Trump Adds To His Anti-First Amendment Legacy In Threatening To Sue Clinton For Campaign Ads
from the have-you-read-the-bill-of-rights dept
Donald Trump keeps insisting that he’s a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights, but he appears to have skipped right past the 1st Amendment. We’ve discussed his stated plans to “open up” libel laws and his regular threats to sue newspapers for reporting on him in ways he dislikes. Trevor Timm, of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, recently tried to count how many times Trump had threatened to sue the media since his campaign began (ignoring all the threats from before the campaign). Turns out it’s difficult to count them all:
I had intended to quantify how many journalists or news commentators Trump has threatened to sue over his lifetime, but that quickly turned into a fool?s errand. A simple Google search of ?Trump threatens to sue? will return an overwhelming number of stories. In the past decade alone, he?s sued a former Times journalist who wrote a book about him that he later admitted he didn?t even read; he?s threatened to sue former View host Rosie O?Donnell for allegations that have been shown over and over again during this campaign to be correct; he?s sued HBO?s Bill Maher over a joke bet that involved proving he was not, in fact, born an orangutan.
He threatened to sue a journalist at the Village Voice as far back as 1979, and he actually sued a newspaper as early as 1984: the Chicago Tribune, for calling building plans of his ?aesthetically lousy.? My personal favorite was his threat to sue The Onion, the popular satirical news site.
He also left out the non-journalists that Trump has similarly threatened with lawsuits — including some of the competitors for the Republican Presidential nomination:
I did not count the nine news organizations Melania Trump, the Republican candidate?s wife, also threatened to sue, nor the Daily Mail along with a small blogger, both of whom she actually sued in September for publishing stories containing rumors about her past.
Nor did I count when Trump threatened to sue an artist for creating a hilariously unflattering portrait of him, a conservative group called Club For Growth for running campaign ads that Trump did not like, former Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz for running negative ads against him, or former Republican presidential candidate John Kasich and a Super PAC supporting Kasich for the same?all of which would have serious First Amendment implications. Another time, he seemed to threaten Amazon founder Jeff Bezos with tax audits for owning The Washington Post, which has been critical of Trump. I?m not including this in my count either.
You can then read the still quite long list of examples that Timm did eventually count.
But apparently Trump isn’t done threatening to sue his election opponents over protected speech either. He’s now moved on and is threatening to sue the Clinton campaign over the “nasty” ads they’re running against him:
?And then I saw today … a commercial where ? it was really a nasty commercial, totally made up, about me with vets,? Trump said.
?There is nobody that loves the vets more or respects the vets more. They?re spending hundreds of millions of dollars on false commercials, and it?s a disgrace. So what we?ll do, I guess we?ll sue them. Let?s sue them.?
“I guess we’ll sue them. Let’s sue them.” Remember, again, that Trump has happily admitted in the past to filing bogus defamation lawsuits because he knows it will cost a lot to defend against them. It’s one thing to be thin-skinned. It’s another to continue to trample on the First Amendment while running to be the person in charge of upholding it.
Filed Under: defamation, donald trump, first amendment, free speech, threats
Comments on “Trump Adds To His Anti-First Amendment Legacy In Threatening To Sue Clinton For Campaign Ads”
So basically he is a loose cannon.
Re: Re:
A cannon takes time to reload, a loose machine gun seems more accurate.(A GAU-8 perhaps)
Re: Re: No…
The GAU-8 is far too accurate. ;]
Re: Re:
He should put in a loose cannon then have the fuse lit.
Not a License to Commit Offenses
Remember the First Amendment is not a license to commit slander. If the ads are truthful, then they are protected.
Re: Not a License to Commit Offenses
If Clinton’s ads are truthful, then I agree they are protected.
But many of Clinton’s ads use Trumps OWN WORDS.
Therefore, they cannot possibly be true. 🙂 And are subject to a lawsuit.
Re: Not a License to Commit Offenses
There’s a much higher standard to meet for celebrities like Trump when suing for slander.
Throw in the fact that it happened during a presidential campaign, and I’d say he stands zero chance of ever winning.
Plus, there’s a reason why campaigns never sue each other for lies, 1) the lawsuit would never be settled till after the campaign, and 2) the lawsuit would just bring more attention to the lies.
Re: Re: Not a License to Commit Offenses
There’s probably another reason.
Discovery.
Unless you’re pure as the new fallen snow, you don’t know what the other side will learn in discovery. Or, rather, you do know, and therefore want to avoid this.
Re: Re: Not a License to Commit Offenses
Also, 3) the great many lies told by the litigant candidate would be exposed to a great degree in the process.
Re: Not a License to Commit Offenses
It’s not slander or defamation when it is true, in this country anyways … for now. I’m sure there are those out there that would like to change that, some have even publicly stated their desire to do so.
Please refrain for doing any articles about the election. It is bad enough that everywhere else feels the need. Don’t start here.
Re: Re:
This is not an article about the election. But about freedom of speech. A subject TechDirt frequently covers. And this is about freedom of speech during a critical time that will soon pass.
