Are we really going to allow this?

Question

This question is disgusting. It is an afront to any attempts at civility. The idea of comparing a President of the United States, speaking to a crowd of his supporters in the open daylight, to a criminal boss ordering illegal acts behind closed door is beyond the pale.

It is nothing short of lunacy to even contemplate this possibility. The only intention of this question can be to publish a smear. This was done by an experienced user of the site, who can, therefore, be considered well familiar with the standards and practices of this site.

If this stands, civility is gone.

Answer 1

Granted, the title of that question – Would Trump's “mafia don” defence work in court? – could be perceived as inflammatory or defamatory. But it is not actually defamatory: it is hyperbole or "rhetorical flair" that, given the substance of the question, I think makes it a great title, and one that is consistent with Stack Exchange standards and practices.

The question itself is arguably good, and it is written in a way that invites good answers. It begins with a very public scenario and then relates that to a more extreme and abstract hypothetical that produces an on-topic question. (Without that abstraction the question could be seen as soliciting prognostications on a real-world trial, which would be off-topic.)

The problem, as illustrated by the question here, is that the public scenario involving the U.S. President has been highly politicized, and the author of the question in question did not take pains to avoid triggering partisans to that public spectacle. But the author did not accuse the President of incitement: Congress did.

The author of that question gave a reasonably objective summary of the accusations levied by Congress, and then related that summary to a more salient hypothetical involving a "mafia don." The analogy is illustrative, not gratuitous. I don't see the analogy as lunatic. If the analogy is flawed or logically inappropriate, that can be dealt with in answers.

---

I should point out that I'm a moderator, and in that capacity my goal is to keep things here running smoothly and in-line with the community rules and guidelines. The Meta question here is fair: the asker argued that that post crossed the line of civility we strive to maintain. My answer here explains that I don't see that post as a violation. (But I'm only one of the moderators – any of the others can choose to weigh in or disagree and step in to take some action on the post.)

Now, as a moderator I don't exactly have the last word on this: As of this moment three users with sufficient rep have voted to close that question. Two more and it will be closed. Furthermore, if it draws enough negative attention that it becomes unduly disruptive one of us moderators may step in and take some measures to moderate it – even if we don't personally think it has crossed a line. But we do try to be moderate in our moderation ;)

Answer 2

The idea of comparing a President of the United States

It is a mistake for you to sacralize officers and politicians. Others on LawSE make that mistake when I point out the moral shortcomings of lawyers and judges apropos of what an OP asks. Whenever possible I make sure I include sources to allow the audience verify those shortcomings, but some users take offense nonetheless (even though my remarks have absolutely nothing to do with those users).

Posts regarding controversial public figures are bound to be controversial or, as you say in your other post, inflammatory. The explicit reference to Trump in the title should alert you that that post is likely one of them. Therefore, when deciding to know the contents of such posts, you should be prepared beforehand in terms of sensitivity and not take offense where there is none.

The OP's wording in that question is not defamatory anyway. His only statements of fact (whether literal or in substance) are in the sense of "Trump uses ambiguous language such as [...]". Other than that, the OP made it clear that the term "mafia don" (which constitutes hyperbole, as feetwet explained) is his subjective formulation of an analogy. He did not resort to tricky phrasing. Instead, he articulated his post in a way that the audience can readily distinguish between his subjective depiction and the acts he attributes to Trump. That clarity preempts a "finding" of defamation.

If anything, you are at risk of liability for defamation of that OP. Your statement "It is nothing short of lunacy to even contemplate this possibility" is explicit enough in attributing to him "an impairment of any one or more of the faculties of the mind" (see entry for lunacy, Black's Law Dictionary) and consequently that he is "[a] person of deranged or unsound mind; [...] one who possessed reason, but through disease, grief, or other cause has lost it" (see entry for lunatic, Id.). This is another reason why you should preemptively avoid certain posts altogether if you are too sensitive about their topic.

Sugarcoating and political correctness are easy to demand from others, but your post reflects that you yourself are having a much harder time practicing either.

Answer 3

It's not a violation of any policy

Stack Exchange's terms deal with Hate Content, Defamation, and Libel - the question is not any of those. A President of the United States is a public figure and the bar for defamation and libel on such people is really, really high. It requires actual malice on the part of the defamer and that is simply absent from the question.

Nor is it a violation of the Code of Conduct because, AFAIK the former President is not a member of Stack Exchange and even if he was, those question was not directed at him personally. This policy is about how SE users relate to one another; not about things that might upset an uninvolved third-person.

I appreciate that you are offended by this but a public figure's public actions are, well, public and are open to criticism - it goes with the job.