Pritt was initially elected to the state House as a Democrat in 2022 but changed his political affiliation to Republican the year after. Republican Party chair Elgine McArdle said in a statement that Pritt had realized that the “Democratic Party of today is not the Democratic Party that our parents grew up with.”
State Republicans have filed numerous bills seeking to restrict gender-affirming care for transgender minors, ban trans student-athletes from playing on sports teams that match their gender identity, and nullify cities’ non-discrimination ordinances.
In 2023, Pritt voted for a ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth. State Sen. Mike Azinger ® said that the bill was needed because gender is “self-evident” and that the bill was needed to stop doctors who want to “chop up a child,” even though gender affirming surgery is almost never performed on minors and the bill banned non-surgical interventions.
Why is it always the ones you most suspect?
Rape is also a crime that someone must be convicted for. Imagine the worst case scenario where they call him out as a rapist, he’s found not guilty with all charges dropped. Now there’s a VERY solid case of libel and an endless stream of conservative lawyers ready to try and take down a website they already hate.
Like, it’s irritating but surely we all see how a news source would rather be safe than so-sorry-we’re-laying-everyone-off? Can we not see that journalists have to be very careful not open themselves up to litigation by people with way more money and power than them?
They used “allegedly having sex”. They can just as easily use “allegedly raped”.
Your argument has already fallen apart anyway. The site updated the title to “GOP lawmaker arrested after allegedly sexually abusing a middle schooler in a classroom”.
People spoke up and they changed it. How about we don’t try to quiet people down when we’re rightfuly calling for language to be updated to reflect reality?
Maliciousness is a major component of defamation. It would be easy to prove they published information before a verdict, but the motivation to publish would have to be malicious. Absent some statement by the publisher that they would do anything to destroy that person they despise, just covering a legitimate news story in a normal way wouldn’t be considered malicious.