New Gillette add "Toxic Masculinity" is causing quite a stir!

1…1516171820

Comments

  • Meltdown99
    Meltdown99 None Of Your Business... Posts: 10,739
    PJPOWER said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    Except for libel the burden of proof falls to the kid to prove, "malicious intent." Good luck with that.
    Any news group that reported the incident falsely or corroborated a story other than what happened can be sued for Libel.  I believe that is the angle they are going for here and why any emails about the story from the beginning shouldn't be deleted?
    Being sued is one thing. Winning is another. And if successful, wouldn't it then open the door to all the Faux News, National Enquirer, Brietbart, etc., being sued for the nonsense they "report" on?
    The Enquirer gets sued, I'm not sure about the other outlets.

    I'm surprised Rolling Stone didn't get sued for their UVA story.
    Odds  are it would be settled and the students will have their college paid for.  
    That's likely the storey the lawyers fed them...and who are we to question lawyers motive.
    Give Peas A Chance…
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,845
    Meltdown99 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    Except for libel the burden of proof falls to the kid to prove, "malicious intent." Good luck with that.
    Any news group that reported the incident falsely or corroborated a story other than what happened can be sued for Libel.  I believe that is the angle they are going for here and why any emails about the story from the beginning shouldn't be deleted?
    Being sued is one thing. Winning is another. And if successful, wouldn't it then open the door to all the Faux News, National Enquirer, Brietbart, etc., being sued for the nonsense they "report" on?
    The Enquirer gets sued, I'm not sure about the other outlets.

    I'm surprised Rolling Stone didn't get sued for their UVA story.
    Odds  are it would be settled and the students will have their college paid for.  
    That's likely the storey the lawyers fed them...and who are we to question lawyers motive.
    lol.  Yeah, we know the lawyers only wish to uphold decency!
  • Go Beavers
    Go Beavers Posts: 9,663
    PJPOWER said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    Except for libel the burden of proof falls to the kid to prove, "malicious intent." Good luck with that.
    I don’t know, I think that malice would be easy to prove if a an organization went further than just reporting the news to cause character harm to these students.  Technically anyone that “tried to make them look bad” by false reporting anything and there was a lot of false reporting going on here.  I would think the Native American may have ground for lawsuits against some media corporations as well, though.
    A lot of false reporting? Does that mean they left some things out? Because leaving things out is different than libel. 
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,845
    Go Beavers said:
    PJPOWER said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    Except for libel the burden of proof falls to the kid to prove, "malicious intent." Good luck with that.
    I don’t know, I think that malice would be easy to prove if a an organization went further than just reporting the news to cause character harm to these students.  Technically anyone that “tried to make them look bad” by false reporting anything and there was a lot of false reporting going on here.  I would think the Native American may have ground for lawsuits against some media corporations as well, though.
    A lot of false reporting? Does that mean they left some things out? Because leaving things out is different than libel. 
    I do believe they will go the angle of libel and inciting people.

    The knee jerk reaction that I saw to this incident was pretty bad...
  • Halifax2TheMax
    Halifax2TheMax Posts: 43,107
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Go Beavers said:
    PJPOWER said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    Except for libel the burden of proof falls to the kid to prove, "malicious intent." Good luck with that.
    I don’t know, I think that malice would be easy to prove if a an organization went further than just reporting the news to cause character harm to these students.  Technically anyone that “tried to make them look bad” by false reporting anything and there was a lot of false reporting going on here.  I would think the Native American may have ground for lawsuits against some media corporations as well, though.
    A lot of false reporting? Does that mean they left some things out? Because leaving things out is different than libel. 
    I do believe they will go the angle of libel and inciting people.

    The knee jerk reaction that I saw to this incident was pretty bad...
    The press isn't responsible for the "reaction." Again, to prove libel, you have to show that the press intentionally meant to be malicious and harmful in order to "hurt" or slander the victim. It'll come down to, do these news organizations want to expend time and money fighting this or settle for some undisclosed amount with a non-disclosure and an apology?
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,845
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Go Beavers said:
    PJPOWER said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    Except for libel the burden of proof falls to the kid to prove, "malicious intent." Good luck with that.
    I don’t know, I think that malice would be easy to prove if a an organization went further than just reporting the news to cause character harm to these students.  Technically anyone that “tried to make them look bad” by false reporting anything and there was a lot of false reporting going on here.  I would think the Native American may have ground for lawsuits against some media corporations as well, though.
    A lot of false reporting? Does that mean they left some things out? Because leaving things out is different than libel. 
    I do believe they will go the angle of libel and inciting people.

