Glad the free speech folks are in charge

[jon-nyc]

I have a feeling this is going to be a very long thread by 2029

[George K]

@jon-nyc said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:

“The closer you get to getting money for your false statement, the more likely it is to be outside the First Amendment, and the more you're getting a vote based on it, the more likely it is to be protected by the First Amendment.”

Well put.

[Mik]

I'm with Jon. Unless there is evidence we have not seen this will get tossed. It could just be an anomaly.

[Doctor Phibes]

Apart from his more devout followers, does anybody think this sort of thing makes Trump look good?

[George K]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:

does anybody think this sort of thing makes Trump look good?

You know what's worse than a sore loser?

A sore winner.

[Doctor Phibes]

@George-K said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:

does anybody think this sort of thing makes Trump look good?

You know what's worse than a sore loser?

A sore winner.

I was going to say a sore asshole.

[George K]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:

I was going to say a sore asshole.

Does he do buttsecks? I had no idea.

ETA: NTTAWWTIYKWIM

[jon-nyc]

From the Serious Trouble podcast:

Josh Barro:
But now Trump is suing and saying that her poll was not just wrong, but it was a violation of Iowa consumer protection law, that it was misleading the public by being such a wrong poll. And so that's not a thing, right?

Ken White:
It's not, and this is pure petulance by Trump. This poll really got under his skin. He got really upset by it. He grumbled over it for weeks, and now he sees this opportunity to strike back, and it's part of a general narrative that pleases his base of going after the media. But no, using consumer protection laws to go after political speech I think is not going to satisfy any First Amendment analysis and shouldn't. So the Supreme Court has made it clear that you can't just by labeling something false take it outside of First Amendment protection — that it's really only outside of First Amendment protection when it's combined with things that make it actual fraud, like trying to get money from somebody, stuff like that. And absent a gigantic rearrangement on the Supreme Court on this issue, I don't think it's at all plausible that they're going to uphold this.

Now, to me, ironically, this is what some resistance people, what some very anti-Trump people have been asking for years. We've got to police the media and get all the fake news and the disinformation and all that because it's defrauding the public. We've got to use traditional fraud and consumer protection measures to stop all this propaganda from the right. And this is, well, this is what it looks like, lawsuits like this suing under consumer protection laws because you didn't like a poll and you could see how broadly this could work because it doesn't have to be a poll. It could be anything. It could be a story about the Trump campaign that he believes was false. It could be anything if you accept this theory that it is a violation of consumer protection law to give an opinion to the public based on your political analysis that turns out to be wrong. So I think it's very frivolous. I think it's going to have a really hard time even at the motion to dismiss stage and we'll see.

[Jolly]

All part of the election interference reform.

Go get 'em, Trump!

[jon-nyc]

‘Don’t publish polls that are unfavorable to me’ is election interference reform?

Sounds more like an election interference mandate.

[Doctor Phibes]

@Jolly said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:

All part of the election interference reform.

Go get 'em, Trump!

And presumably, if he loses the suit, you will call for the reform of a hopelessly biased legal system.

[Jolly]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:

@Jolly said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:

All part of the election interference reform.

Go get 'em, Trump!

And presumably, if he loses the suit, you will call for the reform of a hopelessly biased legal system.

The journey of one thousand miles begins with a single step.

We do have some serious problems.

1. Journalism (the vast majority) has dived off the cliff into the cesspool of the Left and is no longer objective.
2. We have an election integrity problem. It needs fixing. Badly.
3. I've never agreed withSullivan. Politicians - as much as we hate them - should abide by the same laws that apply to the rest of us. That means all laws, including those for slander and libel.
4. That also means lawfare as a concept and as a practice, should be bludgeoned into extinction.

[89th]

@jon-nyc said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:

‘Don’t publish polls that are unfavorable to me’ is election interference reform?

Sounds more like an election interference mandate.

Not even sure why this is still being discussed. If Trump loses, the election was rigged and a fraud. If he wins, the election was fine. He's played this game his whole life.... even back to TV ratings.

[jon-nyc]

@Jolly said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:

4. That also means lawfare as a concept and as a practice, should be bludgeoned into extinction.

Prediction: Not a month will go by in the coming years that you don’t enthusiastically cheer some act of lawfare, threatened or delivered

[Jolly]

Depends on your definition of lawfare, I suspect.

[jon-nyc]

Your functional definition is ‘a Republican gets charged with something’ so yeah not by that definition.

Well there’s Liz Cheney.

Maybe your definition is ‘a maga republican gets charged for something’

[George K]

@jon-nyc said in Glad the free speech folks are in charge:

Well there’s Liz Cheney.

She's not been charged. Only accused of witness tampering and ex-parte discussions with a witness.

[jon-nyc]

Like I said threatened or delivered.

[George K]

https://reason.com/2024/12/19/trump-mounts-a-direct-assault-on-the-first-amendment-by-portraying-journalism-as-consumer-fraud/?utm_campaign=reason_brand&utm_content=&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_term=

[jon-nyc]

And of course this is the civil version of lawfare (which Jolly cheered, BTW).

Despite the fact that it’ll be DOA when it goes before a judge the process is still the punishment intimidation.

Hopefully he’ll do this in a jurisdiction with a decent anti-slapp law and maybe even get his shitbag attorneys sanctioned.