Re: Re:
Please refrain for doing any articles about the election. It is bad enough that everywhere else feels the need. Don’t start here.
We don’t cover politics, but we do cover policy, and that often includes politicians and those running for office. We also regularly cover the First Amendment and free speech issues.
This is firmly within the realm of what we cover and is not, actually, “about the election.”
Re: Re: Re:
Then I wont need to come back to your website until next January.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m sure he’s devastated.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What, you’re taking off for three months? But you just got back after being gone for fifteen!
At least, judging by your apparent belief that this is the first time Techdirt has covered a story about a frivolous, anti-First Amendment lawsuit threat by Donald Trump.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
January of which year?
Even that might be too soon.
You never know when one of those policy issues may get coverage.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You won’t be missed.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Have fun!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
While you’re at it, bring Whatever along with you. And when you return next January, don’t let him tag along…
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, that’s how it works. You don’t get to demand that a website cater to you personally, but you can go and read articles elsewhere that do interest you more.
Plus, there’s lots of articles that don’t interest me on most sites I visit. You know what I do? I scroll past it to the next one, not complain that I don’t like the subject matter.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Ditto. I’m not a gamer but it’s Mike’s blog, not mine. I skip those posts and move on to the ones I’m actually interested in. This is a particularly interesting one and if Tim hadn’t made DannyB’s funny comment First Word, I’d have asked for it.
Good one, Danny.
Re: Re: As usual, you're full of shit...
Actually, it is, because every time you bring up said election (or policy), the majority of the article is always anti-Trump (and thus pro-Clinton). You’re not actually fooling anybody, Mike. Perhaps one day, you’ll have your lips surgically removed from her asshole.
Re: Re: Re: As usual, you're full of shit...
Hm, let’s see if that’s true.
plugs clinton site:techdirt.com into DuckDuckGo
Okay, first match: Clinton Campaign Happily Using Strong End-To-End Encryption To Communicate; Will They Let The Rest Of Us Use It Too?
Lambastes Clinton for holding her own communications to a different standard than everybody else; mocks her “nerd harder” approach to encryption. Trump’s name is mentioned once, in a quote from a linked article.
Well, okay, your claim’s already disproven, but let’s go ahead and look at the second match.
FBI Publishes Clinton Email Investigation Documents; More Bad News On Documents Mishandling, FOIA Compliance
Huh. That really doesn’t sound pro-Clinton at all. Trump’s name is not mentioned.
Well, that one’s not by Masnick; maybe you only meant Masnick writes exclusively pro-Clinton articles? Let’s check the next one. Ooh, it’s by Masnick!
Hillary Clinton To Silicon Valley: To Silence Terrorists, Nerd Harder, Nerds!
First sentence is, “With the explosive devices in NY and NJ from this past weekend, Hillary Clinton has decided, once again, that it’s time to blame Silicon Valley for not doing more to magically stop terrorists from terroristing.” Trump’s name does not appear in the article.
Let’s see…the next two are about Clinton’s support for TPP and how she’s obviously lying when she claims to have changed her position; the one after that is called Hillary Clinton’s Intellectual Property Platform: Too Vague & Confusing, and then there are a bunch about her e-mail scandal.
tl;dr you’re a moron.
Re: Re: Re:2 As usual, you're full of shit...
Waitwaitwait… are you saying that TechDirt is pro-Trump? Now I’m confused.
Re: Re: Re:3 As usual, you're full of shit...
1 or 0, I don’t know!
The 11111100000 election for ya!
Re: Re: Re:3 As usual, you're full of shit...
I can’t tell if you’re joking.
Please tell me you’re joking?
Re: Re: Re: "You like dogs right?" "No." "Oh, then you must like cats." "No." "But... those are the only two options."
Ah good false dichotomy. Thad already covered the whole ‘TD clearly supports Hilary’ angle, with a quick search showing multiple articles critical of her, so I’ll focus on the bit about how any ‘anti-Trump’ article is ‘pro-Hilary’.
Being critical of A does not mean you’re showing support of B, anymore than being critical of B means you’re showing support of A. If you believe that any ‘anti-Trump’ article is ‘pro-Hilary’, then clearly the multiple articles critical of Hilary are evidence of a pro-Trump stance by TD, right?
This will probably shock you, but it is in fact entirely possible to be critical of A without supporting B because, and here’s the crazy part, there are more than two possible options.
Re: Re: Re:2 "You like dogs right?" "No." "Oh, then you must like cats." "No." "But... those are the only two options."
True. And even if somebody is a Clinton supporter, it’s still possible to criticize her, just as surely as if somebody’s a Trump supporter they can still disagree with him on some things. (I hope to God most people don’t agree with Trump on everything.)
Re: Re: Re:3 "You like dogs right?" "No." "Oh, then you must like cats." "No." "But... those are the only two options."
Have you seen what happens to people at trump rallies when they “disagree” ?
Re: Re: Re: As usual, you're full of shit...
“…the majority of the article is always anti-Trump (and thus pro-Clinton).”
It takes a staggering lack of basic thinking skills to claim an anti-Trump position must be pro-Clinton. But since you’re ok with making dumb leaps of logic, can we assume that since you’re critical of this article then you must be against the First Amendment and free speech? What’s your beef with that?
Re: Re: Re: As usual, you're full of shit...
Actually, it is, because every time you bring up said election (or policy), the majority of the article is always anti-Trump (and thus pro-Clinton).
Uh, no. We’ve criticized both candidates pretty equally for saying stupid stuff.
You’re not actually fooling anybody, Mike. Perhaps one day, you’ll have your lips surgically removed from her asshole.
Can you present a single shred of evidence that I support Clinton? I don’t recall ever saying anything supportive of her.
You seem to be one of those idiots who thinks that if you don’t support Trump 100% you must support Hillary 100%. Go away, you’re an idiot.
This site is not about politics. It’s about policy and civil liberties and innovation. I criticize people from both parties equally when they say something or do something stupid. I don’t give the slightest shit about the horse race tribalism that you seem to have bought into.
Don’t like it? Go away. I won’t miss you.
Re: Re: Re: As usual, you're full of shit...
So, it’s Mike’s fault that Trump is a gormless buffoon who can’t for the life of him stop himself from bungling up everything?
Re: Re: Re:2 As usual, you're full of shit...
Does this mean we’ll be seeing “Thanks, Masnick” memes all over the internet?
Re: Re: Re:
Well then you should probably do some fact checking before spitting out a bunch of rubbish. For example, finding the unedited source material that Clinton Campaign Ads use to defame Trump. All of them are edited to skew his original words and they do this constantly at every turn.
I don’t even support Trump, nor Hillary, but I can see this campaign against him is nothing less than defamation and you’d have to be far left leaning regressive to believe any of it.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you just say taking a quote out of context is defamation?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“…I can see this campaign against him is nothing less than defamation…”
You can only see that because you have no idea what defamation is.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Oh, care to explain it to me then?
Alright, apparently I’m going to have to do all of the work since TD is so ‘triggered’ by Trump that it’s affecting their journalistic integrity.
Let’s start from the beginning, line for line, shall we?
“Donald Trump keeps insisting that he’s a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights”
True: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf2STe6Cb-g
“but he appears to have skipped right past the 1st Amendment.”
He’s speaking about expanding libel laws to prosecute people who attempt to destroy the lives of others which is typically done by far left leaning regressive extremists via ‘doxing’ which is more common than you think:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5TMmxlsLN8
If anyone is more anti-first amendment than anyone, it’s the regressive left which is basically the twisted twin sister of the religious right. Which I would like to call the Columbus Affect: The only way to hit far right is to go far left…
“We’ve discussed his stated plans to “open up” libel laws and his regular threats to sue newspapers for reporting on him in ways he dislikes. “
His first citation “open up” links to one of his earlier articles which is a citation of an even earlier TD article which cites an article from The Verge:
http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/7/9869308/donald-trump-close-up-the-internet-bill-gates
Which gives no citations that link to anything Trump has actually said thus is nothing less than a baseless accusation.
The second citation links to yet another past TD article on the NY Times illegally obtaining and releasing his past tax records, which in fact is a federal crime since it falls under identity theft. One of the key resources in stealing somebody else’s identitiy is to first obtain their tax records. There is nothing in the first amendment that protects criminals from stealing your tax records. If there were, then identity theft would run beyond rampant.
However, this isn’t a case of identity theft, obviously, but yet another case of ‘doxing’. Not to mention, The Verge, Gizmodo, NYT, and Buzzfeed are notorious for not only reporting in favor of doxing those with dissenting points of view but actively engage in inciting a race war.
They’re not journalists, they’re bonafide agent provocateurs.
“Trevor Timm, of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, recently tried to count how many times Trump had threatened to sue the media since his campaign began (ignoring all the threats from before the campaign). Turns out it’s difficult to count them all:”
First of all, Trump pays out of pocket for all of his venues which gives him the right to pick and choose who may attend. All to often, regressive extremists attempt to attack him on stage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06d4t1704N8
http://www.dangerandplay.com/2016/03/12/thomas-dimassimo-i-want-to-be-a-martyr-trumps-would-be-killer-confesses/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnqyafPdAyo
And then these nut cases are glorified by the MSM for the attempt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-VO9CKhBC0
If you read his tweets, it was his intention to kill Trump for the things he says. Now that right there, is an attack on the First Amendment. But it doesn’t stop there, most regressive extremists are in fact anti-first amendment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMux_UHmpvc
TD want’s to ignore all of this and claim that ‘doxing’ and assaulting people is a first amendment right?
Get real….
—
I could keep going on and on about how bogus this entire article is but I think I’ve made my point.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
The funny thing is , despite my attack on TDs journalistic integrity, I still consider my self to be a classical liberal and despite the fact that I’m defending Trump, I still don’t support the idiot nor the pseudoliberal crony, Hillary.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
JFC you’re an idiot.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
An Ad Hom. attack, didn’t see that one coming.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
No, no.
