I'm a little surprised that Schacher hasn't come out denying that she filed this incomprehensible garbage.

You do not need a passport and a security check to travel to Nevada or Arizona, both of whom have significantly more lax gun laws that does California. This is why state-by-state correlations are not an accurate way to look at it.

The knife comparison is wholly inapposite. What's the fatality rate on those knife attacks? Are children accidentally killing other children with a knife they found in dad's nightstand on a regular basis? Did an uncle accidentally stab his nephew with a knife he believed to be unloaded? Did a guy wander into an…

Well, a shovel and a friggin' sans-barrel AK kit. I'm sure those would be legal under stricter gun control, right?

The Lion King.

I understand the philosophy behind giving teams draft pick compensation for departing free agents, but the NBA has taken it way, way too far.

Not liking to be hit on by people to whom you're not attracted doesn't make you phobic. If a lesbian did not want to go to some mostly-straight meat market because guys would hit on her, that would be totally understandable. It would not make her a misandrist or a heterophobe.

Unless that hockey player's first name is Alexander. Then you might see it all the time.

PROTIP: Not dating someone you like solely because of your fear that other people will think ill of you for doing so makes you a coward.

BobbyRush is a conservative troll who posts nothing but reductio ad absurdum versions of "liberal" positions on this site.

That kind of attitude also allows these nuts to treat "the government" as some monolithic entity instead of being a thing which is made up of people.

You can't recover on the potential for economic damages to manifest at some point. You have to have concrete, provable damages with a causal link to the false statement, or you'll be dismissed for lack of standing out of the gate. So: what's the damage done by a comment on Concourse - a comment that, as you…

It's about as attractive as the picture in the above article, right?

Actual malice subsumes reckless disregard within its definition. I did not leave it out.

I would advise no such thing, as I already stated.

I wasn't discussing defamation writ large. I was discussing the immediate case.

When a statement is so blatantly false that average people will not believe it, or when it is so easily disproven as to be brushed aside with a simple Google search (a step that any reasonable employer would take), it's hard to argue damages in any significant amount. See, you have to be able to prove tangible,…

I didn't say that there were no potential liability issues (there are always potential liability issues); I said it's not as simple as you portray it.

"What's the effect on reputation? What are the possible damages?"

You're missing an element in your definition: