Stifling Free Speech Is Now A Core Plank Of The Republican Platform

from the free-speech-was-good-until-the-media-started-reporting-on-what-we-do dept

We just recently wrote about the reasons why Congress should move, right now, to codify the NYT v. Sullivan case into law. While considered mostly settled and uncontroversial, in the last few years there have been increasing attacks on this ruling, which has been one of the most important rulings in preserving and protecting free speech over the last half century. And some (Clarence Thomas) on the Supreme Court support dismantling it, which is why we think it’s so important for Congress to codify it into law.

In that post, we noted that the idea of chipping away at it first started to gain steam when Justice Thomas pushed for dismantling NYT v. Sullivan, which would massively set back free speech by making it way easier for the rich and powerful to file bogus SLAPP suits to silence criticism or revealing news stories.

And for all the talk from Republicans pretending to support free speech lately, their rapid embrace of this plan to undermine NYT v. Sullivan is a massive concern. We noted that Republican politicians Devin Nunes and Sarah Palin have both been trying to overturn NYT v. Sullivan with some of their ridiculous defamation lawsuits.

Now it appears that one of the most popular Republican politicians, whom many are assuming is the front runner for the GOP’s 2024 Presidential campaign, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, is making it clear that he’d get rid of the Sullivan standard if he could.

During the panel discussion on Tuesday, Mr. DeSantis accused the press of using Sullivan as a shield to intentionally “smear” politicians and said the precedent discouraged people from running for office. Would the current Supreme Court, he asked the panelists, be “receptive” to revisiting the case?

This wasn’t just some off-the-cuff thing by DeSantis either. It appears that DeSantis’ crew set up an entire event to agitate for killing Sullivan and making it easier for the rich and powerful to silence people through the mere threat of a ruinous lawsuit.

Of course, there was some hilarity, which the NY Times article highlighted, in that one of the panelists invited to help push for the overturning of Sullivan is Libby Locke, partner at Clare Locke, a firm who specializes in silencing the press (and brags about it constantly) often with very questionable lawsuits. It’s no surprise that Locke would want to overturn Sullivan… but as the NY Times article notes, her firm actually has taken one of the largest high profile defamation cases that… might actually be legitimate: Dominion Voting Systems’ lawsuit against Fox News.

So, apparently, Republicans are conflicted:

Also on the panel was Libby Locke, a well-known media defamation lawyer who has pushed for judicial review of Sullivan, as well as state-level legislation that could make it easier for plaintiffs to bring and win libel cases.

Ms. Locke’s presence alongside Mr. DeSantis drew rebukes from many on the right, particularly Trump supporters, who noted that one of her firm’s clients is Dominion Voting Systems, the voting machine company that has been the target of unfounded accusations of election fraud from the former president’s backers.

Ms. Locke’s firm filed a $1.6 billion defamation suit against Fox News on Dominion’s behalf. Fox has invoked Sullivan as part of its defense. Last month, the Fox chairman Rupert Murdoch was deposed in the case, which is set to go to trial in April.

Of course, what this should do is help Republicans realize that NYT v. Sullivan protects all of us, and that its removal would lead to all sorts of media, across the spectrum, facing a flood of vexatious lawsuits. But it will be especially true for Fox News and others like OAN and Newsmax (not to mention Breitbart, Daily Wire, Joe Rogan) etc. — news orgs that, let’s say, are not as well known for their fact checking.

The simple fact is that the NYT v. Sullivan standard protects everyone‘s free speech, especially when people are speaking out against the most powerful people in society. It has been one of the most important levers for protecting free speech and making sure that the 1st Amendment actually matters.

If Republicans truly believed in free speech, they would continue supporting it (as they did until just recently). Instead, as part of their ongoing culture war nonsense, because they see that it also protects news orgs that they have decided are pure evil, like CNN, the NY Times, Washington Post, and MSNBC, they have decided to set it on fire, without caring how it will do just as much damage to their own speech, and that of their many favored news organizations as well.

Once again, what we’re learning is that the modern GOP does not believe in principles like free speech. They are motivated solely by what will cause the most pain for their enemies, no matter what damage they do to themselves in the interim. It’s pathetic.