An ad hominem attack would be “You’re an idiot; therefore you’re wrong.”
I’m saying: “You’re an idiot, and you’re also wrong.”
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Okay fine, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt but only if you point out exactly what I’m wrong about…
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Do you have link to all of your comments?
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Why don’t you ask the staff of td for my IP address, then you’ll find them.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
Or mabye they won’t…Fyi, I’m behind a VPN and frequently change my IP which means my IP from the previous comment I just made is completely different from the one I’m using now.
So ultimately, no, I can’t list all of my comments since they’re all under different IP addresses, but I’m willing to bet that some heuristic ingenuity would reveal some sort of grammatical pattern…lol!
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=trump+open+up+the+libel+laws
You’ve made a point. But we already knew that about you.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Okay, so basically you’re too lazy to rebut anything I’ve said?
I suppose that would be pretty difficult with the evidence I’ve provided, however, I admit I didn’t present evidence for every claim that I’ve made and that some of it is open to interpretation, but I’m willing to dish it out if requests are made.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I’ll bite. What point is it you are asserting that you’ve made?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I’ve made several claims and this is the best that you can do?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
You’ve made several claims, all right. You just haven’t explained how any of them are remotely relevant to Donald Trump’s repeated use of frivolous lawsuits (and even more frequent empty threats of same) to retaliate against critics.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Which ones do you believe are frivolous?
List one, and we can go from there.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Sure, I’ll bite.
No, he is not. He’s speaking about expanding libel laws to make it easier to sue journalists who write unflattering stories about him.
The quote is this:
Politico has video of him saying it.
His “open up our libel laws” line has exactly jack and shit to do with doxxing.
This is because doxxing is not libel, you doofus; libel involves making false statements. Sharing a person’s name, address, phone number, etc. is not libelous, because those are true facts. Doxxing may be harassing or threatening, and it may be illegal on those grounds. But it’s not libelous.
It also has fuck-all to do with what Trump was talking about. He mentioned newspapers and you pulled a reference to doxxing out of your ass, and then went off on a strange and irrelevant tangent about it.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
“No, he is not. He’s speaking about expanding libel laws to make it easier to sue journalists who write unflattering stories about him.”
Alright, lets start with an article by Buzzfeed since you refuse to list anything:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/donald-trump-in-2005-i-did-try-and-fuck-her-she-was-married?utm_term=.xwNRqk8aK#.sweoEVDYy
Ok, so lets move on to the citation they made of a voice recording listed by the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/2016/10/07/3b9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html
1) The person pretending to be Trump isn’t on the Bus and 2) They record Trump coming out of the bus as he’s pretending to be Trump…
How is that not defamation by the journalists if the person who’s making the recorded is not Trump yet claiming to be?
You’d have to be a complete moron to believe any of this is true. And these a$$holes do it constantly (and I’ll be glad to list a hundred others if requested…) and they are some of the most racist and unintelligent people you’ll ever meet:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c24_1466104413
This kid even puts an anti-trump protester to shame. These are the types of people you’re supporting… but I’m sure you’re well aware of it but simply don’t care.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Wait, what?
We’re talking about Trump’s comments on “opening up our libel laws.” Are you fucking with me, are you legitimately crazy, or did you click “Reply” on the wrong post?
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
I assumed you weren’t taking anything seriously anymore the moment you cited Politico which is yet another racist and bigoted publication.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
It’s a fucking video, you dipshit. It doesn’t matter what site it’s embedded on, it’s still a video of him saying the words I was quoting him as saying.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
So it upsets you that others are doing racist and bigoted things that detriment your beliefs?
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
That’s not even a sentence.
Seriously, tell me: are you trolling me, or are you just completely incoherent?
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
About that… Do try to keep up with the news of the day.
I’ll add this to the “things you’re wrong about” pile. Along with every other comment you’ve made, on this article and others. Truly impressive record. Top-notch.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
He’s speaking about expanding libel laws to prosecute people who attempt to destroy the lives of others which is typically done by far left leaning regressive extremists via ‘doxing’ which is more common than you think:
So much bullshit to unpack in that one sentence.
First, no, that’s not what he’s talking about. He’s talking, quite clearly, about opening up libel laws to prosecute reporters and publications that report on Trump in a negative way. His “open up libel law” comment came in reference to the Washington Post, who had covered Trump in an unflattering light, which IS NOT LIBEL.
Second, privacy violations have nothing to do with libel law. If you’re concerned about “doxxing” then, no, you don’t talk about opening up libel laws. And Trump was not talking about doxxing at all.
Third, “doxxing” is done on both sides pretty equally. It’s not a “left” thing or a “right” thing. And, honestly, in most cases, when anyone says “the left” does this or “the right” does that, they’re full of shit and playing “the people wearing my uniform are pure and the people wearing the other uniform are the enemy” bullshit politics. There are sleazy people on all sides who using doxxing.
