Last Week Missouri Told The Supreme Court No Gov’t Should EVER Interfere With Speech; This Week It Sues Media Matters For Its Speech
from the andrew-bailey-wouldn't-know-the-1st-amendment-if-it-bit-him-in-the-ass dept
“[W]hether you call this coercion, if that’s the label you attach, you call it encouragement, you call it promotion, you call it inducement, whatever it is, if the government is attempting to abridge the speech rights of a third party, that has to be unconstitutional because that falls within the plain text of the First Amendment.” — Benjamin Aguinaga, arguing on behalf of the states of Missouri and Louisiana in front of the Supreme Court last week.
I know that hypocrisy is no longer a political liability, especially for the most egregious political grifters out there, but it should still be called out. This week’s example of extreme hypocrisy and nonsense is Missouri’s ridiculous Attorney General, Andrew Bailey.
Just last week, Missouri was before the Supreme Court, represented by the Solicitor General of Louisiana (the two states partnered up to bring this case). They claimed that under the 1st Amendment there were no situations where governments should ever seek to suppress anyone’s speech.
And this week, Missouri is now suing the group Media Matters over its speech. In December, we called out the taxpayer-funded, bullshit, censorial “investigation” into Media Matters that Bailey had started. Bailey was acting as the personal goon squad for Elon Musk, who was upset that Media Matters accurately showed how big company ads could appear next to neo-Nazi content. Notably, this is hardly the first time that Missouri AG Andrew Bailey has gone after organizations because he didn’t like what they had to say.
Andrew Bailey is a censorial dipshit who pretends to be a free speech supporter while exhibiting a pattern of abusing his position as Attorney General to subject organizations to nonsense threats, intimidation, and bogus investigations over their speech.
Well, apparently, Bailey sent a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) to Media Matters and then immediately sued them, claiming that the organization was planning to ignore the CID. Technically, the lawsuit is for the future violation of failing to respond to the CID, but as Bailey makes abundantly clear, this is about two things and two things only: (1) sucking up to Elon Musk and (2) punishing Media Matters for its speech.
The CID is asking for all sorts of private information that Bailey has no right to. This includes a bunch of internal documents regarding strategy and donor communications. But also details on all donors from the state of Missouri. That alone is clearly an intimidation technique and an attempt to stop people from donating to Media Matters.
Just imagine how political grifters like Andrew Bailey would respond to a blue state filing a similar CID with a MAGA non-profit. He would be outraged. And he would be right in that case. This kind of censorial dipshittery has no business in any party.
Again, this is the same state that claims that the government simply sending information to social media companies saying things like “watch out for this kind of misinformation” is censorial. But attacking a company for accurately talking about ExTwitter… is fine and dandy?
Fucking hypocrite.
The complaint and Bailey’s laughably ridiculous press release make it quite clear that this is all an effort to make Musk happy.
Media Matters, a self-styled not-for-profit ‘progressive research and information center,’ envisions itself monitoring, analyzing, and correcting ‘conservative misinformation’ in the U.S. media. In fact, this description falls far short of reality for this political activist organization. Instead, rather than passively ‘monitoring,’ Media Matters has used fraud to solicit donations from Missourians in order to trick advertisers into removing their advertisements from X, formerly Twitter, one of the last platforms dedicated to free speech in America.
Notably, at no point in either the lawsuit, nor in the CID, does Bailey show anything even remotely suggesting “fraud to solicit donations.” The entirety of the accusation appears to be that Elon Musk thinks that Media Matters “fraudulently” created conditions which allowed it to find ads of big companies next to neo-Nazi content (which ExTwitter happily hosts). But there was no fraud. Media Matters simply did what the platform allowed (follow a bunch of neo-Nazis, who Elon Musk appears happy to have on his platform, and reload until they saw ads). No one denies that what Media Matters saw actually happened.
It’s just that Elon doesn’t like that there was an implication that some people read into the accurate report that big company ads regularly appeared next to neo-Nazi content.
Instead, ExTwitter wants people to know that it’s only sometimes that such ads appear next to the neo-Nazi content that it happily hosts on its platform.
There was no fraud. But Bailey is claiming that because Elon falsely thinks there’s fraud, that must mean that Media Matters is “fraudulently tricking” people into donating. Which is nonsense. There was nothing to trick donors or advertisers. Media Matters accurately reported something. Donors know who they’re supporting when they support Media Matters. Nothing Bailey has published suggests anything even remotely approximating “fraud” on Media Matters donors.