That the party that is banning books, silencing teachers and other government employees, is now attacking a key 1st Amendment decision shouldn’t be surprising, but people should call it out whenever any Republicans pretends that their party supports free speech.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,
Companies: clare locke

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Stifling Free Speech Is Now A Core Plank Of The Republican Platform”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
140 Comments

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

DeSantis is right

And no, restoring libel protections isn’t “suppressing free speech”. Being able to criticize public figures is really important, but it shouldn’t be carte blanche to say just whatever you want, including factual assertions about an official personally that you know to be untrue. And it’s turned into that. Several publications, most notably WaPo and CNN, just straight up lied pretty routinely about Trump.

There shouldn’t be a circumvention for this normal, civil remedy for straight libel.

Consider it Qualified Immunity for Journalists. That’s what you’re defending here. It’s a new, basically made up standard implemented by the court.

Honestly, I think you’re biased af and are only outraged about it because it’s a republican proposing it. (I also liked how you tried to spread what you see as a smear to “Republicans” instead of one candidate and two people who are unlikely to ever be in office again)

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Being able to criticize public figures is really important, but it shouldn’t be carte blanche to say just whatever you want, including factual assertions about an official personally that you know to be untrue.

The existing standard is exactly that. If you say factual assertions that you know are untrue already violates defamation law under the NYT v. Sullivan standard.

For someone so confident, it’s astounding how little you seem to know about anything you talk about.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Koby (profile) says:

Re: Re:

You need to be a mind reader to sue under the Sullivan standard. Proving that a television media actor knew particular statements were untrue is nearly impossible unless they foolishly documented it in an email chain prior to the broadcast. This is especially true in today’s environment when the fake news doesn’t actually perform any investigating themselves.

Just like police hiding behind QI by claiming they didn’t know better, the corporate media hides behind Sullivan by claiming they didn’t know better.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
HotHead says:

Re: Re: Re:

This is like saying that you need a mind reader to reach “guilty without a reasonable doubt” in criminal cases. And just as the rights in the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments are worth letting a few criminals get away, the rights in the First Amendment are more important than catching every person who defames a public figure (who, in the case of many government officials, is probably wealthy enough to tank an unfortunate smear every once in a while).

Bobson Dugnutt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

This is like saying that you need a mind reader to reach “guilty without a reasonable doubt” in criminal cases.

The favored rightwing doctrines of originalism and textualism are pleas for mind-reading, though.

These doctrines are desirable qualities for an ayatollah, but originalism and textualism makes a claim that living justices are able to place themselves in the minds of the Founding Fathers, who by virtue of winning the Revolutionary War were all-seeing sages who could write a few rules down and resolve all legal questions in perpetuity.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Benjamin Jay Barber says:

Re: Re: Re:3 retarded

These doctrines are desirable qualities for an ayatollah, but originalism and textualism makes a claim that living justices are able to place themselves in the minds of the Founding Fathers, who by virtue of winning the Revolutionary War were all-seeing sages who could write a few rules down and resolve all legal questions in perpetuity.

No, it simply means that you cannot redefine words like “woman”. If the statute used the word woman, you go to the dictionary for the year the statute was enacted, and you look up the word “woman”, which will not change even if people redefine the word woman.

There is already a small contingent of lunatics on the left who think that opinions are in fact equivalent to violence, and have created concepts like “cyber violence”.

Or they use the words “equity”, in a way which does not reflect the original intent of (as in remedies for equitable relief from a judge), but to mean that groups (not indiviauls) should be made to be equal through communist redistribution on the basis of their group membership.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Textual originalism is fine as a partial method of reaching a conclusion about the Constitution. But it sucks for making law in anything but the time in which the Constitution was conceived. The Founding Fathers were not gods⁠—they were men, flawed and frail, and their knowledge and experiences were far different than our own. We can’t and shouldn’t be relying on their knowledge and experiences as the guiding light for a society they could never have conceived.

Centuries-old dead men have no place making law in the here and now. Acting as if they should is a form of voluntary brain damage.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

The consitution is explicitly a document that changes. Reading the constitution with words only meaning what they meant at the time of reading is non-sensical. Simply put, various amendments stop making sense because they words they use can’t actually connect to the same words elsewhere in the document they are intended to. Originalism is a spaghetti that concerns itself with justifying traditionalism. Originalism is self defeating. Under originalism, the supreme court does not have the power of judicial review to make the rulings originalism makes.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

“foolishly documented it in an email chain prior to the broadcast?”

Not even that. Sullivan is so absolute that motion to dismiss occurs before discovery. There can be oodles and oodles of evidence that they knew it was false but a judge wont let you see that evidence.

You can count on two hands the number of cases that have passed the motion to dismiss and moved onto discovery since 1964.

It’s simply too high of a bar and it denies the plaintiff’s first amendment rights.

I would support a change to the legal procedure that a Sullivan motion can only be requested after discovery.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Sullivan is so absolute that motion to dismiss occurs before discovery.

If a case is so weak that it can’t survive an initial motion to dismiss, it shouldn’t be allowed to continue to discovery, which consumes a lot of both time and money⁠—which means a bullshit lawsuit can turn into a war of attrition where the better-funded side can wait until the other side runs out of resources. We have high standards for defamation cases precisely so the courts can help people avoid that outcome.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

No the media enjoys high standard

Okay, let’s say that’s true. So what? You say that like it should be easy for any rich person to destroy even the smallest media outlet by suing for defamation over speech that isn’t defamatory. Do you want your news media to be an independent press or a bunch of stenographers for rich people?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Bobson Dugnutt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Not true

It’s not true. Media don’t have a privileged status. Any pro-free-speech laws (shield laws, open records laws, FOIA, etc.) are available to all Americans, not the professional press specifically.

The U.S. courts and UK courts treat defamation differently. In the U.S., burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to show a statement was false or damaging. In the UK, burden of proof is upon the defendant to attest that a damaging statement is true.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Bobson Dugnutt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

No the media enjoys high standard is defamation cases, no one else.

The burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff. It’s the wronged party that must prove the claim is intentionally false, that they were identified, and that the information harmed them in some way.

There’s also the private figure vs. public figure vs. public official test. Public figures (celebrities, athletes and the like) and public officials are treated by courts to have expectation of scrutiny in the public sphere. Public officials (politicians, leaders of government agencies and the like) have an even higher standard because they are expected to have legal experts and subordinates to advise their decisions and actions.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

The existing standard is exactly that. If you say factual assertions that you know are untrue already violates defamation law under the NYT v. Sullivan standard.

No, it doesn’t. Or at least not in practice. There is NOTHING that can stop a journalist from just saying outrageous untrue shit.

HotHead says:

Re: Re: Re:

How exactly would you change the ruling? Not get rid of it entirely, I should hope. It’s not as if you can get rid of actual malice standard wholesale the way Justice Clarence Thomas wants to and still expect courts to hold plaintiffs to anything close to the “factual assertions about an official personally that you know to be untrue” bar.

Tanner Andrews (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 perhaps there is something not said

sure looks like it’s a bar that Dominion Voting easily cleared in its case against Fox News

It matters who the defendant is.

The Domion voting case is one where the Ridiculous Right media are being sued. In such a case, they would prefer a higher standard, probably the equivalent of a voice from a cloud saying “This is my son, whom you have defamed”.

On the other hand, where someone in the Ridiculous Right feels defamed, the standard would be lower. Times v. Sullivan malice is an obstacle to suit.

It is hard to say what standard, exactly, would apply to a posting excoriating the people who broke preview on the (now not-so-) new platform.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

so when you post comments critical of Mike, you want it easier for him to sue you for defamation?

Please appreciate how fucking dumb your comment is:

1) Masnick isn’t a government official
2) I’m not a journalist
3) 95% of my commentary on Masnick is opinion and that which isn’t is pretty easily defensible in court.
4) Masnick isn’t that stupid, believe it or not, but lol, come at me bro.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

lol. This is an amazing way to surrender your argument.

1) Masnick isn’t a government official

Indeed he is not. Sullivan effectively applied to “Public figures” (of which there is a strong argument that Mike Masnick is one). I was extended it Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts.

2) I’m not a journalist

You don’t have to be a journalist to publish stuff.

3) 95% of my commentary on Masnick is opinion and that which isn’t is pretty easily defensible in court.

Thats your opinion. A court may rule differently. Of course in a theoretical case you have an extremely strong “I’m too dumb to be credible, nobody would be believe me” defense.

4) Masnick isn’t that stupid, believe it or not, but lol, come at me bro.

Wow, your right about another thing. However the original point was: the current situation is good, especially if you act so trollish anywhere else and too anyone else.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Strawb (profile) says:

Re:

it shouldn’t be carte blanche to say just whatever you want, including factual assertions about an official personally that you know to be untrue.

And under the current standard, it isn’t.

Several publications, most notably WaPo and CNN, just straight up lied pretty routinely about Trump.

[Citation needed].

Honestly, I think you’re biased af

And it shows.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
HotHead says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Could you specify an example case where the actual malice standard got in the way of discovery? A motion to dismiss happens early, so it requires a relatively small amount of evidence that the plaintiff’s claims are plausible. For example, evidence that the supposedly defamatory words are false. Actual malice doesn’t get fully evaluated until after discovery.

Tanner Andrews (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 standard on M2D

A motion to dismiss happens early, so it requires a relatively small amount of evidence that the plaintiff’s claims are plausible.

Incredibly small amount of evidence. Just a bit less than epsilon. Zero is probably the figure you are looking for.

On a motion to dismiss, our gaze is confined to the four corners of the complaint. If it alleges enough facts to plausibly show knowledge or reckless disregard of falsity, then it gets past the motion to dismiss.

No evidence required or expected.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Consider it Qualified Immunity for Journalists. That’s what you’re defending here. It’s a new, basically made up standard implemented by the court.

Yes. Only no. Sullivan is literally a courts interpretation of how to apply the first amendment. As in, the court was interpreting a law. As the court is intended to do. Masnick is suggesting Congress affirm that interpretation.

Qualified immunity is a court created doctrine made up as an excuse. It’s not an interpretation of anything specific (I guess except to perhaps for the justices desire to prevent the law from applying to all citizens).

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Libel as a civil remedy for damages between private parties basically has no intersection with the 1st amendment.

And who enforces that civil remedy, the courts, AKA the government.

So yes, it does have an intersection with the 1st amendment which you would understand if you weren’t an uneducated fucking asshole!

Bobson Dugnutt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Libel/slander/defamation lawsuits are torts.

The courts are not merely there to prove a disputed truth. There must be something tangible at stake.

The plaintiff must show:
1. A provable falsehood.
2. That they were identified.
3. That the information was published or broadcast.
4. The false information led to harm (i.e., lost a job, a business failed, led to a divorce, etc.)

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

If the courts de facto grant media a blanket immunity the peoples first amendment right to a redress of grievances has been violated

But there is no such violation because no such immunity exists. Dominion’s case against Fox News proves as much. What you’re upset about is the idea that defamation cases have higher standards when they’re about public figures/institutions.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Bloof (profile) says:

Re:

You do realise, of course, that the right wing mediaspace as it is couldn’t exist without these protections, right? Do you think going ‘But we’re totes not journalists!’ would protect people pushing things like Seth Rich conspiracies or the Paul Pelosi hammer sex bullsh*t? Do you think Tucker Carlson would get a pass for parroting things his writers read on 4chan?

I think we all know that should these people get what they want, you would be one of the shrillest voices screeching about political attacks and begging for freedom of speech to be honoured every time someone on the left sues a right wing media entity over the lies, bullsh*t and character assasination that makes up 90% of what they try to pass off as news.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Bobson Dugnutt (profile) says:

Re: Re:

You do realise, of course, that the right wing mediaspace as it is couldn’t exist without these protections, right?

If they claim not to realize it, they are being strategically disingenuous. The rightwing wouldn’t press for a Supreme Court ruling if they didn’t already have a fully formed plan to weaponize such a ruling the moment it’s handed down.

Furthermore, Steve Bannon and Curtis Yarvin are advancing a civilization-scale project to do exactly this — FTZWS and neoreaction, respectively. You could dismiss them as fringe kooks, but both have actually wielded power. In Yarvin’s case, he serves as the court philosopher for Peter Thiel and serves at his indulgence. Thiel does have political ambitions, and the victory of JD Vance in Ohio is a toehold into legitimize Thiel’s (and Yarvin’s) influence.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

You do realise, of course, that the right wing mediaspace as it is couldn’t exist without these protections, right?

Sure buddy. Everything your side says is true and reasonable and everything my side says is deranged and unhinged.

WaPo and CNN wouldn’t exist anymore but for NYT vs Sullivan.

Basically, get fucked, your bias is showing.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

“everything my side says is deranged and unhinged”

There is a strong weight of evidence behind that claim.

Anyway, you’re hallucinating again. He wasn’t saying “my side better than yours”, he was pointing out that the things that you demand in order to destroy your perceived enemies would also destroy your rights and those that the people you agree with depend on to exist.

You are still allowed to think this is a good thing for whatever insane reason, but don’t pretend that it’s only the people you disagree with who depend on the freedoms you wish to destroy.

Bobson Dugnutt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: You're telling on yourself

WaPo and CNN wouldn’t exist anymore but for NYT vs Sullivan.

Using your Cui prodest? logic, that Washington Post and CNN condition their survival upon NYT v. Sullivan.

If the Supreme Court nullifies NYT v. Sullivan, presumably it voids the actual malice standard of defamation law and Washington Post and CNN could face an avalanche of vexatious litigation.

The vexatious litigation was always the point.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
HotHead says:

Re: Matthew Bennett, did you even glance over the case text?

including factual assertions about an official personally that you know to be untrue

What you’re asking for is exactly what the Supreme Court determined in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). Verbatim from the official case syllabus:

(c) Factual error, content defamatory of official reputation, or both, are insufficient to warrant an award of damages for false statements unless “actual malice” — knowledge that statements are false or in reckless disregard of the truth — is alleged and proved. Pp. 376 U. S. 279-283.

And verbatim from the opinion of the court, which you can search one paragraph at a time if you don’t believe me (which is why I didn’t remove the page numbers and paragraph breaks):

The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made

Page 376 U. S. 280

with “actual malice” — that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

Negligence is not reckless disregard:

There was testimony that the persons handling the advertisement saw nothing in it that would render it unacceptable under the Times’ policy of rejecting advertisements containing “attacks of a personal character”; [Footnote 27] their failure to reject it on this ground was not unreasonable. We think

Page 376 U. S. 288

the evidence against the Times supports, at most, a finding of negligence in failing to discover the misstatements, and is constitutionally insufficient to show the recklessness that is required for a finding of actual malice. Cf. Charles Parker Co. v. Silver City Crystal Co., 142 Conn. 605, 618, 116 A.2d 440, 446 (1955); Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., v. Choisser, 82 Ariz. 271, 277-278, 312 P.2d 150, 154-155 (1957).

I’ve added emphasis so that you don’t have to read the entire text wall. After having read the excerpts, don’t go telling us that the truth about the Sullivan case is biased against Republicans. Mike’s been showing you the truth about the Sullivan actual malice standard and you haven’t been listening.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

HotHead says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Who and what are you referring to? If you don’t believe someone else’s explanation of a court case, you can search for the case text yourself and ctrl-F keywords. Go ahead, search for the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case and ctrl-F to search for “actual malice”, “factual”, and “reckless”.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

If motion to dismiss occurs before discover how is any plaintiff supposed to prove “actual malice.”

The thing is that they have to actually allege facts which, if true, would demonstrate that “actual malice” exists. You don’t have to prove the facts themselves before discovery, merely allege them. (There are some exceptions, like if the complaint refers to an article, and the article disproves the allegations, then the factual allegation is not accepted, and the same goes for contradictory claims. Outside of that, though, a motion to dismiss accepts factual allegations as true.)

If you can’t even allege facts that would lead to an inference of actual malice, what good would discovery do?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

I appreciate all that effort you made in quoting the ruling.

Too bad it was completely wasted.

1) Surprisingly, what justices cite as their justification is not always their justification. Spoiler: Row V Wade wasn’t actually about privacy.

2) What ruling says are the limits are often ignored. The parallel with Qualified Immunity here is very strong. The original ruling didn’t say “no officer can be found personally liable unless the EXACT the same instance can be found in case law and the officer was aware of it” but that’s been basically how it panned out.

Similarly, Sullivan vs NYT basically makes it so that a “journalist” can say absolutely whatever the fuck they want about about an official, with complete disregard to any justification to claim said thing, with zero possibility of civil repercussion. You can say the ruling doesn’t say that, and maybe it doesn’t, but that’s how the precedent has been interpreted.

Mike’s been showing you the truth

That part actually offends me, as Masnick lies all the fucking time.

P.S. I was being sarcastic about “I appreciate all that effort”, because it was just shitposting in the nature of “antifa means ‘anti-fascist’ so if you’re against them you must be fascist”. You’re either disingenuous or simple to claim something like that. Get fucked, k thx.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

That part actually offends me, as Masnick lies all the fucking time.

And you have never once, not a single time, provided any information to back up your asertions.

Just because you say Mike is lying, doesn’t make it true.

Just because I say that you always go crying back to your mommy when meanies at Techdirt always prove you wrong, doesn’t actually mean you go running back to your mommy…

Oh wait… it’s you I’m talking about… of course you always go running back to your mommy when your feelz are hurt. Seriously, look how often you come here to cry and whine about how there are articles critical of your idol Elmo.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Strawb (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Similarly, Sullivan vs NYT basically makes it so that a “journalist” can say absolutely whatever the fuck they want about about an official, with complete disregard to any justification to claim said thing, with zero possibility of civil repercussion.

Except the ruling literally says the opposite of that.

You can say the ruling doesn’t say that, and maybe it doesn’t, but that’s how the precedent has been interpreted.

If so, please provide a ruling of a case where a journalist demonstrably lied and was acquitted by citing the precedent you’re referring to.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

That part actually offends me, as Masnick lies all the fucking time.

Lets see, on one hand we have someone who recites facts, links and references to applicable cases that they base their opinion on, then we have you who make bold assertions with zero facts or references and when people ask you to back your assertions up you blow them off.

Who to believe… The one that explains his reasoning or the bloviating asshole who can’t even explain why something is a lie?

Anonymous Coward says:

Fee Speech

I got the fix… there should be a Fee Speech amendment that goes something along the lines of this.
“A person or business entity may say whatever they want and they will be legally protected from backlash… even speech that would other wise be unlawful … for a Fee, which will be determined by a committee and mostly based on how much it will cost to ‘get everyone on the same page'”

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Free to do or say what they agree with

Republican support for a thing, whether that be free speech or the free market should always be read as having a massive asterisk after the term clarifying that it only applies when it benefits them.

They are for free speech… for them.

They are pro-free market… so long as it’s in their favor.

The second that changes you can practically set your watch by how quickly and consistently what was full support switches to opposition.

Ar2000 says:

Republicans really don't think things through.

You know for a political party that holds the US constitution up as sacrosanct because they love the 2nd amendment, Republicans never stop undermining themselves.
Something as simple as the 1st amendment should be just as untouchable if only because it supports their narrative of the constitution not needing changes yet here we are, watching them violate the 1st amendment on a regular basis all over the country.

They have yet to realize that if the 1st is optional, the 2nd also is. They are dumber than a box of rocks at this point to not realize this.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

A Republican thinks it’s logical to be Russian or Chinese useful idiots because it’s either that or actually have a platform that ISN’T fascism, white supremacy and murdering of the Constitution.

So them actually having higher mental faculties are… suspect.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: All animals are equal, some however are more equal than others

It’s easy enough to square, you just need to remember that the republican mindset is that rules are for other people and rights are only untouchable when they benefit from them.

Looked at through that lens and it’s only common sense that they can violate rights freely but if anyone tries to return the favor that’s a heinous attack against their inviolate rights.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Seems you don’t understand the difference between communism and Stalinism, Animal Farm was written specifically because Orwell didn’t like how some among the Allies praised Stalin during WWII since he was a big critic of Stalin and Stalinism.

Also, what they want and what we practically get is usually entirely two different things, haven’t you figured this out yet? It was the whole point with mentioning All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Which is a strategic mistake and one you do at your own peril. While there’s certainly plenty of idiots in the party, along with times where the party is so focused on short-term gains and ignoring long-term costs the ones you have to look out for are those that know exactly what they are doing and are merely playing at idiots because that’s how they draw in their supporters.

They would be much less of a threat to everyone around them if they were just a bunch of unthinking idiots.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Show me the California state law that guarantees any California citizen a place on an interactive web service of any kind, such that the law says they can’t be booted off for any reason (including the violation of that service’s TOS). Go ahead, I’ll wait for your typically wrong-ass legal citation that will somehow involve housing law because you believe in your twisted-as-hell heart that the phrase “public accomodation business” means a Walmart should be governed exclusively by the exact same laws that govern an apartment complex.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Bloof (profile) says:

This is going to be the new abortion, where the right spend the next decade using it as a talking point and fundraiser, chipping away at it through endless doomed bills where they get their hands held by conservatives on the supreme court and lead through all the changes they need to get it overturned. When they finally succede, they will recoil in horror and deny that it’s something they wanted and it is in fact the left who are responsible because they take advantage of the resultant free for all. Hillary Clinton or Hunter Biden may not have made a billion from China or Ukraine, but they sure could make a tonne of cash from right wing media outlets given all the things reported about them.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Bloof (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Really? People aren’t pushing Lies that Hillary had Seth Rich killed or Hunter is awash with Chinese cash and it was all on the laptop? You mean Fox didn’t push conspiracy theories about the election and bring on every lunatic they could find to spout lies with zero vetting? The protections offered by their targets being public figures is the only way they can do what they do. There’s a reason News corp, despite being multinational only does what it does in the US, even their British tabloids are mild by comparison.