Fourth, legitimate reporting on issues of public interest is not “doxxing.” If someone is running for office and making specific claims publicly, finding relevant information about them and reporting it is not an invasion of privacy, nor is it doxxing. It’s reporting.
If anyone is more anti-first amendment than anyone, it’s the regressive left which is basically the twisted twin sister of the religious right.
Again with the bullshit “left/right” distinction. I don’t give a fuck. I call out anyone trying to trample free speech, and I don’t care what team they play for. Which is why I don’t think either side is more likely to make stupid claims. Both Hillary and Trump in this very election cycle have mocked the idea of free speech.
And people across the spectrum regularly seek to abuse the court system to silence people.
The fact that you keep talking about “left” this and that suggests you’re not here for a real discussion but to play sportsball.
Sorry, we don’t play that game.
Your claims are ridiculous.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“He’s talking, quite clearly, about opening up libel laws to prosecute reporters and publications that report on Trump in a negative way. His “open up libel law” comment came in reference to the Washington Post, who had covered Trump in an unflattering light, which IS NOT LIBEL.”
Are you seriously trying to defend Buzzfeed et al?
They are some of the most racist and bigoted publications out there and yet you’re defending them because they’re getting rejected from attending Trump rallies that are paid out of pocket by Trump?
Dude, I don’t know how anyone can take you seriously anymore if you’re defending the most bigoted publications out there that are all well known for pushing garbage.
Listen, all I’m asking for is that you do some REAL investigative journalism and actually making direct citations of the sources instead of tricking us all with the ‘phone game’ that you’re playing.
Pfft.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Fyi, if you don’t know what the phone game is, it’s a game in which one person repeats the words of the first person and it passes it down a line of people until the meaning of the words of the first person is completely skewed.
All of your citations are citations of citations…shame.
Do some real work for once.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Are you seriously trying to defend Buzzfeed et al?
Huh? Who said anything about Buzzfeed?
I was specifically discussing Trump’s claims about opening up libel laws. I note that you don’t actually respond to my point, which is that his reference in opening up libel laws was directly in reference to an article that he did not like, not one that was defamatory.
They are some of the most racist and bigoted publications out there and yet you’re defending them because they’re getting rejected from attending Trump rallies that are paid out of pocket by Trump?
Huh? You’re changing the subject. First off, whether or not they are racist or bigoted is really besides the point (also, you’re totally full of shit on that, but that doesn’t even matter — it is not illegal to be racist or bigoted, other than in specific areas, such as hiring).
Even if they were upset about being barred from Trump rallies (which -1- they’re not and -2- the campaign reinstated all of them after the primaries anyway), again, so what? So long as they’re not knowingly making deliberately false claims, it’s not defamation.
Dude, I don’t know how anyone can take you seriously anymore if you’re defending the most bigoted publications out there that are all well known for pushing garbage.
If someone as clueless as you doesn’t take me seriously, I consider that a victory.
Listen, all I’m asking for is that you do some REAL investigative journalism and actually making direct citations of the sources instead of tricking us all with the ‘phone game’ that you’re playing.
When you own this publication, then you get to tell me what to do. Until then: fuck off.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
“so long as they’re not knowingly making deliberately false claims, it’s not defamation.”
Which they are…and which you so blatantly support in your article.
FFS, you even list an article about some artist who made a bogus claim that she was threatened by Trump yet she provides no evidence of such a threat. And then you go to list a conservative group that threatened to talk shit about him unless he donated a million dollars to their cause…which of course, you blatantly ignore.
It’s like you’re just listing shit willy-nilly without actually fact checking any of it.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Which they are…and which you so blatantly support in your article.
FFS, you even list an article about some artist who made a bogus claim that she was threatened by Trump yet she provides no evidence of such a threat. And then you go to list a conservative group that threatened to talk shit about him unless he donated a million dollars to their cause…which of course, you blatantly ignore.
Heh. Seriously, I would suggest that if you’re not just trolling, that you learn something about defamation law. None of the things you talk about are defamation, no matter how much you want them to be.
Him threatening people with defamation lawsuits over them is a out and out attack on the First Amendment.
It’s like you’re just listing shit willy-nilly without actually fact checking any of it.
Take a look in the mirror.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
So threatening to defame unless you pay a specified amount of cash isn’t extortion and defamation?
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
So threatening to defame unless you pay a specified amount of cash isn’t extortion and defamation?
I don’t know the details of what you’re referring to. But such a threat sounds like extortion. Can you provide the details?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
“When you own this publication, then you get to tell me what to do. Until then: fuck off.”
Did I hit a soft spot?
Well, if I were your boss, I’d fire your ass just for that.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I know, by this time, that you’ve read what I’ve wrote…so what’s your excuse for refusing to do any kind of investigative journalism?
Let me guess, your not being paid enough to divulge the truth…
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
I know, by this time, that you’ve read what I’ve wrote…so what’s your excuse for refusing to do any kind of investigative journalism?
