General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: So last month HBO ran a documentary about a religion. They portrayed the central figure of that [View all]Chathamization
(1,638 posts)No one is defending the attack. No one. Some are also criticizing Geller to varying degrees. I for one think it's possible to say things like "Party A did something horrible, and Party B did some bad things as well." It seems that some people have a rather...dogmatic mindset, however, and respond "You think Party B did bad things, so you're saying what Party A did is OK?!"
As for how much intent matters - since that seems to be the basis of the arguments a few people made for the legal culpability of Geller, it seems like it'd be pretty important.
You're OP is basically saying, "This is the same thing that Geller did, if you ignore the fact that it doesn't have the stuff you believe made her legally culpable (and kind of squint and ignore some facts, but whatever). Therefore, you must believe that HBO is also legally culpable, right?" Because, hey, logic, how the hell does it work again?