Fox News suspends Pirro
- Thread starter UncleMark
- Start date
That's all a fascinating assessment of hoot's attempts to engage you in discussion.
I would really like to hear @CO. Hoosier speak about his thoughts on Devin Nunes' lawsuit.
https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/18/devin-nunes-twitter-lawsuit/
https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/18/devin-nunes-twitter-lawsuit/
I'm still hoping to see Sweaty Nunes brought up on obstruction of charges for that half-assed russian influence investigation.
Plus this is either satire or accurate: “Nunes is ‘not ALL about deceiving people. He’s also about betraying his country and colluding with Russians'
I assume both views would screw up his argument.
Thank you for quoting me, Zeke. My posts have a habit of disappearing around here.
Again, I suspect it’s those knuckleheaded Russians.
Also, you make Stolls point very well. I’m not a Trumpster, I’m a conservative, which I’ve stated repeatedly here. But in you folks minds, there is no difference.
There isn’t when you are constantly supporting him and rationalizing his behavior. I can give you a handful of names here who actually are conservative but do not support him. That’s the difference and they get treated differently.
Cyber civil rights is a legal thing these days. Most of the legal activity has been by legislation directed at revenge porn and cyber bullying. I think this has all been to define crimes. I don't know if new civil causes of action have been created. I am unaware of any cyber liability against a platform using the common law. (Where is Benjamin Cardozo when we need him?) Part of Nicholas Sandmann's suits will involve the comments posted on platforms provided by WaPo and CNN. But those claims will piggy-back on the defamation claims against those entities. Twitter is different. Wherever the law goes with this, I'm pretty sure a NYT v. Sullivan standard will enter the picture which will make a case by Nunes very difficult.
Why do you ask? Are you concerned about your posting style?
"But in you folks minds, there is no difference."
I'd say Aloha (and a few others) are the antithesis of that assertion...
There are more than a few traditional "Conservative voices" who are not afraid to voice their displeasure with Trump. Jennifer Rubin,George Will, Joe Scarborough, Michael Steele and Nicolle Wallace all spring to mind...
Rubin and Will are long time Conservative columnists, Steele was head of the RNC,Wallace served in the Bush WH,and Scarborough was elected to Congress as a Ruby Red Conservative from FL as part of the "Gingrich Revolution". All of them have impeccable "Conservative bonafides"...
Last edited:
I was thinking more along the lines of whether Nunes appreciates the principles of free expression. But whatever.Cyber civil rights is a legal thing these days. Most of the legal activity has been by legislation directed at revenge porn and cyber bullying. I think this has all been to define crimes. I don't know if new civil causes of action have been created. I am unaware of any cyber liability against a platform using the common law. (Where is Benjamin Cardozo when we need him?) Part of Nicholas Sandmann's suits will involve the comments posted on platforms provided by WaPo and CNN. But those claims will piggy-back on the defamation claims against those entities. Twitter is different. Wherever the law goes with this, I'm pretty sure a NYT v. Sullivan standard will enter the picture which will make a case by Nunes very difficult.
Why do you ask? Are you concerned about your posting style?
I hope you’re following Devin Nunes’ cow on Twitter. Hilarity abounds.
Free speech seems to be a very malleable concept for the current incarnation of the pub party (Trump Republicans, if you will). It’s been used to assault the separation of church and state, to destroy our campaign finance norms and even to deny equal rights. It’s become the right’s catch all, especially when it comes to court precedent.
And, when it allows them to rail against “fake news”, they LOVE free speech. But when it is used to ridicule them (often with good reason), it’s somehow not OK. If Nunes is successful in his suit, it’ll undermine our current understanding of the 1st amendment. Personally, I’d love to see him run up against a motion for summary judgment, and also sanctions for bringing a frivolous suit. Lawsuits aren’t cheap, because they require attorneys. Especially for an elected official that has sworn to uphold the constitution, this suit is way out of bounds.
It must be really hard to call yourself a republican these days. Folks like Nunes are embarrassing. Yet, somehow I’d bet he has a pretty high approval rating among the flock. This suit is very Trumpian in nature- so therefore most of the pub party will support it.
Good frickin’ grief. The relationship between the first amendment and claims for defamation were looked and resolved many decades ago. The first amendment does not bar a damage claim for defaming people. Period! What are you even talking about here? I know Nunes is a public figure and the law deals with that too by making his burden of proof more difficult.
I don’t know if he has a case or not. But I do know that trying to turn a damage claim into a political “thing” just cuz the plaintiff is a Republican is BS.
Last edited:
He doesn’t have a case. Zero (under the Sullivan standard).
And, one his claims has been proven to be false (the claim about how Twitter shows or hides what you see).
His lawsuit is basically about him being butthurt, and instead of sucking it up, he decided to harm others by filing suit.
That’s why I said I wish that he could be sanctioned for bringing such a frivolous claim.
So, either he’s maliciously suing people in an effort to shut them up, or he’s truly trying to change our defamation law, by appealing this up to the Supreme Court.
Either way, his actions are BS. And downright hostile to the first amendment- perhaps the single greatest foundational element of our country.
And, re: the first part of my post, was citizens united not framed in terms of defending free speech? Point being, pubs have pushed for an expansive view of the first amendment- until they are the ones being criticized. They effectively want it both ways.
I know many pubs (or former pubs) don’t approve of Nunes & Trump re: attempting to stifle criticism.
However, the reality is that they are two of the faces of the party right now. This is your current Republican Party, ladies and gentlemen. The only way to make it change course is to speak out when this type of crap happens. So far, not a single federal pub politician has condemned Nunes’s lawsuit.
I’m curious CO- how do you feel about Nunes’s suit? Is it legitimate? It’s been a LONG time since I took con law 1 & 2 in law school, but on its face this is the very definition of a frivolous case.
I
Did you read the thread? I already posted about this.
I think your little hissy fit about Nunes’ case is because Nunes is a Republican.
Did you read the thread? I already posted about this.
I think your little hissy fit about Nunes’ case is because Nunes is a Republican.
Then you would be wrong.
Anyone that brings a suit like this should be ridiculed. It’s ridiculous.
Did you read the complaint? There is some terribly vile stuff directed at Nunes that would be libel per se for non public figures. It shows what a sewer Twitter is and no descent person should defend that stuff notwithstanding the right to say it.
Nunes has a real dipstick for a lawyer, so there is that.
I guess Keon Brooks can sue, Cindy McCain, and basically anyone else in the world. I see Trump is signing some freedom of speech bill today. I guess that means Devin’s Cow can say what he wants, NFL players can kneel, etc. He probably doesn’t know it works both ways.
NFL players? Trump? What are you talking about?
My post and Nunes claims have nothing to do with neither.
I think the point is the hypocrisy with how the current incarnation of the pub party (party of Trump) treats freedom of speech. That was my point earlier in the thread as well.
Notice I didn’t say that was necessarily about you, or how you view it. The Trump era has really messed up the pub party. And Nunes is one the leaders within it.
Well. I’m posting about a particular case and you are taking that opportunity to check off your routine political talking points.
Whatever.
Similar threads
