Devin Nunes Admits That His Bogus Defamation Lawsuits Are Really About Phishing For Journalists' Sources

from the slapp-suits dept

We have already talked about how the two separate defamation lawsuits Devin Nunes has filed against critics and journalists are bullshit SLAPP suits designed to intimidate and attack protected speech. But now Nunes himself has gone even further, admitting out loud that his intent with at least the second lawsuit, against the Fresno Bee, is to force the newspaper to give up its sources:

“I am absolutely sure that they do not want this to get to discovery so that we find out who their sources are,” Nunes told Fox & Friends. “Somebody gave them the phony information that the National Rifle Association was involved with Russian collusion. Somebody gave them the phony information that Cohen was in Prague when he wasn’t.”

Here's the video of him saying that:

So, first of all, the issue with the NRA and Michael Cohen aren't even the subject of the lawsuit he's filed, so that's a bizarre thing to raise unless the intent of the lawsuit is purely performative for an idiotic base who wants to build up some big conspiracy. Second, he's flat out admitting that the intent of his lawsuit is an attack on basic press freedoms like source protection. Remember, this is a Congressman who has sworn to uphold the Constitution, and that includes the 1st Amendment he is attacking with these lawsuits.

Furthermore, in the video Nunes suggests he's not done yet, saying "we're actually going to go after several media outlets." Apparently, he's decided going to war with the First Amendment is a good idea. Also in the video, Nunes claims that he sued Twitter for shadow-banning him, which (1) it did not do, and (2) it legally could if it wanted to, and (3) the shadow-banning, while talked about in the lawsuit, is not actually part of any of the actual claims in the lawsuit.

More and more this appears to be lawsuit-as-performance, allowing Nunes to rile up a base by pretending to take on critics and the media. And that's exactly what the 1st Amendment does not allow -- especially from a public, elected official. The fact that Nunes chose to file these cases in Virginia state court, with its much weaker anti-SLAPP laws, rather than in California's courts (where he, the Fresno Bee, and Twitter, all are) suggests that even he knows these cases wouldn't survive a true anti-SLAPP test. But now that he's out and out admitting that the point of the lawsuits is to go on a journalistic source fishing expedition (even over stories totally unrelated to the one about him) certainly seems to confirm how much Nunes is focused on spitting on the First Amendment that he's sworn to protect.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, anti-slapp, defamation, devin nunes, fishing expedition, free speech, journalism, slapp, source protection, sources


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Gary (profile), 12 Apr 2019 @ 12:06pm

    Well there is a reason it's called Faux News.

    Waging war on the press - taking a page from the playbooks used by Russia and El Cheeto. Seems to by working.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Mr Plio Dean -- now there's a palindrome for ya, 12 Apr 2019 @ 12:15pm

      Re: Says "Gary" the astro-turfing.

      Any new readers: this "account" has twelve comment in its first two years, then suddenly took off at 400 per year rate, with ardent support of Techdirt -- and no more than one-liners on any topic, JUST support of the site. It has the bombastic tone of Timothy Geigner aka "Dark Helmet", and "darkflite" as its user name. Isn't that interesting?

      By the way: where are all the Zombie accounts this week, kids? Couple equivocal, but none of those with inexplicable long gaps, up to eight and a half years? Seems that my "news" pointing them out -- even if I were wrong -- is useful in suppressing suspicious "confidential sources" here on this site!

      And Masnick has no interest in outing any of those, now does he? It'd reduce interest in the site, exactly as newspaper revealing its mysterious sources would, that's why will fight this on principles that they don't honor.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 12 Apr 2019 @ 12:21pm

        For someone who openly professes to hating this site, you sure do love to admit how much browsing you do to check on the comment histories of commenters with accounts here.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Gary (profile), 12 Apr 2019 @ 1:23pm

        Re: Re: Says "Gary"

        Damn straight, says me. I'm bombastic and caustic. Go fuck yourself Blue_Balls.

        and no more than one-liners on any topic

        An obvious falsehood, easily checked - I guess that makes you a... liar?