Tanner Andrews (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: carefully vetted

You mean Fox didn’t push conspiracy theories about the election and bring on every lunatic they could find to spout lies with zero vetting?

Exactly.

At least the Dominion voting machine company appears to have evidence that there was extensive vetting, at all levels. Top to bottom, Fox appears to have known that the conspiracy theories they promoted were entirely untrue.

Their on-air hosts knew it. Their research (``brain room”) knew it. The producers knew it. Management knew it and felt that it was important to maintain ratings. So Fox continued to promote what they deemed ``Really crazy stuff” (Dominion MSJ memo pg 1) and ``dangerously insane”(id).

It is not a lack of vetting. As Sean Hannity said, ``I did not believeit for one second”. It was, rather, a deliberate choice made after considerable research and consideration.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Sadly, few people believe in Constitutional rights for everyone, only for themselves and their fellow travelers. Look, for example, at woke ideologues spitting on the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment, passing laws that force religious people to abet acts that they believe are sinful. And of course Masnick is happy that private platforms are permitted to deprive their users of the ability to speak freely, as long as the silenced viewpoints are those he hates. When the government acts to prevent its employees from promoting woke ideology as part of their jobs, though, all of a sudden the argument that the government may legally do this doesn’t seem to satisfy him as much.

But yes, NYT v. Sullivan should be preserved, and better yet, codified into law.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Strawb (profile) says:

Re:

The deafening silence over Hunter Biden trying to have people arrested for publishing the laptop

Citation needed.

while he cries that people who are lying might be sued for willful blindness or reckless disregard for the truth.

Tell me you don’t understand the issue without telling me you don’t understand the issue.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Bobson Dugnutt (profile) says:

Re:

aboard trains that run on time.

[Ron Howard narrator voice:] In Italy, the trains never ran on time.

The context: It was a Mussolini-era boast that was confabulated into something that seemed to be an actual policy. The unreliability of Italian trains owed to a combination of decrepit trains and infrastructure, as well as a widely held European stereotype against Mediterranean ethnicities of laziness and flakiness.

Anonymous Coward says:

Not sure I’m understanding this “Originalism” thing.

Past court rulings are referred to as precedence.
– “the condition of being considered more important than someone or something else; priority in importance, order, or rank.”

In addition, in law, precedence refers to
– “a court decision that is considered as authority for deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts, or similar legal issues”

The body of prior court decisions has been called Common Law.
– “In law, common law (also known as judicial precedent, judge-made law, or case law) is the body of law created by judges and similar quasi-judicial tribunals by virtue of being stated in written opinions”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

So Originalism is an attempt to over ride prior court decisions removing precedence and common law. Why dont they just write a law then?

I used to think conservatives liked common law, they sure referred to it a lot when attempting to justify their outrageous positions. I guess some people will lie cheat and steal in order to obtain their shiny little trinkets.

Nicole says:

In a post-NYT v. Sullivan world the right expects to be able to bend defamation law to attack their critics without facing the same consequences for themselves. Perhaps they’ll try to establish a free speech version of qualified immunity, which would hold certain parties acting in “good faith” (ie themselves) blameless unless a specific falsehood of theirs had previously been ruled to be defamation.

Not sure they’ve thought all of this through, but I’m sure SCOTUS will fill in the blanks when they overturn Sullivan

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Yeah, the ‘but this will hurt you too, why do you want it’ argument rests on two premises I don’t think are in evidence:

  1. That people being harmed will be unhappy about it even if the people they hate are harmed more;
  2. That there’s the kind of integrity of thought and practice that would actually have these changes done in an even-handed fashion.

The first is, I think, pretty obviously untrue — an awful lot of people are spiteful and petty assholes.

And, for the second, well, given the immense contortions gone through to argue that an issue belongs to a state when the U.S. government doesn’t do what you want, and to the U.S. as a whole when a state doesn’t, I don’t think commitment to principles is a particularly good bet either.

5star legalfunding (user link) says:

Thanks for social bookmarking websites list. Really it gonna help many freshers to bookmark their websites/posts, etc. it has various advantages as mentioned above but most importantly it has the main advantage to bloggers, free social bookmarking websites will help them fetch traffic to their websites. When anyone submits any link to any famous bookmarking website, it gets tonnes of free attention and traffic.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...