First, you’re wrong. I just read it now. Second, huh? It seems that you don’t know the first thing about what investigative journalism actually is. Third, we’re not an investigative journalism outfit anyway. Fourth, you’re not my boss.
Fifth, and finally, you don’t seem to know what you’re talking about. Please go to some other site where people care about politics. This site isn’t it. Go away.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Trump’s love of litigation has already had a chilling effect on speech.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/nbc-delayed-publication-of-lewd-trump-tape-because-of-lawsuit-fears/2016/10/08/a3c6850e-8db9-11e6-875e-2c1bfe943b66_story.html
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
‘Guy talk’ is not going to have any effect on his voter base. If anything, it’s helping him:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e76_1476034700
Stupid times we live in, but if anything, it’s going to grab more of the college vote.
A failed wild card on the leftist side most especially since most who are in support of Trump, including women, don’t give a flying shit about guy talk behind closed doors since everyone knows women can be just as lewd with their girl talk:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cd9_1475989889
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Stupid times we live in, but if anything, it’s going to grab more of the college vote.
Wait, what?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
So if I read you correctly, you started out at “that’s not really Trump” and then pivoted to “this isn’t going to matter, nobody’s going to care.”
It’s Tuesday now. What excuse have you shifted to at this point? Are you still in denial, or have you moved on to anger by now?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
What most people fail to realize is that they’re not voting for Trump because of the policies he’s promoting, it’s because they’re sick of all of the PC bullshit that is destroying the western world and that they don’t want to see the US become the rape capital of the world like Sweden has become (trigger warning): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KSJY0c8QWw
Not to mention, they don’t want their taxes going towards paying for for racist social justice courses that promote anti-white rhetoric by college professors:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9iomIA_ZXN9kdecGgTz8FGyV6Az6SKi8
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
What most people fail to realize is that they’re not voting for Trump because of the policies he’s promoting, it’s because they’re sick of all of the PC bullshit that is destroying the western world and that they don’t want to see the US become the rape capital of the world like Sweden has become
Wait, what?
Not to mention, they don’t want their taxes going towards paying for for racist social justice courses that promote anti-white rhetoric by college professors
Wait, what?
You’re living in a fantasy world of ignorance. Please, I beg of you, educate yourself.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“edited to skew his original words … nothing less than defamation”
A few examples might benefit your argument. Also, does your claim then imply that Breitbart is guilty of defamation regarding their editing of clips from a planned parenthood “interview” ?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I think anyone who knowingly skews the truth should be prosecuted.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I think anyone who knowingly skews the truth should be prosecuted.
“Knowingly skews the truth.” This is from someone who has repeatedly “skewed the truth” in this very thread. Hilarious.
Anyway, the First Amendment and all the case law about it says that’s not how it works. You might want to learn something, because you’re “skewing the truth” about the First Amendment, and according to your own demented logic, you should be prosecuted.
Re: Re:
Techdirt has become a strong advocate for First and Fourth Amendment protections, as well as Police Accountability, due to the overwhelming amount these subjects have encroached on their normally covered territory.
They call deserving parties out on First Amendment ignorance frequently, including calling Trump and Hillary out before they were running; I see no reason it should stop because the election is getting closer.
Re: Re: Re:
Techdirt has become a strong advocate for First and Fourth Amendment protections…
Agree, TD has been a pretty decent advocate for constitutional issues of late.
But I still have not quite forgotten he anti-1st Amendment rant TD had about the Redskins and the USPTO bullshit. TD needs to keep up the good work though, as flawed as it may be it still does better than most others.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But I still have not quite forgotten he anti-1st Amendment rant TD had about the Redskins and the USPTO bullshit.
I assure you, neither has TechDirt.
Re: Re:
If you don’t like it make your own techdirt.
I wonder...
… if he will sue everyone who votes against him?
Re: I wonder...
He doesn’t have to. He has already said that if he doesn’t win it will be because of voter fraud. Anyone trying to argue against that claim may be more in his aim.
Why do you think Peter thiel likes him…
I don’t understand how someone with the thinnest skin in the world can run for the most criticized position in the world.
Re: Re:
Please see: Turkey / Erdogan
Re: Re:
Because his fantasy is that the US President has unlimited power to do anything without consequences.
And a life without consequences is what he knows best. So he sees himself as well qualified.
I doubt he has thought this through beyond his coronation* ceremony.
* not a typo
Re: Re:
Trump is just a copy of Erdogan. I would still go for the original on that one!
Re: Re:
turkish president erdogan seems to be mentoring trump on how to act.
Re: Re: Re:
I hate how i cannot see what is said to a comment until i have posted as that means i usually end up repeating something, sigh.
Re: Re: Re: Actually...
Near the top of the comments section, just under the first word, there is a “flattened/threaded” option. Threaded shows the comments the way you see them after you post a comment; with responses under the original posts.
Can SLAPP lawsuits be used?
Can SLAPP lawsuits be used?
Or here is an approach that I bet would not scale well for Trump. Whenever Trump issues a threat or actual lawsuit for something he doesn’t like, if the party can afford to, sue/countersue Trump asking the court for a declaration of non slander.