        As a registered user it's pretty easy to see that I'm not a zombie. Posting from multiple screen names as you do - that is the definition of a zombie troll.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Mr Plio Dean -- now there's a palindrome for ya, 12 Apr 2019 @ 12:09pm

    More of YOUR lying fake news. Public has a right to know.

    Somebody gave them the phony information that the National Rifle Association was involved with Russian collusion. Somebody gave them the phony information that Cohen was in Prague when he wasn’t.”

    I certainly want to know who is -- even whether there is a "source" -- spreading false information. Those two in particular are without question FALSE.

    It's a very serious matter for a reputable publication to print such allegations. We don't need "free speech" if it's all lies.

    Newpapers have an obligation to print The Truth -- including attempting to verify. Do you recognize NO such duty? No such notion as The Truth? Are you that far gone in your hatred of reality?

    Masnick is entirely for falsehoods so long as against political opponents. You cannot read this rant any other way.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 12 Apr 2019 @ 12:11pm

      Newpapers have an obligation to print The Truth

      Then why do they keep printing everything Donald Trump says?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Mr Plio Dean -- now there's a palindrome for ya, 12 Apr 2019 @ 12:18pm

        Re: Newpapers have an obligation to print The Truth.

        Then why do they keep printing everything Donald Trump says?

        Sheesh. That he says it IS The Truth.

        You just blurted the very first stupid objection you came up with to try and show that could even be answered. Now that I've responded, you'll try to do better.

        Try to be on-topic, kid.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 12 Apr 2019 @ 12:23pm

          That he says it IS The Truth.

          Quoting what he says is the truth, yes. Whether what he says is the truth, on the other hand… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2019 @ 12:44pm

          Newspapers are obligated to print the truth? In my opionion, there seem to be plenty of bright bards that are just huffing tons of glue daily, mailing out every kind of nonsense under the sun. The buzz feeds them, not the truth. Info worse than fiction is a problem all around the globe, it's inter-national; enquiring minds can't just pick up the nearest rag for the weekly world news.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2019 @ 1:35pm

          Re: Re: I AM The Truth.

          “Try to be on-topic, kid.”

          You are a sad pathetic little hypocrite.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Dave P., 13 Apr 2019 @ 11:47am

          Re: Re: Newpapers have an obligation to print The Truth.

          Trump truthful? That WILL be a day of celebration. Hang out the flags and bunting. Let off the fireworks. There will be dancing in the streets with festivities and feasting, the like of which has never been seen before. Everybody have a day off!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2019 @ 1:45pm

          Re: Re: Newpapers have an obligation to print The Truth.

          “That he says it is the truth”

          In other words: you aren’t even capable of forming your thoughts.
          What a follower lol

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2019 @ 12:25pm

      Re: More of YOUR lying fake news. Public has a right to know.

      "Newpapers have an obligation to print The Truth"

      So do our politicians

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      kallethen, 12 Apr 2019 @ 12:45pm

      Re: More of YOUR lying fake news. Public has a right to know.

      I certainly want to know who is -- even whether there is a "source" -- spreading false information. Those two in particular are without question FALSE.

      If those two items are truly false information, then why are they NOT the subject of the lawsuits?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2019 @ 12:56pm

        Because
        1) Nunes doesn't have standing to file a lawsuit on behalf of Michael Cohen or the NRA because a newspaper lying about Michael Cohen or the NRA doesn't cause Nunes any harm
        2) Lying is not a crime
        2a) unless you're lying to the government
        2b) or you're lying intentionally or carelessly and someone got hurt because you lied
        2c) or you're lying in bed with a minor

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          kallethen, 13 Apr 2019 @ 7:07am

          Re:

          Ok, Nunes doesn't have standing on those...

          So instead filing lawsuits on bogus matters with the intention of punishing for the lying regarding Cohen / NRA...