    The knee jerk reaction that I saw to this incident was pretty bad...
    The press isn't responsible for the "reaction." Again, to prove libel, you have to show that the press intentionally meant to be malicious and harmful in order to "hurt" or slander the victim. It'll come down to, do these news organizations want to expend time and money fighting this or settle for some undisclosed amount with a non-disclosure and an apology?
    Boom.  There you go!
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    Go Beavers said:
    PJPOWER said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    Except for libel the burden of proof falls to the kid to prove, "malicious intent." Good luck with that.
    I don’t know, I think that malice would be easy to prove if a an organization went further than just reporting the news to cause character harm to these students.  Technically anyone that “tried to make them look bad” by false reporting anything and there was a lot of false reporting going on here.  I would think the Native American may have ground for lawsuits against some media corporations as well, though.
    A lot of false reporting? Does that mean they left some things out? Because leaving things out is different than libel. 
    I would have to read the individual articles that they are suing in reference to.  There was a lot of slander being thrown at these kids by numerous sources, so it wouldn’t surprise me if one of the media outlets said something out of line as well.
  • mace1229
    mace1229 Posts: 10,031
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    Except for libel the burden of proof falls to the kid to prove, "malicious intent." Good luck with that.
    Any news group that reported the incident falsely or corroborated a story other than what happened can be sued for Libel.  I believe that is the angle they are going for here and why any emails about the story from the beginning shouldn't be deleted?
    Being sued is one thing. Winning is another. And if successful, wouldn't it then open the door to all the Faux News, National Enquirer, Brietbart, etc., being sued for the nonsense they "report" on?
    It isn't just bad reporting, it's bad reporting that resulted in a singling out a high school kid to the point where he got death threats.
    As much as you may not like Fox, I con't think of a single story where they hammered down on a single individual, who was a minor, to the point where he/she was getting harassed and death threats. But that is exactly what these news stories did, and much of what they reported on about the incident for days wasn't even true.
    I would like to see any news agency held accountable for things like that. I'm sure there is some law a fancy lawyer could argue about negligence resulting in harm or something.
  • Halifax2TheMax
    Halifax2TheMax Posts: 43,107
    mace1229 said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    Except for libel the burden of proof falls to the kid to prove, "malicious intent." Good luck with that.
    Any news group that reported the incident falsely or corroborated a story other than what happened can be sued for Libel.  I believe that is the angle they are going for here and why any emails about the story from the beginning shouldn't be deleted?
    Being sued is one thing. Winning is another. And if successful, wouldn't it then open the door to all the Faux News, National Enquirer, Brietbart, etc., being sued for the nonsense they "report" on?
    It isn't just bad reporting, it's bad reporting that resulted in a singling out a high school kid to the point where he got death threats.
    As much as you may not like Fox, I con't think of a single story where they hammered down on a single individual, who was a minor, to the point where he/she was getting harassed and death threats. But that is exactly what these news stories did, and much of what they reported on about the incident for days wasn't even true.
    I would like to see any news agency held accountable for things like that. I'm sure there is some law a fancy lawyer could argue about negligence resulting in harm or something.
    Oh please, don’t act like the MAGA hat wearer was the first victim of media bashing or a victim of death threats as a result of media. Go look up the murdered abortion doctors and the relentless right wing media attacks that contributed to their deaths.
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    mace1229 said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    Except for libel the burden of proof falls to the kid to prove, "malicious intent." Good luck with that.
    Any news group that reported the incident falsely or corroborated a story other than what happened can be sued for Libel.  I believe that is the angle they are going for here and why any emails about the story from the beginning shouldn't be deleted?
    Being sued is one thing. Winning is another. And if successful, wouldn't it then open the door to all the Faux News, National Enquirer, Brietbart, etc., being sued for the nonsense they "report" on?
    It isn't just bad reporting, it's bad reporting that resulted in a singling out a high school kid to the point where he got death threats.
    As much as you may not like Fox, I con't think of a single story where they hammered down on a single individual, who was a minor, to the point where he/she was getting harassed and death threats. But that is exactly what these news stories did, and much of what they reported on about the incident for days wasn't even true.
    I would like to see any news agency held accountable for things like that. I'm sure there is some law a fancy lawyer could argue about negligence resulting in harm or something.
    You forgot David Hogg that fast??
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • Go Beavers
    Go Beavers Posts: 9,663
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    Except for libel the burden of proof falls to the kid to prove, "malicious intent." Good luck with that.
    Any news group that reported the incident falsely or corroborated a story other than what happened can be sued for Libel.  I believe that is the angle they are going for here and why any emails about the story from the beginning shouldn't be deleted?