Trump would have to defend against the swarm of counter suits. And maybe he’s not so rich as he pretends to be. The wealth, like almost everything else may simply be a can man’s illusion.
Re: Can SLAPP lawsuits be used?
Can SLAPP lawsuits be used?
Guessing you mean anti-SLAPP laws? They’re very state specific and many states have none at all, or very weak ones.
Re: Can SLAPP lawsuits be used?
Doesn’t look like Rule 11 is invoked, either… these are clearly frivolous lawsuits, and as the standard says, due diligence would have revealed the can’t possibly be won…
Can’t the newspapers sue for declaratory relief for the legal threats?
Re: Re:
Can’t the newspapers sue for declaratory relief for the legal threats?
For reasons that are too long to go into here, but which I discovered for very specific reasons — courts frequently reject declaratory judgment filings in defamation cases. While they’re considered fine in copyright cases, for some reasons, courts take a very different view of them in defamation cases. So it is very rarely a good idea to file for a declaratory judgment in a defamation case, and opens up some problematic results….
If he’s threatening to sue her for making commercials that are using his own words, I’d suggest she make a commercial using his threat of suing her also using his own words.
While that sentence sounds completely ridiculous, sadly, I think it’s entirely possible.
Re: Re:
The thing is though is that they’re editing his words completely out of context to paint this completely bogus narrative.
I figure TD would at least fact check all of their sources and citations but apparently they don’t since more than a few are completely made up stories while some of them are the result of people attempting to extort him.
Re: Re: Re:
Not to mention, TD did an article on defaming people by using their own words out of context:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100922/03180811104/is-quoting-someone-out-of-context-defamation.shtml
So TD, since it’s Trump, it’s okay to defame him? Typical far Leftist logic would say ‘yes’ and that everything is legal unless you hold a dissenting point of view that conflicts with their interests…
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So TD, since it’s Trump, it’s okay to defame him?
Trump’s own mouth, along with his twitter feed are Trump’s worst enemies.
He should sue himself.
Re: Re: Re:
If you’re going to say ‘The ads are taking his statements out of context’ it helps if you actually provide that context to support the claim.
‘Here is what the ad said/implied, here’s the context in which he said it that changes the meaning’, that sort of thing.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“If you’re going to say ‘The ads are taking his statements out of context’ it helps if you actually provide that context to support the claim.”
I don’t come to TD to do their jobs for them. Believe me, I’m tempted.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
We’d love to see you try to put Trump’s statements “in context” and improve them in any way, shape or form.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
To which my response is an invocation of Hitchen’s Razor: ‘What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.’
Or in other words I don’t believe you and will assume you’re attempting a ‘Look, a distraction!’ until you provide supporting evidence to back up your claim.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“I don’t come to TD to do their jobs for them”
You’re not being asked to. You’re being asked to back up your own claim.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I saw the entire “context” from which several of the ads were obtained. In my opinion, the ad did not twist or spin what was said in any way as it was quite clear what was intended by the speaker.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
To which you prefer gratuitous accusations.
Nice job here. /s
Seriously, comments are here – amongst other things – for constructive criticism. And TD has already proved that it takes it quite well.
Now, if you don’t want to prove your own accusations, don’t be surprised if you don’t get much sympathy. Saying things like “you’re wrong and I don’t need to prove it” is one of the worst reply you can make.
Re: Re: Re:
That’s not out of context; it’s the entire tweet.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Some would say that is partially true since you can’t run a manufacturing plant off of solar or wind (both of which need to be manufactured using fossil fuels) and still remain competitive to others. It really is as if they’re trying to turn fossil fuels into a commodity that is exclusive to manufacturing but you can’t create manufacturing plants in a country that’s attempting to outlaw the use of fossil fuels or is trying to impose a carbon tax so high that it would be pointless.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Not to mention, the US has the absolute worst ‘legal minefield’ when it comes to anyone attempting to start a manufacturing business here no thanks to endless regulations imposed by multinational corporations and their armies of attorneys ripping out and creating their own laws (at the State level all the way to Federal level) so as to make us all as feeble as possible…
Which is why nobody is outsourcing any jobs to the US when it comes to just about anything and everything…Except for maybe small time niche markets.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
wait what
Did you just say “endless regulations imposed by multinational corporations”?
you…you’ve gotta be trolling, right? You can’t possibly be that confused.
Multinational corporations are in favor of more regulation? That’s, like, Borat-level “the Jews did 9/11” stuff.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Re-read what I said…of course they’re in favor of more regulations, why do you think the manufacturing strength of the US is on a death spiral?
Sorry, but building ‘500 million’ solar panels as Hillery has promoted (despite the fact that the manufacturing process consists of releasing mass amounts of the most potent GHG in existence, sulfur hexafluoride aka SF6: http://www.solarindustrymag.com/online/issues/SI1309/FEAT_05_Hazardous_Materials_Used_In_Silicon_PV_Cell_Production_A_Primer.html) is not going to build any new jobs if the entire manufacturing process relies on fossil fuels that are being taxed to death and/or outlawed on the basis of the hypothesis of catastrophic anthropocentric global warming (CAWG) which has never been validated in any of the IPCC reports nor has been elevated to theory since it has never confirmed as to the exact extent to which humans have an effect on the climate.