          Are you trying to say it's okay to use one falsehood to attack a supposed falsehood?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2019 @ 11:00am

            Not at all. Merely pointing out why he's absolutely obviously not able to go after them directly, even though he clearly wants to, so he's trying some crab-walking, back-bending corkscrew of indignity instead.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Gary (profile), 12 Apr 2019 @ 2:04pm

      Re: More of YOUR Trolling

      We don't need "free speech" if it's all lies.

      Says the serial liar?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2019 @ 1:05pm

      Re: More of YOUR lying fake news. Public has a right to know.

      Just becuase you don’t like it does not make it fake John. And if have a problem with it. Then oh well.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 12 Apr 2019 @ 12:10pm

    Nunes is a grifter. What else is new?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Paul (profile), 12 Apr 2019 @ 12:19pm

    Being a politician is the only job you can get with no qualifications, no training, no relevant skills, and no experience - you just need more references than the other applicants. A fast food worker gets more job training than congress does.

    I don't know what the solution is, most politicians have shown they can at least be intelligent enough to get a 4 year degree, but what we're doing now clearly isn't working either.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 12 Apr 2019 @ 12:26pm

    Good to have that confirmed

    I mean, I suppose he's at least honest about his gross dishonesty, so that's something I guess?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2019 @ 12:28pm

    "Remember, this is a Congressman who has sworn to uphold the Constitution, and that includes the 1st Amendment he is attacking with these lawsuits."

    Do they cross their fingers while repeating those words that mean nothing to them?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 12 Apr 2019 @ 12:40pm

      Re:

      To them, it's the same as campaign promises. The better liar you are, the more chance you have at winning. I am waiting for him to get caught lying in front of a judge.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    z! (profile), 12 Apr 2019 @ 12:28pm

    First thing, ask the court to remove the cases to California since obviously that will me more convenient for all the parties. It would be interesting to see Nunes fight that.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2019 @ 12:35pm

    Well, I hope for Nunes' sake this doesn't go all the way up to the Republican dominated Supreme Cour--oh wait, never mind. Bye bye 1st Amendment, we hardly knew ye.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Bamboo Harvester (profile), 12 Apr 2019 @ 12:50pm

    wow...

    ...what a reaction.

    He said outright he wants it to get to Discovery so he gets sources.

    It's a MOLE HUNT. He's using currently legal methods to uncover a turncoat.

    As to First Amendment issues, once again, please show me where it actually says that "journalists" can "protect sources".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 12 Apr 2019 @ 1:08pm

      “From” “Wikipedia” “:”

      States differ on their approach to protecting reporter's privilege. As of 2011, 49 states and the District of Columbia offer some form of protections. Forty states (plus D.C.) have passed shield laws. These laws vary from state to state. Some protections apply to civil but not to criminal proceedings. Other laws protect journalists from revealing confidential sources, but not other information. Many states have also established court precedents which provide protection to journalists, usually based on constitutional arguments. Only Wyoming lacks both legislation and judicial precedent to protect reporter's privilege.

      “(Source)”

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Bamboo Harvester (profile), 13 Apr 2019 @ 9:33am

        Re:

        Wikipedia is not the Constitution.

        Nor are States adopting different laws "shielding journalists" (do any of them actually define what a "journalist is?)

        Your "sources" are simply OPINIONS of what someone else BELIEVES is contained in the simple, straight-forward wording of the First Amendment.

        Nowhere does it have the words "protect" or "sources".

        Taken to the far extreme, it COULD mean that all members of the press get a Golden Key to access any and all encrypted government information.

        Even more extreme, that slaves can't be members of the press.

        Start reading in "emanations of a penumbra" and you can find anything you like in the document - up to it being legal to gas members of religions.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 13 Apr 2019 @ 10:05am

          The sources for the information in that Wikipedia quote are actual laws and court rulings¹. The United States has no federal shield law (or a “common law equivalent”), which I would bet is a fact you already knew and counted on using as a “gotcha” moment.

          ¹ — Make sure to click on each of the four separate links.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Bamboo Harvester (profile), 13 Apr 2019 @ 10:51am

            Re:

            Doesn't matter if they're the Sermon on the Mount. The Constitution grants no such privilege.

            And the problem with the Appeal to Authority debate tactic in this particular case is:

            "As of 2011, 49 states and the District of Columbia offer some form of"

            ...DIFFERENT opinions on the subject.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 13 Apr 2019 @ 10:55am

              The difference between those opinions and yours is simple: Those opinions are the law.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Bamboo Harvester (profile), 13 Apr 2019 @ 1:22pm

                Re:

                You're completely missing the point.

                THE CONSTITUTION DOESN'T SAY THAT.

                You're using Appeal to Authority to justify the opinions of others.

                They're still nothing but opinions, and while the 49 courts that "agree" with your opinion seem to think it says something, they don't agree on exactly what either.

                All citizens are supposed to receive equal justice under the law in the US. That also means there's no special class that gets different treatment under the law.

                Hey, I'm all for a Free Press - they can print anything they want - from Enquirer stories to the Oxford American Dictionary definitions of words.

                But if a member of the press commits a crime getting that information, which includes "shielding" a source who has committed crimes, they get charged and tried just like anyone who is NOT a member of the press.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Stephen T. Stone (profile), 13 Apr 2019 @ 1:51pm

                  The Constitution doesn’t say a lot of things. Until and unless state-level shield protections are declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, they count as legal protections for journalists, even if the Constitution says nothing about shield protections.

                  A federal shield law would fix the disagreements between the states on what does and does not constitute shield protections. Whether you could find support for that in Congress, however, is likely dependent on kicking out of office the most anti-journalist president in history (and his Congressional cronies).

                  And yes, people are “supposed” to receive equal justice, but reality rarely works out that way. Just ask anyone who has ever been wrongfully convicted of a crime they did not commit, or anyone who has ever been on the business end of police brutality, or anyone who had their life savings stolen by people who received figurative slaps on their wrists for their economically devastating white collar crimes.

                  As far as the “journalists committing crimes” bit goes, I generally believe a journalist that has not committed a crime or directly and knowingly aided and abetted the commission of a crime should not be charged with a crime for protecting their source. (A notable exception: If they protect their source knowing that the source will commit further crimes, yes, the journalist should either give up their source or face jail time.) Journalists rely on the confidentiality provided by shield laws to cultivate and protect sources of information, especially those sources who are risking more than public embarassment if their identity is revealed.

                  To deny shield protections to journalists would upend the entire free press and prevent sources who want to remain anonymous from speaking out against, say, governmental abuses of power. It would fundamentally change how the press in the United States works — and not in a way that benefits the general public.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2019 @ 1:53pm

                  Re: Re:

                  Bro take the cop dick outta your mouth for a second. Your gonna choke, again.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2019 @ 1:55pm

          Re: Re:

          “Nowhere does it have the words “protect” or “sources”

          Or it also does not have the words “defamation” or anything else.
          Do you want to keep going into that hole rabbit?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2019 @ 1:11pm

      Re: wow...

      Here you go:

      "or of the press"

      Right there. The first amendment isn't hard to read. It's pretty short.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2019 @ 1:35pm

      Sure thing!

      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

      "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press [...]"

      "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom [...] of the press [...]"

      What exactly is freedom of the press, then? Well, according to the courts, it includes these remarks on reporter's privilege:

      • For a reporter to be called upon to testify in a criminal case, the government "must convincingly show a substantial relation between the information sought and a subject of overriding and compelling state interest." Additionally, "the asserted claim to privilege should be judged on its facts by the striking of a proper balance between freedom of the press and the obligation of all citizens to give relevant testimony with respect to criminal conduct". (Branzburg v. Hayes, 1972)

      • Further refined, they can only be subpoena'd if the evidence has a major implication in the legal case, and all other options to obtain this evidence have been tried without success. (Zerilli v. Smith, 1981)

      • Civil cases (such as Nunes' lawsuits) are even more strongly protected. "A plaintiff's interest in pressing such a claim can rarely, if ever, outweigh a newsman's interest in protecting his sources." (Carey v. Hume, 1974)

      • 40 states (and Washington D.C.) have passed "shield laws" that protect journalists even more strongly than these federal decisions do. This includes California. It does not include Virginia.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2019 @ 1:37pm

      Re: wow...

      Can you just stop being a cop holster for five minutes bro?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 12 Apr 2019 @ 1:01pm

    This is perfectly allowed:

    More and more this appears to be lawsuit-as-performance, allowing Nunes to rile up a base by pretending to take on critics and the media. And that's exactly what the 1st Amendment does not allow -- especially from a public, elected official.

    The 1st Amendment most certainly allows pretending to take on critics and the media. And he can even take this pretense to court and let himself be theatrically slapped down. In terms of election campaigns, it's certainly one of the more affordable ones, fishing for the votes of those people who consider the Constitution a libertarian work of the devil interfering with their reign in their God-given land.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2019 @ 1:16pm

    More and more this appears to be lawsuit-as-performance,

    Of course it is, especially when he knows it will lose, but that will rile up his base and give him plenty of encouragement from them to create laws to help curb the evil false news leftist liberal media.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2019 @ 4:34pm

    What is Nunes supposed to be doing?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2019 @ 6:45pm

    Nunes admits to being an asshole, blue gets triggered... surprising absolutely fucking no one.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ed (profile), 13 Apr 2019 @ 9:04am

    Follow the money...

    ... who is paying for Nunes' lawsuits? He's not footing the bill himself, who is behind this farce?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Normie (profile), 13 Apr 2019 @ 9:29pm

    Nunes admitted no such thing

    Nunes did not "admit" the point of the lawsuit was fishing for sources - he said McClatchy falsely and repeatedly accused him of federal crimes. So he's suing. Sounds righteous.

    IF they lied - which seems clear - he deserves to win.

    Every savvy plaintiff's lawyer will get as much out of discovery as they can. The leftists are the masters of lawfare, so whining about the the other guy fighting back the same way is pathetic.

    C'mon, Masnick. Get real.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2019 @ 2:49am

      Re: Nunes admitted no such thing

      I think Nunes is a genius, one more patriot putting an end to fake news like that published here

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2019 @ 6:57am

        Re: Re: Nunes admitted no such thing

        "I think Nunes is a genius"
        . that's why he shot himself in the foot, because he is so smart

        "one more patriot putting an end to fake news"
        . your patriots are the ones creating most of the fake news

        here .. as in this website? Is it really publishing?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2019 @ 1:18pm

        Re: Re: Nunes admitted no such thing

        Is this crybaby Jhon or 3% Hamilton? You old impotent fuckwits are starting to sound the same.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 14 Apr 2019 @ 3:49am

      I am absolutely sure that they do not want this to get to discovery so that we find out who their sources are

      Nunes’s own words sound like a gangster’s offer of an “insurance policy”. You know: “Nice place you got here; would be a shame if something happened to it…”

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2019 @ 4:55am

        Re:

        Every word of someone you don’t agree with sounds suspicious, and you do your best to twist it into meaning something it does not mean.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 14 Apr 2019 @ 6:24am

          Again, quoting Nunes:

          I am absolutely sure that they do not want this to get to discovery so that we find out who their sources are

          Who would reveal, write, or publish anything but the kindest, most flattering stories about Nunes if they, too, could be slapped with a defamation lawsuit? The whole point of this lawsuit is to intimidate voices critical of Nunes into silence. And Nunes all but confirmed that by implying how much he wants uncover sources, which is a nice way of saying “I want to make sure anyone who knows anything even remotely bad about me can never trust a reporter again”. And if he happens to win the lawsuit, he will destroy the credibility of the reporters involved, who will never again be fully trusted as reporters.

          Hell, the whole reason he talked about “get[ting] to discovery” is likely to set up a settlement offer that would include at least a retraction of the story and a public apology. (“You wouldn’t want me to start digging around in your lives and find something I could use against you, would you? And I won’t if you’ll give me what I want.”) If he wanted to make it less blatant that this was his goal, he would not have said what he said on a live interview.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2019 @ 6:52am

            Re:

            “And Nunes all but confirmed that”

            Do you understand what “all but” means? Is that what you meant to say? What you are actually saying, and what I heard, is that he did not confirm anything other than he believes he has a good suit and the people he is suing depend on being non-transparent because they are liars and charlatans. Discovery is usually painful for people like that. Comprendo Senior?

            Exactly like this site, same difference. In fact, did you see Ajit Pai speak recently? He said EXACtly the same thing about treating sites like this as media companies. This site, those sites, and many sates are NOT TRANSPARENT at all about their editorial policies. For example, the whole concept tha the “community” is the one who censors content here is a LIE.

            It’s the same thing Nancy Pelosi is saying - when you lie and deceive and then hide behind some bullshit law like CDA 230, eventually things are going to go wrong for you.

            God Bless Nancy, Ajit and special prayers to POTUS. Amen. MAGA

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2019 @ 7:02am

              Re: Re:

              He tripped over his own shoe laces, admit it and move on.
              Guess some people are incapable.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 14 Apr 2019 @ 7:38am

              Can you show a single “lie” that was said by anyone he is suing? And I do not mean “something unflattering about Nunes” — I mean an actual lie told with malicious intent/reckless disregard for the truth. You claim the people being sued are “liars and charlatans”; let us all see you back that claim up.

              And as for the non-transparency bit? Yes, journalists do require some form of non-transparency to cultivate sources. If sources absolutely could not remain anonymous under any circumstance, fewer people would come forward as sources. If you believe otherwise, keep in mind that this principle applies to legal matters as well. To wit: Separation of church and state lawsuits. Atheists and people of minority faiths who file such lawsuits (or have legal groups file such lawsuits on their behalf) sometimes ask for anonymity in the filings because they fear being harassed — or worse — if their identities leak to people of the majority faith in a given city or town. A journalist’s sources may fear similar outcomes if their identity is made public, which is why they can remain anonymous unless the courts rule otherwise.

              No one should feel afraid to speak out against government officials, whether they are illegally promoting religion or are tangentially involved with something scandalous. Nunes wants to make sure the sources for the story he is suing over feel that fear. For that, I will speak out against him. If you cannot handle it, sue me.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Digitari, 14 Apr 2019 @ 12:02pm

                Re:

                No Worries, we can get a third party to make up a Dossier of allegations, Seemed to work well for the Dems in 2016 so the Repubs can do it in 2020 against the press

                You mad bro?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2019 @ 1:28pm

                  Re: Re: Stop embarrassing your self, stop embarrassing yourself

                  The dossier that was initially funded by the republicans and used by a mostly republican special investigation? And written by a former British agent? You right wing nutters need to get your stories straight. At this point I’m embarrassed for you.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              That One Guy (profile), 14 Apr 2019 @ 9:49pm

              Re: Re:

              For example, the whole concept tha the “community” is the one who censors content here is a LIE.

              A claim which you will of course back up with solid evidence, lest you be the one demonstrated as a liar who can't handle the fact that people keep flagging your stuff for obvious reasons.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2019 @ 11:48pm

    I'd bet dollars to doughnuts, that Nunes has never read the US constitution and know nothing of it, other than its existence as a legal document that prevents certain forms of profiteering - and that he is more than happy to continue this level of ignorance.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    theOtherDude, 15 Apr 2019 @ 6:24am

    ding ding ding

    "So, first of all, the issue with the NRA and Michael Cohen aren't even the subject of the lawsuit he's filed, so that's a bizarre thing to raise unless the intent of the lawsuit is purely performative for an idiotic base who wants to build up some big conspiracy. "

    duh . . . .he is a Republican!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.