97
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2025
97 points (100.0% liked)
Not The Onion
18145 readers
1300 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
And when such evidence is provided, Owens & co will move the goalposts and claim how it isn't sufficient evidence.
I look forward to MAGA mansplaining to us all how "being a woman is not just about two X chromosomes"
🏳️⚧️🏳️⚧️🏳️⚧️
They’ve been doing it since the Olympics (if not earlier), the female boxer who looked insufficiently female
Of course they will. It reminds me of the Chappele’s Show skit about what kind of evidence he would need to actually believe a black man is guilty. We’re going to need Trump to personally watch her pee while lactating, with Steve Bannon, Ivanka, and Charlie Kirk present as witnesses.
Yeah except this is a court case. Like, make no mistake, she's gonna try to weasel around all this, but the evidence isn't for her to decide, it's for the court to say. Like, it's blatantly obvious that Owens has a clear disregard for the truth, but this evidence is being presented to the court to establish the actual truth that Macron is afab and sufficiently endosex as to not have this be a reasonable question. Owens will be free to disbelieve it if she likes, but if the court says that given the evidence there is no way a reasonable person party to this evidence can disbelieve this without a gross disregard for the truth then Owens can still be legally barred from saying it.
They should fucking bankrupt her, not just prevent her repeating the libel.
Given that they aren't going to cut out her tongue, presumably the plan is to bankrupt her with fines when she predictably continues repeating libel
Well yes, this is aiming to go a similar route to Alex Jones and Sandy Hook. You start with defamation and fines and as they keep ignoring the court's demand that they stop you keep increasing punishment
That’s now how the legal discovery process works