Elon Musk just doesn’t like what Media Matters found. And Andrew Bailey, a government censor, is seeking to punish Media Matters to suck up to Elon. The complaint is pretty clear that Bailey wants to punish Media Matters for being “progressive” in its politics:
Missourians will not be manipulated by “progressive” activists masquerading as news outlets…
The First Amendment called, Andrew, and it wants its ‘free speech defender’ merit badge back.
Look, I get it. Today’s Republican Party has lost all sense of principle beyond “it’s bad when Democrats do it, but it’s great when we do it, because we’re doing it to silence those woke progressive bastards.” But that’s not how this is supposed to work, and people should call it out.
And that, especially, includes those who supported Bailey in his arguments in the Murthy case. Anyone who supported Bailey in that case should be willing to call out his hypocrisy here. Otherwise, they’re saying their own principles are just as paper thin as Bailey’s.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, andrew bailey, cid, free speech, hypocrisy, missouri
Companies: media matters, twitter, x
Comments on “Last Week Missouri Told The Supreme Court No Gov’t Should EVER Interfere With Speech; This Week It Sues Media Matters For Its Speech”
I have a request for the trolls who will inevitably show up to whine about Media Matters and ride Elon’s dick: Show us the fraud. And If you can’t do that, at least have the courage to say so.
Re:
Dude. Don’t. Last time we asked for evidence, they showed us Hunter Biden’s dick.
Re: Re:
And Hunter Biden’s dick was not evidence of fraud. Or a violation of the First Amendment.
Disturbing as it was.
Re: Re: Re:
That’s because there is no evidence. The fraud was on the GOP side, as per usual. Every accusation is a confession.
These are not serious people. That lack of seriousness leads them to doing thing like showing off dick pics in lieu of evidence.
Re: Re: Re:
People like Matthew and Herman just need an excuse to appreciate that hog, Hunter keeps in his sweatpants. .
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
As always you’ve got it bass-ackwards. You all here need me to give you life, without me these comment sections are a joke. I give them life. You owe me.
Suck up lollipop.
Re: Re: Re:3
Your brain is literally the joke.
Re: Re: Re:4
When no one laughs but you, you’re the fool, silly boy.
Re: Re: Re:3
I didn’t see a denial bro…
Re: Re:
Why are they obsessed with other people’s genitals?
Re: Re: Re:
Conservatism is the perpetuation of generational trauma. These people were raised to feel ashamed of their own bodies and desires. They want to hurt those of us who live without that shame.
Re: Re: Re:
Of course they are, especially if those genitals are on the bodies of trans children.
Re: Re: Re:2
Sorry. I’m dyslexic and didn’t see the first word of your question.
Re:
Their girlfriend has all the evidence, you haven’t met her, she goes to another school in Canada.
Re: Re:
I think I might’ve heard of the school. Would it be DeGrassi?
Re: Re: Re:
I believe its most famous graduate is Drake!
Re:
How ironic in that you’re one of the major repliers to trolls who come here. I’d say you LOVE it when trolls arrive, it provides you an opportunity to focus attention on yourself (exactly like what they are here to do for themselves).
At what point is the Attorney General liable for defamation or some other lawsuit cause here?
Re:
I don’t think statements made in a legal filing are subject to defamation claims.
Re: Re:
IMO they should be. Isn’t it already illegal to make false claims in a filing?
Re: Re: Re:
Ehh, I can see arguments for that going either way.
On the one hand immunity when filing could mean someone could deliberately include as many false heinous accusations as possible in their filing and then unless it’s sealed basically immediately as soon as the press got ahold of it the other person is going to have one hell of a rough time defending themselves publicly, even more so if they happen to lose the case(which would not necessarily require them to be guilty of what they’re being accused of).
On the other hand a lack of immunity could make accusing anyone with sufficient money to burn of any serious crime a massive risk since they could just turn around and sue their accuser for defamation, and unless they happen to live in a state with a strong anti-SLAPP law that could leave them worse off than if they’d just kept their mouth shut regarding the original accusation.
Hopefully the law takes both of these into account and there are some limits as to what you can put in a legal accusation without risk, but given how much of a tightrope it would be to balance the competing interests of both sides I suspect that it’s probably not handled as well as it could or should be.
Re: Re: Re:2
Especially when one side is prone to yanking the tightrope.
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, which demonstrates that there are better ways of punishing frivolous filings than civil defamation suits.
As always, we also need to pass a federal anti-SLAPP law.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Get it through your thick head
Opposing government censorship and suing over obvious defamation is NOT the same thing.
Incorrect. They lied. The lawsuit is still going forward. You are lying about that lawsuit and it’s merits.
You can both oppose the government pressuring SM companies into censoring dissent AND want to punish people for lying about you. You can want to enforce NDAs too. None of that is contradictory you short buss reject.
Re:
…hallucinated nobody mentally competent, ever.
Re: Re:
WPATH Files
Re: Re: Re:
My takeaway is that straight cis folks are more worried about the fertility of trans children than the lives of trans children.
I never doubted that for a second.
Re:
I have a few questions for you:
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
You can just read the suit yourself, y’know. I’m not your google.
Holy fuuck I have no idea where you went but I did NOT miss you.
Re: Re: Re:
Your failure to cite the substance of your claims, as is required for those claims to be taken seriously, compels dismissal.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Yeah, it’s really not, and not only that I’ve covered it in depth before. You’re just wasting time.
Re: Re: Re:3
shhh the adults are talking
Re: Re: Re:3
Then you should have no issue with either offering brief answers that condense your prior “in-depth” coverage or linking back to prior comments where you addressed the questions I asked with specific citations of fact. 😃
Re: Re: Re:
Why make claims in the comments when you’re unable to back them up?
It’s almost like you want to be dismissed as a liar.
Re: Re: Re:
YOU make the claim, YOU prove the claim. The fact that you couldn’t even make a half-assed effort gives us all the answers we need.
Re: Re: Re:
I guess you covered in as much depth as in the other case were you claimed it was defamation while screaming “You don’t understand the law”..
Seems you are unable to learn even the simplest things.
Do we need to have the lesser known bastard-son of “it’s not rico, dammit” here? Yes, I think do.
It’s not defamation, dammit.
Re: Re: Re:
You made the claim; you have the burden of proof.
Also, this isn’t a defamation suit, and the other suit has been ruled on already.
Re: Re: Re:
So you admit you have zero factual sources to back up your lies.
Re:
Obvious defamation… so obvious that Elon Musk and X haven’t filed a defamation lawsuit. https://www.techdirt.com/2024/03/25/judge-slams-elon-musk-for-filing-vexatious-slapp-suit-against-critic-calling-out-how-it-was-designed-to-suppress-speech/
Re: Re:
Previous commenter here. The state would have no standing to file a defamation lawsuit on behalf of Twitter over Media Matter’s speech about Twitter.
Re: Hypocritical? Say it isn't so!
Because being hypocritical in court can lead to claims for judicial estoppal, and you can bet that Media Matters is taking notes for just such an objection.
Re:
You were peddling the same shit over the suit that got dismissed. I’m starting to think you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.
Re:
Yes or no – did Media Matters get served ads next to pro-nazi tweets?
Citing the words Media Matters wrote, please point to the lie.
Claims they manipulated the feed to increase the speed the results would be found is not a lie. Media Matters explicitly laid out the manipulation as part of their methodology. The “manipulation” could be done by any user, using the site as intended, and any user following Pro-nazi twitter accounts could encounter these same results. Several brands associated specifically had stopped ads over concerns their ads could be connected to pro nazi content, and only resumed when provided assurances that couldn’t happen.
Please state where in that statement I lied.
Re: Re:
He can’t, but that won’t stop him making the claim.
Re:
Mississippi declared the first outright. And it has no standing on the latter. The state cannot bring defamation suits, either on behalf of itself (a state cannot be defamed) or a third party (because that simply isn’t a thing).
Luckily, that’s not what Mississippi (through AG Bailey) is charging. Unfortunately, you conflated them.
What NDAs was Media Matters a party to? That seems to have been left out of your diatribe.
Ah, heh. Ad Hominem. How considerate of you. And considering that you’re the one that brings NDAs into the issue, I’m thinking Strawman as well. Two fallacies at the same time, how clever. Three, if you count Irrelevant Conclusion.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Filibuster.
Re: Re: Re: This is a fun game
Writ of habeas corpus.
Re: Re: Re:2
Objection.
Re: Re: Re:3
I move for a bad…court…thingy.
Re: Re: Re:4
I move for a complete dismissal.
Re: Re: Re:4
Objection! That was… objectionable!
Re: Re:
Also ironic considering he can’t spell bus.
Re:
You didn’t even spell “bus” correctly here. Imagine spelling a three-letter word incorrectly in the course of calling someone else stupid.
Let’s just cut the shit. You’re doing a performance art project here, aren’t you? Your posts are just artistic expression designed to highlight the irredeemable willful stupidity driving the right wing’s agenda.
Re:
Which side of censorship are you on today bro? You flip more often than a methed up short order cook at ihop.
Re: Re:
Shorter Bennett: “I do NOOT flip pancakes, liar. I simply hold pancakes still while the fuuucking pan moves around them.”
Re: Re:
He’s consistently pro-Nazi, so he’ll be siding with Missouri on this one.
Re:
The case has no defamation claim.
But even if there were (and there is not) that would not give the state of Missouri any standing to go after Media Matters.
Where did you go to law school and does that school know they graduated an idiot?
Re:
Please do point to where media matters defamed Missouri, the Missouri ag, or their donors in Missouri.
Because this lawsuit by the Missouri ag has nothing at all to do with defamation.
Re:
So how does the Missouri AG have standing to sue Media Matters for alleged defamation of Xitter?
Consistently hypocritical at least...
Republicans: The government has no business telling people or companies what they can say or do unless we’re the government at the time!
Re:
The Republican view of “limited government” isn’t “the state in all its forms should be limited in how it governs individuals”, but “the federal government should stop interfering with tyrannical applications of the political authority of all lower-level governments”.
Re: Re:
Unless they’re the ones in charge of the federal government and/or the lower-level governments aren’t run by republican anyway, in which case suddenly things get entirely flipped.
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
“There must be in-groups whom the law protectes [sic] but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
–Frank Wilhoit
Re:
Same as it was in X’s day. “By any means necessary” remains the rule of the day.
Re:
Also apt:
“I always discover that my interlocutor idolizes Hitler, not in spite of the high-altitude bombs and the rumbling invasions, the machine guns, the accusations and lies, but because of those acts and instruments. He is delighted by evil and atrocity. The triumph of Germany does not matter to him; he wants the humiliation of England and a satisfying burning of London. He admires Hitler as he once admired his precursors in the criminal underworld of Chicago. The discussion becomes impossible because the offenses I ascribe to Hitler are, for him, wonders and virtues. The apologists of Amigas, Ramirez, Quiroga, Rosas or Urquiza pardon or gloss over their crimes; the defender of Hitler derives a special pleasure from them. The Hitlerist is always a spiteful man, and a secret and sometimes public worshiper of criminal ‘vivacity’ and cruelty.”
— Jorge Luis Borges
Re: Re:
Well this is especially poignant.
“I know that hypocrisy is no longer a political liability”
These days it’s required on one side of the aisle.
Re:
Conservatism collapses on itself without hypocrisy to keep it stable.
Well someone is getting his CV ready to get a cabinet position from the Fanta Fascist.
No rights can be untrampled in the pursuit of a higher position to trample on even more rights & betrayal of those silly things the nation was founded on.
Re:
The nation was founded on slavery, and conservatives have worked hard to conserve it ever since.
Re: Re:
“The nation was founded on slavery, and conservatives have worked hard to conserve it ever since.”
The fact that their business models require slavery in order to function tells you a bit about their business acumen.
While I don’t like how advertisers can be an annoying driver of corporate censorship (it’s not just “hate speech”), an Attorney General making flimsy excuses to target people saying things he doesn’t like should alarm anyone who cares about the Constitution.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
You should be extremely afraid techies. You sold Lemon products to everyone including local, county, state, and federal governments. Do you know what they can do to you for that?
WTF were you thinking tevhies?!
Re:
andrea iravani: “Oh no, hackers replaced my ‘C’ with a ‘V’!”
Me: “Shut the fuvk up, stupid vunt.”*
*Deliberately misspelled to prove the point.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Thank you all for allowing me hijack another thread. I just love how much power I have over you.
You’re welcome for your subservience.
Re:
Except Mike and company are posting articles to which you seem compelled to respond, so by your logic, Mike is controlling you. You could prove me wrong by not commenting here anymore, but you still will because you can’t help yourself. Whenever you comment, you’re just admitting that you’re weak. Feel free to continue dunking on yourself with every word you type here.
Re: Re:
Hope you don’t run afoul of federal law for that comment, dude. After all, the United States outlawed owning people.
Re: Re: Re:
Technically, though don’t agree with it, the 13th Amendment has an exception for criminals and his level of douchebaggery is downright criminal in nature.
Re: Re: Re:2
It certainly is. Harassment, isn’t it?
Re:
Guy, what you do is take a dump in the middle of a shopping mall and think that just because the staff have to clean and disinfect the area, you now command every aspect of their life.
Does your spouse and offspring know that this is what you pass off as your crowning achievement? Or are they, as we have all suspected, completely imaginary?
So he claims Media Matters lied to the people of Missouri to raise money…
When is he investigating politicians from Missouri who have repeatedly lied to the citizens of Missouri to get more money & power??
Pretty sure that is much more damaging to the state than Media Matters showing Elmo is a racist twat.