FFS, meteorologist can’t make a sound prediction past 72 hours without the level of certainty dropping to the toss of a coin. 50/50
And we’re basing a global western policy on a hypothesis that could potentially destroy us?
And before you go off and start citing the anti-science claim of 96%, go research what the actual questions were, who participated, how many, and then come back with me with a list of names…oh that’s right, they don’t list the names.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
FFS, even the Rockefellers’, the family who created the oil industry, is completely invested in these so-called green energies and they initially started out selling snake oil and Exxon mobile is descendants of them…so no, obviously the oil industry has nothing to do with all of the skepticism if they’re the ones that are most invested into it:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29310475
So don’t even try to say I’m a shill for big oil.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
That’s nice that you’ve produced a citation, Anon, but it doesn’t actually do anything to support your claim.
In what way does “the Rockefellers have investments in clean energy” support your assertion that multinational corporations favor increased regulations?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
I think we’re saying you’re a shill for Big Ignorance.
And you’re doing a bang-up job, BTW.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Wow, that sure is a wall of wrong, but I’ll start with the low-hanging fruit:
You didn’t die today; does that mean that if somebody says “you’re eventually going to die” they must not know what they’re talking about?
Climate is not weather. Don’t be stupid. Long-term trends produce more reliable predictions than short-term ones; that’s basic fucking statistics.
I can’t predict when you’re going to die. But I can predict with absolute certainty that it’s going to happen within the next 100 years.
Maybe it’ll rain tomorrow and maybe it won’t. But it’s hotter this year than it was last year, or the year before, or the year before, or any other time on record.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Weather and climate are not the same thing. Rather than filling this space with reasons why, I’ll just link to a very short article written in layman’s terms that answers your question.
http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/weather-prediction-climate-prediction-what%E2%80%99s-diff
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
and those people are idiots.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Is that an argument or an ad hom?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I’m sorry, you were expecting an argument in response to your well-reasoned, impeccably-cited source of what “some would say”?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.
because
you can’t run a manufacturing plant off of solar or wind .. and still remain competitive
—————————-
I think this claim needs additional data, otherwise it is complete bunk.
That makes sense if he wishes to form a cadre with a name like umm… orange shirts. That man is a bad loser.
Let's face it
Let’s face it…the only part of the Constitution that either candidate really cares about is the minimum requirements to get elected. Everything else, especially the Bill of Rights needs to be modified in their opinions. The War on Terror, the War on Drugs, the War on Encryption, or even the War Against Butthurt will serve as their justification to further erode what little Rights we have remaining.
Re: Let's face it
It’s not just the candidates that don’t care about rights of human beings… the “State” has no care besides limiting it’s liability… as is the same for any corporation.
Re: Re: Let's face it
Not sure why you overlooked congress
STICK A SOCK IN IT
You know!… someone could make a fortune selling insoles with Trump’s yawning mug on them!
.
Please!… no emails!
How do you know a politician is lying? When their lips are moving.
Wouldn’t it be nice to hold politicians to a higher standard and actually require their speeches and ads to be truthful and not just the half or less truths that they deliver?
Re: Re:
That depends on what you mean by “require”, and whose authority you’re accepting in determining whether something is “truthful” or “half or less truth”.
The devil’s in the details. I think most people agree with the basic premise of truth in advertising, but how that’s actually evaluated and enforced is a pretty complex and often subjective issue.
As for regulating what politicians put in their speeches, I’m not sure how you’d do that without serious First Amendment concerns.
ugh!
i really enjoy reading the articles on this site for the most part. Why ruin it by joining in on the trump bashing band wagon? Just keep it neutral, or leave it alone all together. Trump this and Trump that….. PLEASE, get off Hillary’s lap. I imagine it’s getting real crowded with all the other lapdogs currently there….
Re: ugh!
i really enjoy reading the articles on this site for the most part. Why ruin it by joining in on the trump bashing band wagon? Just keep it neutral, or leave it alone all together. Trump this and Trump that….. PLEASE, get off Hillary’s lap. I imagine it’s getting real crowded with all the other lapdogs currently there….
I’m really curious who these people are who keep claiming this. They’re not actually readers of the site:
1. We didn’t jump on the Trump bashing bandwagon. We wrote a story about a key thing that Trump has done repeatedly (issue bogus defamation threats against the 1st Amendment) which is a topic we’ve covered over and over and over again on this site.
2. We are not Hillary supporters either, and have written many stories commenting on our issues with her actions and policies — including one on her mocking the First Amdendment as well.
3. It’s possible to call out the bad actions of one candidate without being in the tank for the other.
4. “Keep it neutral.” This site has always been an opinion site. We state our opinion. And, in my opinion, your comment is ridiculous. How’s that for neutral?