[–] 3 points 1 week ago (1 child)

There is separate sections for personal damages (to help you for the harm they caused) and punitive damages (preventthem doing it again). Depending on the type of case / location, the 70+m might just be what they're asking for but whoever decides the actual amount (judge in a bench trial, jury otherwise) gets to put whatever they deem fit.

The reason for asking for a ton of money up front in the case is that you can prime the judge or jury into what you think the case is worth and they'll likely go down from there; if you only ask for $1, they may only give you $1

In this case the majority of the damages are punitive but there is substantial personal damages too (i think ~25M personal ~45M punitive). They will make the case on what was libel / slander / defamation and the consequences to the judge and separately justify why they think the amount they suggest is appropriate. If the judge/jury believe they're correct that it is defamation, they may get a blank box to enter the amount to grant.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 11 points 2 weeks ago

    He has a large support base, particularly reaching young men that would likely have otherwise gone down the alt right/redpill pipeline. He also appeals to some of the older republican voters who watch his actual content and not just clips because the majority of the content is responding to arguments on the merit of the argument and evidence, even if his takes are sometimes questionable and there are some outrageous clippable moments. Republicans view this as someone coming in and eating their lunch.

    Democrats view it as someone easily achieving the success in converting nonvoters and republicans that they wished to achieve without actually changing their policy and hate him the same, attacking anyone left of them harder than they attack republicans. In doing so they also provide more ammunition to the republicans and republican media to try and paint him negatively, sometimes leaning into outright slander and libel (e.g. purposefully taking a clip of him reading someones comment then arguing against it, but clipping just the reading part to make it seem like he thinks that)

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 12 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

    The current manual (which would probably be revised since it was last updated in the 1940s) calls for tying them up on a pole so they'd have to crucify him to get him standing upright

    The officer charged with execution will... Cause a post with proper rings placed therein for securing the prisoner in an upright position to be erected at the place of execution.... After a reasonable time, he will order the sergeant of the execution party to secure the prisoner to the post and to place the hood over his head. Then the medical officer will place the target over the prisoner's heart

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • view more: next ›