thing that we said at some point in our lives. So, I think that Whoopi Goldberg and Stephen Colbert, despite being stupid or evil or both, are legally safe.

The Young Turks and MSNBC are another story.

Yes, you have the legal right to be a moron; and, if you think that Rittenhouse is a murderer, you are a moron. Still, TYT and MSNBC crossed a line.

When TYT spent fifteen months repeatedly saying that Rittenhouse chased down Rosenbaum and executed him, that wasn't TYT voicing a dumb opinion, that was a false statement packaged as fact and repeated over and over. If it had happened once or twice in late August or September of 2020, you could chalk that up to an honest mistake. Fifteen months later? Come on. They lied and they knew that they were lying and they did it maliciously.

MSNBC was banned from the court for a good reason - they got caught sending a guy to stalk the jury. That clearly shows knowledge and malice in addition to falsehood and damages. MSNBC should be sued into oblivion over this. It's not free speech when you're doxing the jury in the trial of the century.

So, yeah, most of the lawsuits that have been mentioned are unlikely to be successful unless the defendants choose to settle. There are a couple of cases wherein I think Rittenhouse has a serious shot and I do hope that TYT and MSNBC are obliterated.

There's an abundance of immortality in reporting on this case. Surprisingly, The New York Times was one of the few media organizations which was fairly responsible in how they covered the facts.

The pressure to not lie needs to be more social than legal. I think that the law is right in this case. What we need to do is stop watching MSNBC. I don't know anybody anymore who watches TYT except to mock it; but, that's the only viewership that TYT deserves.

We need to be better as human beings. We have to dare ourselves to come out of our shells from time to time and see what reality is. We have the technology and the accesses to see what is objectively true most of the time. In the Rittenhouse case, it seems that about half of the country bought the narrative instead of the facts.

This is the least difficult form of activism in which one can engage. When Joy Reid, Stephen Colbert, The Daily Show, Last Week Tonight, or The View come on, just opt to watch something else.