    Being sued is one thing. Winning is another. And if successful, wouldn't it then open the door to all the Faux News, National Enquirer, Brietbart, etc., being sued for the nonsense they "report" on?
    It isn't just bad reporting, it's bad reporting that resulted in a singling out a high school kid to the point where he got death threats.
    As much as you may not like Fox, I con't think of a single story where they hammered down on a single individual, who was a minor, to the point where he/she was getting harassed and death threats. But that is exactly what these news stories did, and much of what they reported on about the incident for days wasn't even true.
    I would like to see any news agency held accountable for things like that. I'm sure there is some law a fancy lawyer could argue about negligence resulting in harm or something.
    You forgot David Hogg that fast??
    Exactly what I was thinking. They were relentless with him, and thise kids went through a huge trauma and weren’t in the spotlight for being entitled smug jag-offs. 
  • mace1229
    mace1229 Posts: 10,031
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    Except for libel the burden of proof falls to the kid to prove, "malicious intent." Good luck with that.
    Any news group that reported the incident falsely or corroborated a story other than what happened can be sued for Libel.  I believe that is the angle they are going for here and why any emails about the story from the beginning shouldn't be deleted?
    Being sued is one thing. Winning is another. And if successful, wouldn't it then open the door to all the Faux News, National Enquirer, Brietbart, etc., being sued for the nonsense they "report" on?
    It isn't just bad reporting, it's bad reporting that resulted in a singling out a high school kid to the point where he got death threats.
    As much as you may not like Fox, I con't think of a single story where they hammered down on a single individual, who was a minor, to the point where he/she was getting harassed and death threats. But that is exactly what these news stories did, and much of what they reported on about the incident for days wasn't even true.
    I would like to see any news agency held accountable for things like that. I'm sure there is some law a fancy lawyer could argue about negligence resulting in harm or something.
    You forgot David Hogg that fast??
    You’re right, he was unnecessarily targeted as well.
  • mace1229
    mace1229 Posts: 10,031
    edited February 2019
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    mace1229 said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    Except for libel the burden of proof falls to the kid to prove, "malicious intent." Good luck with that.
    Any news group that reported the incident falsely or corroborated a story other than what happened can be sued for Libel.  I believe that is the angle they are going for here and why any emails about the story from the beginning shouldn't be deleted?
    Being sued is one thing. Winning is another. And if successful, wouldn't it then open the door to all the Faux News, National Enquirer, Brietbart, etc., being sued for the nonsense they "report" on?
    It isn't just bad reporting, it's bad reporting that resulted in a singling out a high school kid to the point where he got death threats.
    As much as you may not like Fox, I con't think of a single story where they hammered down on a single individual, who was a minor, to the point where he/she was getting harassed and death threats. But that is exactly what these news stories did, and much of what they reported on about the incident for days wasn't even true.
    I would like to see any news agency held accountable for things like that. I'm sure there is some law a fancy lawyer could argue about negligence resulting in harm or something.
    Oh please, don’t act like the MAGA hat wearer was the first victim of media bashing or a victim of death threats as a result of media. Go look up the murdered abortion doctors and the relentless right wing media attacks that contributed to their deaths.
    Never said he was the first.  Never said it didn’t happen, just didn’t remember it happening to a high school kid. I was proved wrong on that above.
    Still doesn’t change the fact I believe there should be a limit to freedom of the press where kids aren’t impacted like this.
    Post edited by mace1229 on
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    14 pages for a shaving commercial? Lol
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,899
    my2hands said:
    14 pages for a shaving commercial? Lol
    Yeah, it great how that happens, no? Not sure why you're laughing about it!
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,845
    So I watched another video where it shows that kid say "if you like it and it isn't rape" in it's full context and boy was I ever surprised.

    It was in reaction to what the Black Israelites were saying.

    I will say that how that snippet of a clip was used was way off base.


  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 40,003
    my2hands said:
    14 pages for a shaving commercial? Lol
    if it isn't obvious, the commercial got the conversation, a very important conversation, started. exactly what all good marketing does. 
    Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer



  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,845
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    my2hands said:
    14 pages for a shaving commercial? Lol
    if it isn't obvious, the commercial got the conversation, a very important conversation, started. exactly what all good marketing does. 
    I enjoyed it!
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,960
    I wonder if Trump uses Gillette blades?
    hippiemom = goodness
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,845
    cincybearcat said:
    I wonder if Trump uses Gillette blades?
    Definitely a Remington cordless type of guy.

Categories