The Calumny of Appelles, Sandro Botticelli, 1494.
Robert Davi was at CPAC, engaging in the usual fist pounding, over the protection of “our very best heroes.” By that, Davi meant Trump. Really don’t see him as a tights and cape sort of person. Or any other type of hero, either.
Davi claimed that in Ancient Rome, anti-calumny laws made it “impossible to spread false rumors or lies against upstanding and virtuous political candidates” and called for such laws to be enacted in America.
“Let’s go back to Ancient Rome,” David said, “because if such laws existed today, we would see more men like Donald Trump and Mike Pence running for Congress or the Senate or the presidency and more fake reporters perhaps going to prison for the very lies they make up to commit cruel character assassination against the very best of our American heroes.”
You seem to be lacking in your understanding of Calumnia, Mr. Davi. We do have such laws, they go by defamation, libel, and slander these days. Calumnia was not a lock on striking down anyone you didn’t like, y’know. You did have to actually prove a case. Is there some sort of unwritten law which makes research of any kind, including super easy look ups bane to conservatives?
As for “hero” Trump, there’s a bit of a catch in your own philippic – upstanding and virtuous political candidates. Leaving aside the unfortunate fact that Trump is no longer a candidate, it strikes me that in order to win a case based on upstanding and virtuous character and behaviour, you’d need evidence of that saintliness first. There’s a whole fucktonne of evidence when it comes to Trump, and none of it points, in any way, to being upstanding or virtuous. Quite the opposite. The truth can often be cruel and unkind, that doesn’t make it less true.
As to how Pence got in there, I don’t know. He’s no hero either, being a despicable person, however, he’s been a successful politician, which reinforces the fact that being an awful human being is no bar to political success. There are a lot of awful people out there, and it seems they do most of the voting. Anyroad, you don’t get to declare reporters fake, and call for them to maybe go to prison – under calumnia, that would get you in trouble, Mr. Davi. That would also get you in trouble with current laws. Well, it would have prior to the Tiny Tyrant. Calumnia did not mean “my side gets to do all this evil shit and their side doesn’t”, which seems to be more what you’re advocating.
Via RWW.
Davi’s like James Woods, he seems to be almost like a real life version of some of the characters he’s played.
Anti calumny laws serve to protect the powerful from legitimate complaints about their behavior. I can understand why Trump would want such protections. But a Roman of that era would probably respond that unimpeachable virtue was a better defense. And I’d agree!
… Trump is no longer a candidate…
Having filed for re-election a few hours after his inauguration, Trump is, legally, a candidate.
This not only allows him to hold private rallies such as the recent blusterfest in Melbourne, Florida, it provides a handy-dandy legal way for anyone who so chooses to throw money at him. He likes that.
Pierce, ah yes, you’re right. I forgot that. Or blocked it out.
Conservatives have completely fucked priorities when it comes to the First Amendment. Bigots being able to harass people on social media and get invited to college campuses to spew intellectually bankrupt drivel aren’t important to maintaining democracy. The press being able to criticize people without fearing litigation and citizens being able to protest the government’s actions are important.
Uhm, “truth” is a pretty good defence against the charge of libel
Well thank all the heavens for small mercies, neh?
1) Roman anti-calumny laws had nothing to do with the spreading of “false rumors or lies;” they addressed malicious prosecutions. You could still say whatever you wanted about a candidate,* provided you weren’t making a formal accusation in a courtroom.
*if you were sufficiently rich, aristocratic and well-connected to survive when the candidate and his supporters retaliated, of course.
2) Anti-calumny laws had very little practical impact on the amount of rumor-mongering. 90% of Roman politicians were regularly accused of being adulterous incestuous cross-dressing pedophiles who embezzled public funds and had all their enemies murdered. Hell, 90% of Roman emperors were accused of that stuff, even if the accusations weren’t usually made to their faces. Gossip is hard to squash.
3) Seriously, who advises a modern democracy to “go back to Ancient Rome?” Aside from unabashed fascists?