The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,494
Total Cats: 4,080
Remember when political speech was considered to be one of the most sacred and inviolate forms of speech?
Well, Rep. Devin Nunes (R, Calif) is suing Twitter for $250 million, because someone created a Twitter account named Devin Nunes’ cow
Well, Rep. Devin Nunes (R, Calif) is suing Twitter for $250 million, because someone created a Twitter account named Devin Nunes’ cow
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...ts-defamation/[/QUOTE]
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/19/u...ent-libel.html
...
In Justice Thomas’s view, the First Amendment did nothing to limit the authority of states to protect the reputations of their citizens and leaders as they saw fit. When the First Amendment was ratified, he wrote, many states made it quite easy to sue for libel in civil actions and to prosecute libel as a crime. That was, he wrote, as it should be.
“We did not begin meddling in this area until 1964, nearly 175 years after the First Amendment was ratified,” Justice Thomas wrote of the Sullivan decision. “The states are perfectly capable of striking an acceptable balance between encouraging robust public discourse and providing a meaningful remedy for reputational harm.”
The events leading to the Sullivan decision test that assertion. The case arose from an advertisement in The Times seeking support for the civil rights movement. The ad contained minor errors.
...
Justice Thomas’s statement came in the wake of complaints from President Trump that libel laws make it too hard for public officials to win libel suits.
“I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money,” Mr. Trump said on the campaign trail. “We’re going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected.”
Thanks to the Sullivan decision, it is indeed hard for public figures to win libel suits. They have to prove that something false was said about them, that it harmed their reputation and that the writer acted with “actual malice.” That last term is misleading, as it has nothing to do with the ordinary meaning of malice in the sense of spite or ill will.
To prove actual malice under the Sullivan decision, a libel plaintiff must show that the writer knew the disputed statement was false or had acted with “reckless disregard.” That second phrase is also a term of art. The Supreme Court has said that it requires proof that the writer entertained serious doubts about the truth of the statement.
Justice Thomas questioned those standards.
...
In Justice Thomas’s view, the First Amendment did nothing to limit the authority of states to protect the reputations of their citizens and leaders as they saw fit. When the First Amendment was ratified, he wrote, many states made it quite easy to sue for libel in civil actions and to prosecute libel as a crime. That was, he wrote, as it should be.
“We did not begin meddling in this area until 1964, nearly 175 years after the First Amendment was ratified,” Justice Thomas wrote of the Sullivan decision. “The states are perfectly capable of striking an acceptable balance between encouraging robust public discourse and providing a meaningful remedy for reputational harm.”
The events leading to the Sullivan decision test that assertion. The case arose from an advertisement in The Times seeking support for the civil rights movement. The ad contained minor errors.
...
Justice Thomas’s statement came in the wake of complaints from President Trump that libel laws make it too hard for public officials to win libel suits.
“I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money,” Mr. Trump said on the campaign trail. “We’re going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected.”
Thanks to the Sullivan decision, it is indeed hard for public figures to win libel suits. They have to prove that something false was said about them, that it harmed their reputation and that the writer acted with “actual malice.” That last term is misleading, as it has nothing to do with the ordinary meaning of malice in the sense of spite or ill will.
To prove actual malice under the Sullivan decision, a libel plaintiff must show that the writer knew the disputed statement was false or had acted with “reckless disregard.” That second phrase is also a term of art. The Supreme Court has said that it requires proof that the writer entertained serious doubts about the truth of the statement.
Justice Thomas questioned those standards.
...
or maybe he's just hung out in CA too long?
Last edited by Braineack; 03-19-2019 at 03:56 PM.
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,652
Total Cats: 3,011
My friend just came back from Cuba and reports there is no bread for common people who don't have connections.
<Please insert picture of upper middle-class liberal wearing Che Guevara t-shirt at Panera Bread.>
<Please insert picture of upper middle-class liberal wearing Che Guevara t-shirt at Panera Bread.>
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,494
Total Cats: 4,080
everything is racist.
https://www.boston.com/news/local-ne...t5swN6ZGKCy-iA
https://www.boston.com/news/local-ne...t5swN6ZGKCy-iA
TD Bank is apologizing after the company was called out on social media for an advertisement inside a Boston branch that was viewed as racist for the way it referenced Dorchester.
The company told Boston.com the advertisement, which read “When you’re Downtown, but your debit card’s somewhere in Dorchester,” was taken down Thursday and was the only such marketing poster.
The company told Boston.com the advertisement, which read “When you’re Downtown, but your debit card’s somewhere in Dorchester,” was taken down Thursday and was the only such marketing poster.
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,494
Total Cats: 4,080
she wasn't a gov't employee who set up an unsecured email server full of classified material specifically to skirt and blatantly avoid a slue of laws and policies, and then when discovered, deleted emails and failed to fully turn them over again, in order to avoid the law.
she also didnt take her blackberry to china and get it hacked sompletely.
she also didnt lie to congress about it.
she also didnt use the deep state to get her out of trouble since the fbi is just the buttonman to the democrats.
she's also not the devil.
Last edited by Braineack; 03-24-2019 at 09:49 AM.
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,494
Total Cats: 4,080
Dear TX CA,
you used to be great.
https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/22/s...ck-fil-a-lgbt/
I wonder what that "legacy of anti-LGBTQ behavior" actually is. Good luck getting those examples...
also, in making of crimes/fake stories in order to further your narrative:
Again, there's not one time she can actually point out where anyone on FOXNEWS referred to her as Cortez.
you used to be great.
https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/22/s...ck-fil-a-lgbt/
District 1 City Councilman Roberto Treviño motioned to approve the Food, Beverage and Retail Prime Concession Agreement with Paradies Lagardère for the airport Thursday on condition Chick-fil-A be excluded from the agreement. Treviño asserted Chick-fil-A has a “legacy of anti-LGBTQ behavior” and that such a business had no place in the city’s airport.
Treviño’s motion came after a Wednesday ThinkProgress report that asserted Chick-fil-Adonated $1.8 million in 2017 to the Salvation Army, Fellowship of Christian Athletes and Paul Anderson Youth Home — charitable Christian ministries that ThinkProgress defined as discriminatory against LGBTQ individuals.
...
Treviño’s motion came after a Wednesday ThinkProgress report that asserted Chick-fil-Adonated $1.8 million in 2017 to the Salvation Army, Fellowship of Christian Athletes and Paul Anderson Youth Home — charitable Christian ministries that ThinkProgress defined as discriminatory against LGBTQ individuals.
...
also, in making of crimes/fake stories in order to further your narrative:
Again, there's not one time she can actually point out where anyone on FOXNEWS referred to her as Cortez.
Grabien News reviewed transcripts from every episode of “The Ingraham Angle” and “Hannity” in the month of March. If this were really a habit, surely it would have happened at least once in the last three weeks. Yet it hasn’t. Neither Hannity nor Ingraham referred to Rep. Ocasio-Cortez as simply “Cortez” a single time. Her name was mentioned 188 times during this time period.
On the March 14th “Ingraham Angle,” Rabbi Aryeh Spero used the words “Cortez and her quartet,” referring to other freshman, progressive congressmen. However, Ingraham never referred to her as such.
In one episode of “Hannity,” self-described AOC is mentioned 20 times; yet every time the host and his guests use her correct, full name.
We’ve reached out to Rep. Ocasio-Cortez to see if she has any examples to back up her accusation. We have not heard back, but will update this piece should a response be forthcoming.
On the March 14th “Ingraham Angle,” Rabbi Aryeh Spero used the words “Cortez and her quartet,” referring to other freshman, progressive congressmen. However, Ingraham never referred to her as such.
In one episode of “Hannity,” self-described AOC is mentioned 20 times; yet every time the host and his guests use her correct, full name.
We’ve reached out to Rep. Ocasio-Cortez to see if she has any examples to back up her accusation. We have not heard back, but will update this piece should a response be forthcoming.
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,494
Total Cats: 4,080
COLLUSION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ber...NbVz36Bva_oxtE
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ber...NbVz36Bva_oxtE
Bernie Sanders' hiring of non-American campaign advisers may violate federal election laws, complaint says