Glad the free speech folks are in charge

[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.

[Jolly]

Remind me again ...At what point do they put you in jail during a civil case?

[jon-nyc]

Remind me again, lawfare fanboi, is imprisonment the only life altering punishment that exists?

[Jolly]

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

Remind me again, lawfare fanboi, is imprisonment the only life altering punishment that exists?

It's number one on the charts with a bullet. In some countries, literally.

Right now, you're hyperventilating over anything Trump might do. When he has the FBI raid Biden's home, when he uses the Justice Department like a rapier against a political opponent and his supporters, when the Trump White House colludes with local DA's across the country to bring bogus charges -charges sometimes created out of bootstrapping dissimilar laws together in legal pretzel logic - you'll have a point.

As for some of the current civil litigation by Trump against the media... I've spoken about Sullivan many, many times. It's bad law. It should have been overturned years ago. Politicians and public figures should enjoy the same standards for libel and defamation.

[Jolly]

Speaking of lawfare, here's the House report...

https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/final-report-weaponization-federal-government

[jon-nyc]

Nope, I’m just calling you out on your hypocrisy.

[Jolly]

If you equate fairness with hypocrisy, so be it.

[jon-nyc]

Yeah, right.

[Jolly]

Yeah. Right.

[jon-nyc]

I guess it depends on your definition of fairness. Like if it includes billionaires filing expensive but frivolous lawsuits against middle class women in Iowa.

[Jolly]

Normally, a person would say that's a crappy outlier poll and carry on.

But no, because of an election shot through with murkiness, bad practices and simple outright cheating, highly unusual acts become highly suspect. Get used to it. Much like Dingy Harry's disregard for long-standing Senate rules, Dems have shifted the paradigm.

THIS is the new reality. You may not like it, but you're going to live with it, and probably die with it. As will I.

If Trump has one over-reaching redeeming quality, it's as a catalyst. Maybe it's a reaction that's not for the best, but a lot of times, the end result is good. The end of overt election interference is good. The end of election cheating is good. The end of lawfare is good. The end of Justice Department persecution is good. The end of the "basement strategy" is good. The end of Sullivan will be wonderful.

You see no good, because of hate.

Well, as mama said, you've got the same pants to get glad in. On January 20th, Donald J. Trump will become the 47th POTUS.

The President of the United States and the President of Jon.

Enjoy!