Far Right Troll ‘Ricky Vaughn’ Convicted Of Election Interference For Tricking People Into Voting By Phone

from the some-election-lies-are-more-criminal-than-others dept

Earlier this year, a federal court dismissed almost all of a far right troll’s challenge to the criminal case brought against him by the DOJ. “Ricky Vaughn” is a notorious social media presence — one who’s been repeatedly suspended and banned for his never-ending string of shitheelishness.

I don’t sympathize with Douglass Mackey, better known as “Ricky Vaughn.” He’s the kind of person who gives actual conservatives a bad name. He’s the kind of person who takes perverse joy in being as awful as possible. But rather than just offend everyone, Mackey/Vaughn has a demographic he prefers to target: the “libs.”

During the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, Mackey convinced a bunch of his social media followers to start spreading disinformation. This was a particular form of disinformation, though. Namely, Mackey and his acolytes made a concerted effort to convince certain voters they could vote by phone. They even provided a phone number for voters to text their votes to.

It worked, to a certain extent. Mackey’s online accounts had thousands of followers. According to the DOJ, nearly 5,000 people fell for his ruse.

So, the DOJ charged him with election interference. Whether or not a 5,000 vote swing would have mattered is besides the point, especially when the Electoral College has the final say. And the DOJ admitted this prosecution was unique: every prior election interference prosecution involved political candidates or government officials interfering with the voting process. Prior precedent — as the court noted — involved ballot stuffing or deliberate miscounting of votes by election officials. To date, no one had been prosecuted for attempting to dupe people out of their votes via social media posts.

The court came down on the side of the law, at least as represented by the DOJ. According to the court, preventing election interference is clearly something that is both the best interest of the government and the people they serve. So, if there are some incursions on free speech rights when it comes to free and fair elections, they’re justified by the compelling interest of the government:

This compelling interest undoubtedly includes making sure voters have accurate information about how, when, and where to vote. Prosecutions such as the one before this court are one of the few tools at the Government’s disposal for doing so. Counter speech, a typical mode of countering false speech, is unlikely to be of much use in the context of tweets spread across the far reaches of the internet in the days and hours immediately preceding an election.

A lot of this is true. But this relies on a lot of the court’s other conclusions, including its assumption Mackey knew he was committing a crime when he started trolling. And an arrest that didn’t occur until 2020 hardly seems like a deterrent against future, similar acts by others. It doesn’t appear any of Mackey’s followers have been charged, despite this being called a criminal conspiracy.

This post provoked a very lively discussion between Techdirt readers, almost all of which disagreed with my assessment of this ruling. Several very good points were raised, enough that I have seriously rethought my take on the decision. I think the prosecution (which the DOJ admits is the first of its kind) does raise some First Amendment issues, as does the decision supporting it. But, thanks to Techdirt readers, I also think I may have overlooked the more serious implications of Mackey’s disinformation campaign, which is the sort of thing that can become concerted voter suppression very easily if there are no judicial/criminal justice guardrails applied.

A land of contrasts as they say, only I’m inclined to be less sympathetic to Mackey’s arguments after reading this excellent comment thread.

Wherever you come down on the issue, the end result is here. Mackey is going to jail, as Eugene Volokh notes at The Volokh Conspiracy, pointing to the DOJ’s official press release:

Douglass Mackey, also known as “Ricky Vaughn,” was convicted today by a federal jury in Brooklyn of the charge of Conspiracy Against Rights stemming from his scheme to deprive individuals of their constitutional right to vote.  The verdict followed a one-week trial before United States District Judge Ann M. Donnelly.  When sentenced, Mackey faces a maximum of 10 years in prison.

Suppression is what the DOJ’s attempting to prevent. That this went before a jury is a limited testament to the functionality of the criminal justice system, which rarely finds jurors essential to the process. It also notes in the release that Mackey and his followers made deliberate efforts to deceive voters by using Hillary Clinton’s official campaign logo and font in their misleading social media posts encouraging voters to stay home and vote by phone.

I still have reservations about this whole thing, although those reservations are a bit more reserved after reading through the original article’s discussion. What’s not clear is when protected speech strays into election interference. A concerted campaign utilizing a candidate’s trademarks and hashtags is enough to trigger prosecution. But what if people do what they always do around election day and start telling people the wrong day or date to vote? At what point does it cross the line from being trollish to being criminal? And if it does cross the line, will the DOJ handle these cases consistently?

I do think this was a deliberate attempt to trick people out of voting. And that is suppression, even if Mackey’s army of 58,000+ followers only managed to result in 4,900 futile texts. It’s depriving someone of their right, even if — in a nation of hundreds of millions — only a very small number of people fell for it. An extreme amount of caution needs to exercised in the future. This isn’t a problem that’s going to go away. And the government — all three branches — need to take care to address the issue without further diminishing the rights they swore to uphold.

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,

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 “Far Right Troll ‘Ricky Vaughn’ Convicted Of Election Interference For Tricking People Into Voting By Phone”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
119 Comments
sumgai (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I seem to recall that #45 started warning us in very early 2017 that “The only way I’ll lose the election in 2020 is if it is stolen from me”. From that I can only deduce that we, the non-MAGAots, “cheated” by presenting a better candidate, and that the majority of the populace was not fooled by how the candidates presented themselves, and what they represented as policy for the future.

Notice also that he used the pronouns “I” and “me”, and almost never “us”. (In his reality, there is no one else.) He was already telling his own party that he was the only reason they still existed, and that if they don’t bow down to him in perpetual subservience, then they’ll lose forever and ever after.

In the immortal words of Yoda, “Weak his prophecy-fu is”.

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

Several very good points were raised, enough that I have seriously rethought my take on the decision.

Whoa! Just wait a minute there, buddy. We won’t be tolerating any of this reasonableness. You’re supposed to double down and insult the people who disagree with you, if I’ve learned anything from the resident trolls.

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

Anonymous Coward says:

“Your vote doesn’t count! It’s all a sham! The president is selected, not elected!”

Be careful what you say in public, or online, as you could be prosecuted next for ‘spreading misinformation,’ specially if the other party is in power in Washington.

The solution to this isn’t to jail your opposition, it’s to educate your voters so they don’t fall for bullshit.

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

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

Is only happening in deranged right-wing hallucinations.

Oh? Trump right now is about to indicted on a bookkeeping misdemeanor basically no one is charged on and that was out of statute of limitations FOUR YEARS ago. That on the legal theory it’s a felony with a longer SOT (still expired, tho) cuz it was done in pursuit of another “crime” that is not a state crime (yes, that’s a requirement Bragg is just ignoring) BUT IS NOT EVEN A CRIME AT ALL.

No lawyers think this is actually tenable, including Bragg himself a few years ago. It’s all just made up.

I’m sure you think Trump is very awful and basically Hitler yadda yadda but he is not guilty of this because there is nothing to be guilty of (certainly not anymore). And if you think it’s OK to charge him anyway well….you’re the proof it’s happening.

Meanwhile Hunter Biden walks free despite being provably guilty of dozens of crimes at least.

So, yeah, provably occurring right now.

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

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Why would that stop him? There’s no constitutional interdict against felons holding the office (which makes the state interdicts against felons voting weird but that’s a digression). His followers would vote for him anyways. Why wouldn’t we have the first felon president?

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

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:4

I don’t think any of this is tactical or well considered, at all. But it actually makes Trump much MORE likely to be the republican nominee (seriously, it proves him right, he’s being prosecuted over politics) and democrats probably think they have a better to chance against Trump than they do say DeSantis, or Tim Scott.

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.

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

Re: Re: Re:3

Hey, remember tall those years where crowds of baying right wing morons chanted for the arrest of Hillary Clinton, subjected her to year upon year of investigations in the public eye to try and stop her running and then to damage her campaign? Remember when Trump tried to blackmail a nation under siege to try to force them to produce non existent evidence he could use to stop Biden running after polling made it clear in no uncertain terms he would lose against him? Remember all the shitty tinpot sherriffs and republican officials trying to find ways to block Obama or disqualify him from the presidency because racism? That what that actually looks like. This is just a career criminal finally being prosecuted for something.

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: Re: Re:6

‘Your guy is accused of breaking the law and is now being investigated and prosecuted for it.’

Incorrect, actually. Which is why it’s a political prosecution.

Except it isn’t incorrect. He’s literally been indicted, meaning that he’s been formally charged and is being investigated.

But please, keep lying to avoid reality.

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

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:7

And Putin indicted a WSJ reporter for spying. What of it?

None of the crimes are actually real, if they were real they’d be misdemeanors and wildly outside of sol, and because you’re idiot you’re going to pretend that doesn’t matter.

But it really does. In a country ending sorta way.

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

urza9814 says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Dude, we’ve had a candidate for president who literally ran his campaign from a prison cell! Their campaign buttons and such read “For President: Convict No. 9653”. Unconstitutionally arrested by his opposition BTW — sentenced to ten years for merely giving an anti-war speech and criticizing the administration.

I mean Trump is certainly no Euguene Debs…just pointing out that a good candidate surely would not be stopped by prison 😉

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

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Curious, why do you think he was indicted?

Technically he hasn’t been, but will be tomorrow. (interestingly, leaking that fact or at least the grand jury deliberations is itself a felony)

But the reason is cuz the AG promised to do so. It’s what he ran on. That’s really the only reason, and it’s probably not going to work out well for him. (seriously, it would be reasonable for him to be disbarred, tho unlikely in NY)

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

Re: Re: Re:3

God but you never seem to get tired of being wrong, don’t you.

An indictment is what comes out of the Grand Jury. Yes, the GJ is nothing more than a proxy for the Prosecutor, but what the DA’s office is doing is projecting a potential case, and he/she wants to be sure that what’s presented in the GJ room will work when presented in court – that’s an indictment. (And in New York, it’s called a True Bill.)

Only then does the DA prepare a List Of Charge(s), and go to the Court to demand that the person so charged be made to appear before a court and answer those charges.

Trump (in a few moments, my time of posting) is appearing in court for a formal reading of the Charges against him, as determined by the GJ’s indictment. Last week he was informally notified that an indictment had been brought forth, but listen to the Judge’s first words – they’ll be: “Mr. Trump, you have been charged by a Grand Jury in the State of New York with committing this list of crimes……” That use of the past tense should tell you that the charges have already been laid, and indeed, without that act of formally laying the charges, Trump could not be made to appear before a Judge.

So ends your daily lesson in how the justice system works. Now, pay attention, because there’ll be a pop quiz at the end of the week.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

As the saying goes, you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Grand jury proceedings are entirely one-sided; only the prosecution presents its case, and indictment requires only a majority of the jury, not unanimity.

Pretty much the only time a grand jury fails to indict is when an overzealous prosecutor goes after a sympathetic victim who injured or killed an attacker.

Whether or not Trump did the things he’s accused of, this indictment is clearly political. Democrats have been furiously trying to pin something criminal on him since he took office.

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.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

“Your vote doesn’t count! It’s all a sham! The president is selected, not elected!”

Generally wrong. The president, while selected by the electoral college, is still generally voted in by the people, on whose votes the electoral college uses to determine who gets to be president.

And your votes DO matter, lest we repeat 2016 again.

Be careful what you say in public, or online, as you could be prosecuted next for ‘spreading misinformation,’ specially if the other party is in power in Washington.

Oh, an elected official abusing the legal system? You sure you aren’t in pretty much not America? Or, at worst, a red state? I hear the Republicans are more than happy to sue someone for defamation at a drop of a hat…

The solution to this isn’t to jail your opposition, it’s to educate your voters so they don’t fall for bullshit.

And to enforce voter fraud legislation, like what happened here. If your government takes voter fraud seriously, regardless of why, it will empower citizens to actually vote more.

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

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

“Lock her up” was a fun chant, but I think it’s clear there was nothing behind it in terms of actual criminal charges. Same as with a certain laptop and election fraud – lots of claims in front of cameras, nothing in court documents.

If certain parties wish to pursue indictments with the level of evidence and due process being afforded to Trump’s many felony charges, so be it. Nobody should be above it. But, they always go silent when they’re not performing in front of a camera.

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

The solution to the “this took too long and hasn’t hit the followers” points isn’t to not do it at all, it’s to enforce earlier, more broadly, and more aggressively. However, if we were in the universe where that had happened, I’m pretty sure these articles would be pointing to such as evidence of government overzealousness. That makes me think the objection is a post-facto one, not a principled one.

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

Tim,

As I wrote before, it all came down to Mackey being found guilty of committing a fraud, and not an issue with 1A. So the argument of freedom of speech has a little sort of ‘gotcha’ that we all tend to forget – quite often, in fact – and that is summed up in the old rubric:

Your right to swing your fist around in the air ends at the tip of my nose.

And that statement does not depend on whether you were doing so out of sheer exuberance, or if you were doing it in a knowing attempt to cause harm to my nose. The effect that my nose was struck is all that’s necessary to obviate any right you might imagine will ‘protect’ you against recrimination.

Take that out of the physical realm and back into the Constitutional sphere, there’s little difference. A ‘struck nose’ isn’t a denied voting right, to be sure, but within the purview of the law, they’re pretty much equal in that a harm (tort) was committed, and a remedy-at-law is available…. mainly because the act of fraud was determined early in our history to be a valid exception to that proscription placed on the government by 1A.

Paul B says:

Re: This gets most of it

I mean the things people are afraid of are things like “Voting ends at 5” when it ends at 4. Telling 1 person or even a small group when someone asked is not going to get a Jury to convict you of voter fraud.

Now a sustained campaign of telling people in a given area the wrong voting date, sending mailers and text’s is going to get you a fraud conviction. This is going to be a slam dunk conviction if before the election someone offically brings up “your mailers have the wrong date!”. I could easily see this enforced against groups of people who pull this stunt after this conviction.

sumgai (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Thad,

If you’re under the impression that “the law” is straightforward, then you’re operating under a handicap from the get-go. (Said in jest, I know you’re much more ‘on the ball’ than that.)

Nonetheless, where a lawyer can use 100 words instead of 20, he/she will do so. That’s how they think, in terms of the billable hours that it took to jot down those 100 words. 😉

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

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Someoneinnorthms says:

Not sure what speech crosses the line? I’m pretty sure that the exact same speech from a liberal wouldn’t be prosecuted. So, that’s how we know what is a crime and what isn’t. Liberal speech is basically okay. Conservative speech is a crime.

Of course, I know I’m engaging in a little bit of hyperbole. But that seems to be the dividing line.

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

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

[Citation Needed], be specific in providing examples of what speech you would expect a ‘liberal’ would be able to say but would be criminal should a ‘conservative’ say it.

Let’s see if/when this person is indicted: https://twitter.com/mskristinawong/status/795999059987173377?s=20

Oh, wait, she won’t be, she’s a Democrat.

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

Re: Re: Re:

Congrats, you found someone that should also be on the receiving end of some legal attention, albeit not as much as the person named in this article due to lesser scope of her actions(one fraudulent tweet vs a dedicated campaign by tens of thousands), now you just need to make the connection that the reason she wasn’t similarly charged is because of her political leaning rather than the fact that there’s only so many resources available to bring legal action against people and those involved tend to prioritize large/easy targets as a result.

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

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

You asked for a citation. One was provided.

Instead of apologizing and replying that you are wrong, you try to explain it away as, ‘there’s only so many prosecutors to go around!’

They ignored the Democrat because she’s on their ‘team,’ and Democrats don’t, usually, hold their comrades accountable.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

They ignored the Democrat because she’s on their ‘team,’ and Democrats don’t, usually, hold their comrades accountable.

If you ignore the scope(one tweet from what was apparently a comedy act is sumgai is correct versus a dedicated campaign involving tens of thousands of people, fraudulent phone number and misuse of official stationary) then sure, it must be a case of them not bringing the hammer down on her just as hard because of her political affiliation.

If you want to argue that it’s a matter of politics rather than scale then present an equivalent situation, because the one you have put forth is only vaguely in the same ballpark as what happened here.

BernardoVerda (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

Liz Cheney refused to pretend the Jan 6th events were anything other than an attempted, anti-democratic coup — and insisted it be treated accordingly, including voting for Trump’s impeachment.

Aside from that one thing, she was almost a caricature of an ideological right-wing Republican — but there was no room (or tolerance) for her in the Party anymore. From 3rd highest-ranking Republican (House Republican Conference chairperson) to officially expelled outcast, just like that.

Anathema Device (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

A number of republicans have mistakenly told people the wrong date to vote, and much mockery was made of this because, well, it only helps the other side.

Oh look, even tfg did it in 2016
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/oct/12/donald-trump-tells-supporters-to-vote-on-wrong-date-video

Cindi Hyde Smith did in 2018
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/gop-senate-candidate-tells-supporters-wrong-date-to-vote-for-her-1376603203984

And Trump Jr did it repeatedly:
https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-jr-got-election-day-wrong-2018-10

Was Ms Wong making fun of that kind of mistake? Almost certainly. Was she serious? Not a bloody chance.

sumgai (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: WTF?

Time to do a copy/pasta from an earlier thread, removing remarks specific to that one’s AC:

First – she’s a comedienne, so almost anything she says in a public display is probably a joke of some kind.

Second – she did this alone, as part of a comedy sketch. She didn’t ask anyone else to join her, hence no conspiracy (which requires more than one participant).

Third – the only thing that the RWNJ crowd picked up on was that she mocked Mackey, and that upset them something fierce. Sub-par IQ participants of the human race tend to over-react when they think with their emotions instead of with their brains.

Fourth – go back and re-read the second sentence in #3 – do you fit that description? If so, then you might want to sit down and have a little chat with yourself. Just sayin’.

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

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

Re:

Or perhaps, a large number of conservative speech looks like Spam (See Google’s Email program), Is actual lies (Mexico will pay for the wall!), or in this case actual fraud.

Where as liberals dont need to bend the truth of how awful things are as they use things like climate change, school shootings, and even tell their side if you lie or defraud we will turn you in ourselves.

But you dont care, as these things shatter your world view and psychology says your going to ignore data that conflicts with your view instead of changing your mind.

sumgai (profile) says:

Re: Hyperbole, it's what's for dinner!

I admit right up front that I don’t work for any social media site. In fact, I don’t use any of them either.

But one thing that stands out to me is that when a conservative/alleged republican “speaks”, they almost always do it in CAPS, and bold, and often in *BOTH. This is considered shouting, impolite, discourteous, and just plain rude.

Whereas those who are posting like this, without emphasis, are considered the opposite – polite, etc. etc. Most often, these posters are espousing the “liberal” point of view (whatever liberal might mean to them, or to anyone else).

Mis/Dis/Mal- information is not really the name of the game, it’s who tends to act as if only they could “shout loud enough”, somehow that would automatically convince the other guy to change his point of view to match that of the shouter.

But more often than not, the recipient of those “shouting” messages will either complain to the management, or else just leave. And you had best keep in mind that when someone leaves, the management feels it in the pocket book – no eyeballs, no advertising revenue.

Simple as that. You’re welcome.

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

sumgai (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Is Stone a conservative?

Was this a serious question? I’ll answer as if it is.

I don’t know Stone’s political proclivity, I can’t answer that with any certainty at all. I ‘feel’ that he’s pretty neutral, politically speaking.

What he’s famous for, here on TD, is asking pointed questions that are designed to elicit a verifiable response from lack-luster shit-posters. Most often those questions are directed at alternate-reality denizens, and if (when!) he doesn’t get a response of any kind, then he gets even more determined that someone owes him (and the rest of TD’s readership) an answer. That’s why he uses emphasis, not because he’s some kind of nutcase.

I am, of course, espousing my personal opinion of the man (who, in the end of things, might not identify as a man, I’m just guessing here). He may be along at any time to negate all of my statements, that’d be up to him.

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

If I set up a bogus ballot box and told people that it was legitimate and they should drop their mail-in votes there whether I thought I was just being a jackass or an actual criminal should not prevent me from being prosecuted and in such a situation I would certainly hope that the government would do so.

To the extent that this might chill speech it’s speech involving voter fraud in the form of deliberately trying to prevent people from voting in a manner that actually counts, something where you don’t get to address the problem with more after-the-fact speech and is undermining the biggest way for someone to influence the government that is supposed to represent and serve the public so while the government stepping in and going after speech requires a delicate touch to avoid constitutional violations this is a not a case where I’m too worried they crossed that line.

hegemon13 says:

Re: Re:

You assume those votes were Democrats, but we haven’t seen the votes themselves. Given the weird associations that social media algorithms make, and the education level of the audience that follows Mackey, it’s quite possible a lot of those text votes came from his own followers who didn’t understand the joke/scheme. I would love the poetic justice of seeing him serve a 10-year prison term for accidentally scamming his own followers out of their votes.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Get off my cyber-lawn! (profile) says:

Crime or Constitutional Right?

Telling someone they can vote by phone is 1st Amendment (albeit a pathetic, moral-lacking thing to do).

Creating a fake phone number system so they believe they have voted sounds an awful lot like a crime.

Convincing hundreds or thousands of other people to participate in that crime sounds like conspiracy.

Anonymous Coward says:

including its assumption Mackey knew he was committing a crime when he started trolling

Since when has ignorance of the law been a defence?

And an arrest that didn’t occur until 2020 hardly seems like a deterrent against future, similar acts by others.

Gee, I wonder why this rabid conservative chud wasn’t prosecuted between 2016 and 2020. Perhaps there was something affecting their investigative priorities. We May Never Know. Truly It Is An Mystery For Our Times.

mechtheist (profile) says:

This isn’t a new tactic, it goes back at least to Nixon’s re-election committee The Committee to RE-Elect the President, which has one of the most apropos acronyms ever–CREEP. They did mailings and put up flyers with incorrect election dates or locations. It was led by Lee Atwater, one of the more obnoxious vile creatures working for Nixon, who died horribly but turned really regretful and apologetic at the end. I’ve heard of similar dirty tricks in later elections.

One thing to note, what these guys did is really no different than throwing ballots away without counting them. The complaint listed numerous discussions between this guy and his supporters of what tactics would work best to fool the most voters.

I don’t think it should even be called speech, they weren’t trying to say anything, the effort was entirely to trick voters, to suppress as many votes for Clinton as possible. Lying about an opponent to get voters to not want to vote for them is not great but it is at least speech.

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

sumgai (profile) says:

Re:

I believe that no evidence was presented of anyone saying they were harmed by this.

Your belief is misplaced. Evidence was presented, otherwise we wouldn’t even know about this case, ’cause it would’ve never been brought to trial in the first place. That a victim did not report the crime he didn’t know about until after the fact does not negate the harm suffered by the victim.

Leave a Reply to Diogenes Cancel reply

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 needs your support! Get the first Techdirt Commemorative Coin with donations of $100
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...