Prominent Jewish liberal Democrats took to social media yesterday to accuse Marco Rubio of anti-Semitism for the most ridiculous and inane reason.

Senator Marco Rubio simply made the modest proposition that Soros prosecutors should be forced by the United States to actually enforce the law.

Watch:

First, it was Randi Weingarten kvetching. Remember, Randi is the head of the extremely powerful nationwide teacher’s union, the American Federation of Teachers.

Randi is not worried about whether the charges are true or not, she’s only interested in using her privilege to silence a United States Senator from the great state of Florida.

Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York City couldn’t help himself and had to join in on the fun.

Fred Guttenberg of Florida couldn’t help himself and also had to get his woke Twitter dopamine rush.

For those who don’t know, Guttenberg is the father of a child who died in Parkland. He spends most of his time standing on top of the grave of his poor, beloved child to try to get Democrats to notice him on Twitter.

Prominent liberals throwing around major accusations of anti-Semitism for no good reason? Hmmm, that seems like a day that ends in ‘y’.

Enough is enough. It’s time to do away with these baseless claims of ’tism and ‘cism and ‘xism (anti-Semitism and racism and sexism). Revolver has a modest proposal to up the ante on defamtation law when it comes to accusations of ’tism and ‘cism.

Want to strike a blow against cancel culture and the power of the media? Then don’t simply complain, do something: Make it legally risky to throw around the allegations that are a canceller’s bread and butter. Expand defamation law, and make clear that bogus accusations of being a “racist” or “white nationalist” are factual smears and defamatory per se.

American common law recognizes two different breeds of defamation: “Defamation per quod” and “defamation per se.” In “defamation per quod,” a false statement is not inherently damaging, and a person must demonstrate specific and concrete harms its publication caused. For instance, UVA dean Nicole Eramo’s lawsuit against Rolling Stone for portraying her as indifferent to a gang rape (which never actually happened) was a successful defamation per quod claim.

“Defamation per se” denotes statements so inherently damaging that their false utterance is presumed to hurt the target, no matter what – even if he cannot prove economic harm. The damages are simply assumed automatically. When a libel or defamation case involves statements that are defamation per se, it is substantially easier to win a case. But just as importantly, by reducing the pleading hurdles at the outset of a case, defamation per se makes it much easier to hold a defendant’s feet to the fire in discovery — for example, by demanding all Slack or Journolist logs pertaining to the smear.

Traditionally, four types of false allegations have been considered severe enough that they constitute defamation per se:

  • Claiming a person was involved in criminal activity
  • Claiming that a person was unethical or incompetent in their professional conduct
  • Claiming a person has some kind of contagious or loathsome disease.
  • Claiming a woman is unchaste or has otherwise engaged in sexual misconduct (Yes, in an age of slut pride parades, questioning woman’s chastity is defamatory per se. Historically, this tort was only available for women, though many jurisdictions now allow it for men also)

It’s time for this list to expand. Today, there is no false accusation thrown around more freely, and with greater harm, than the claim that a person is a “racist,” “white nationalist,” or “white supremacist.” It’s time that our courts adapted accordingly. America’s courts should adopt the standard that falsely accusing someone of being a racist, or of being a white nationalist, is per se defamation.

Read the Whole Thing: “How GOP Legislatures Can Copy Johnny Depp and Defang the Lying Press Tomorrow With One Simple Trick”

Here’s Dinesh explaining our modest proposal: