#slapp laws

[copewatch]

Felon copbaiter Ricky Pinzon says he’s deaf but, listens to police scanners hunting law enforcement

[icemftmm]

Tonight we're gonna say "F**k U" to everybody you always wanted to say "F**k U" all your f**king life!...

[gwydionmisha]

Elon Musk's Thermonuclear Defamation Suit Is a Dud

[despacinco]

this company is like that one desperate ex

[probablyasocialecologist]

The rise of the MAGA right in the United States has sparked some startling changes in attitudes towards press freedom and freedom of expression. Although many on the right, including Musk, have styled themselves as valiant defenders of free speech, their actions expose them as opposite: only willing to defend speech they find agreeable, while hostile towards and desperate to clamp down on criticism or opposing views. Musk, for example, has directed that “cisgender” be blocklisted on Twitter as a “slur”, and posts by most accounts that contain the word are automatically hidden from view (unlike posts containing the long list of slurs he has apparently deemed acceptable). He has brought SLAPP lawsuits against critics, including one dismissed by a federal judge as clearly intended to “punish [the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate] for CCDH publications that criticized X Corp. [Twitter] — and perhaps in order to dissuade others who might wish to engage in such criticism.” He spent $44 billion to acquire Twitter, ostensibly over concerns that conservative voices were being unfairly silenced, but really so that he could be the one to dictate which speech was and was not allowed on the platform. Similar attacks on speech are becoming only more common throughout the American right, with president-elect Trump’s longstanding hostility to the media escalating at a rapid clip. In recent months, Trump has suggested he wouldn’t mind if reporters were shot, threatened to jail journalists, editors, and publishers who refuse to reveal confidential sources, threatened to investigate or pull broadcasting licenses for news organizations that reported on him unflatteringly, and filed SLAPP suits of his own against news publications and pollsters. This hostility to information sources outside their control extends far beyond the media. Right-wing groups have launched coordinated campaigns to ban books from schools and libraries, particularly those discussing race, gender, or LGBT topics. They’ve pushed legislation like the “Kids Online Safety Act” that, while framed as protecting children, would require platforms to restrict access to information deemed “harmful” or “inappropriate for minors”, which is likely to include resources for LGBT youth and information about reproductive or gender-affirming healthcare, sexual education, or mental health. And they’ve supported state-level laws requiring internet platforms to implement age restrictions that threaten privacy and are vulnerable to weaponization against content deemed “obscene”. The common thread connecting these efforts is not protecting children or promoting “family values,” but controlling what information people can access.

2 January 2025

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Parker Molloy at The Present Age:

This week, we watched as the world's richest man appeared to give a Nazi salute at Trump's post-inauguration rally. Twice. Then we watched as mainstream media outlets bent over backwards to avoid saying what we all saw. The New York Times went with "Elon Musk Ignites Online Speculation Over the Meaning of a Hand Gesture." The Washington Post opted for "Elon Musk gives exuberant speech at inauguration." Some local TV stations, as Marisa Kabas noted at The Handbasket, even cut their footage right before the first and most obvious salute. Meanwhile, as Tim Dickinson reported at Rolling Stone, neo-Nazis and white nationalists weren't shy about what they saw. Blood Tribe leader Christopher Pohlhaus shared the clip with SS lightning bolts, writing "I don't care if this was a mistake. I'm going to enjoy the tears over it." The Proud Boys Ohio chapter posted it with "Hail Trump!" White Lives Matter celebrated with references to "The White Flame." So why are mainstream outlets so reluctant to state the obvious? The answer lies in our broken defamation laws and the way wealthy individuals can weaponize them against critics. This is a legitimate free speech crisis.

NBC News reporter Kat Tenbarge explained on Bluesky: "It's difficult to overstate just how much professional journalists have been trained to fear defamation lawsuits and how much it has impacted the ability to tell the truth." She's right. And there's recent precedent for this fear when it comes to Musk specifically. Remember what happened to Media Matters? As Andy Craig points out, they "simply shared screenshots of major corporate ads running next to literally Hitler stuff and he sued them into mass layoffs and got two states to open criminal investigations of them." The chilling effect was immediate. Craig notes that coverage of similar issues "kind of petered out" afterward—"not because it got any harder to find examples to report." This is what journalist Mike Masnick calls a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) lawsuit. These suits aren't necessarily meant to win in court; they're meant to silence critics through the sheer cost and hassle of defending against them. That's why Masnick and others have been "calling for anti-SLAPP laws (both federal and state) for years and years."

Mainstream media publications and even the ADL are beating the bush by avoiding calling out Elon Musk’s Nazi salutes, all because they are afraid of being sued. White supremacists and Neo-Nazis saw the salute for what it was: a validation of their wicked viewpoints.

See Also:

The Advocate: Journalist calls out people for being 'fine' with Elon Musk's Nazi salute but not pronouns

[mariacallous]

Media freedom and pluralism in many EU countries stands “perilously close” to breaking point, and in some cases must be almost fully resuscitated, according to the “2024 Media Freedom Report” from the Berlin-based Civil Liberties Union for Europe.

Based on data and input from 37 member and partner organisations in 19 countries, Liberties’ report covers three primary areas: media freedom and pluralism, safety and protection of journalists, and freedom of expression and information.

It said that trends observed in last year’s report – heavy media ownership concentration, insufficient ownership transparency rules, threats to the independence and finances of public service media, widespread instances of threats, intimidation and violence against journalists, and restrictions on freedom of expression and access to information – continued in 2023.

Given the pattern that where the rule of law is eroding, so too is media freedom, it is unsurprising that Central and Eastern European member states figure highly in the report.

Media ownership concentration is high in Croatia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. In Greece, Hungary and Romania, political spending on media advertising is high and disproportionately funnelled to government-friendly media. Public service broadcasters remain under government control in Hungary, are expected to soon come under government control in Slovakia, and are in a state of uncertainty in Poland. Levels of public trust in media remain low, declining in Hungary and Slovakia, and reaching an all-time low in Czechia.

Journalists in Croatia, Greece and Italy faced physical attacks in 2023, in addition to threats and intimidation. In Hungary and Slovakia, the abuse and threats against journalists came from elected politicians. And in Romania police failed to properly investigate attacks on journalists, while in Bulgaria police officers themselves attacked journalists.

The use of Pegasus and Predator spyware continued to be a problem in the EU, notably in Greece, Poland and Hungary where journalists were the targets of such surveillance.

Liberties’ report joins a long list of such reports over the past few years that have raised concerns about the declining state of the media in the bloc, especially in countries where populist parties, both on the left and right, have entered parliament and even government.

This has brought a reaction from the EU, which over the last year has introduced new pieces of legislation designed to better protect journalists.

In 2024, the final link in the chain to bring the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) into being came when the European Parliament approved it, making it law across the bloc. The EMFA creates a new oversight body and introduces new measurements and criteria for media freedom and pluralism across member states.

Despite its compromises, the act creates a legal basis for improving media freedom. “Much will depend on national governments and authorities, but the act means cases can now be brought before a European court that will rule on what media independence, surveillance of journalists and so on really mean,” Eva Simon, senior advocacy officer at Liberties, told the Guardian.

The EU also adopted last year the Anti-SLAPP Directive, which is designed to provide journalists and NGOs with much-needed protection from abusive cross-border lawsuits intended solely to silence or intimidate them. Such strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) are frequently used against journalists in Croatia and Greece, Liberties noted in the report.

[beardedmrbean]

A New York judge tossed a defamation lawsuit against Fox News host Jessica Tarlov by Tony Bobulinski, while also ordering the GOP’s Biden impeachment witness to pay Tarlov’s legal fees, Mediaite reported.

The comment in question occurred during a March 20 episode of The Five, in which Tarlov, the show’s resident liberal co-host, said, “Tony Bobulinski’s lawyers' fees have been paid by a Trump Super PAC. That’s as recent as January.”

After receiving a notice from Bobulinski’s attorney threatening legal action, Tarlov cleared things up the next day.

“I would like to clarify a comment I made yesterday during our discussion of Tony Bobulinski’s appearance at the congressional hearing. During an exchange with my colleagues about the hearing, I said that Mr. Bobulinski’s lawyers’ fees have been paid by a Trump super PAC as recent as January,” Tarlov said.

“What was actually said during the hearing was that the law firm representing Mr. Bobulinski was paid by a Trump PAC. I have seen no indication those payments were made in connection with Mr. Bobulinski’s legal fees and he denies that they were.”

Yet that statement, according to Bobulinski’s lawyer, was insufficient, as he followed up with another request for a “complete retraction and apology.”

Fox replied by saying that Tarlov’s correction was “accurate,” and that they wouldn’t be making another.

Bobulinski then sued Tarlov for $30 million. In dismissing the case, Judge J. Paul Oetken wrote that Bobulinski didn’t show that Tarlov’s initial comment had damaged his reputation as a businessman.

“The New York Court of Appeals has held that, for a statement to qualify as defamation per se under the professional conduct exception, the statement must specifically reference conduct that is incompatible with a person’s profession, ‘rather than a more general reflection upon the plaintiff’s character or qualities,‘” he wrote.

Noting that New York’s anti-SLAPP law, which is designed to prevent frivolous lawsuits that chill free speech, applies, Oetken approved Tarlov’s request for her attorneys' fees to be paid for by Bobulinski.

Bobulinski, who pushed unproven claims during House Republicans' fruitless impeachment effort of President Joe Biden, is a former business associate of the Biden family.

[copewatch]

Why can’t anyone at the pamona courthouse see that Ricky L Pinzon is a threat to society? Frivolous vexatious paper terrorism ie. slapp laws

[feather-dancer]

If you support Rowling in any way, please unfollow me for reasons I can't say because of the lack of anti SLAPP suit laws in the UK.

[icemftmm]

MY TAKE ON LAW&CRIME'S ARTICLE

"Warner changed course dramatically on Monday when he agreed to settle his case against Wood and pay her $327,000 in attorneys fees. According to a statement released by Wood’s attorneys, Warner originally offered to pay just a portion of Wood’s legal fees, but relented when Wood refused, ultimately agreeing to pay Wood’s entire legal bill.

Law&Crime has reviewed the settlement agreement, which has not been made public, which discharges Wood from the legal claims Warner made against her."

There is no need to "settle" between two sides in order for one of them to pay what the court has ordered. Settlement would be needed only if each side needs the other one to make a compromise with something. For example, Manson pays less and drops the charges in return. But Rachel's lawyer presented different story:

“As the trial court correctly found, Warner’s claims were meritless,” Kump said. “Warner’s decision to finally abandon his lawsuit and pay Ms. Wood her full fee award of almost $327,000 only confirms as much.”

For Warner to abandon his lawsuit however no settlement is needed. He just needs to pay what the court has ordered.

This automatically means that Rachel has conceded to something, after all. Which means, the settlement that Law&Crime reviewed didn't only concern the anti-slapp amount which Manson was already ordered to pay. It concerned the whole case.

Now what could Rachel have possible conceded which her lawyer does not mention in his statement?

Option A: She may have agreed not to trash Manson further in the press. However, her lawyer already broke this promise (if it existed) on her behalf with his statement.

Option B: She may have agreed to pay Manson to stop suing her and the payment of the whole amount of the anti-slapp money was only deducted from the settlement money she (or her insurence company) coughed.

So, if the settlement only concerns the payment of the anti-slapp amount and Kump freeley delivered the news to the media, what could possibly be the reason for the settlement agreement to not be made public? And who is playing a publicity stunt then?

But let's try to summarize what seems to be the reason for the settling of this lawsuit:

A much poorer man tried to seek justice against a times-wealthier woman who have wronged him. She just needed to comfortably hide behind an outdated legislation (the anti-slapp laws in the era of misinformation are a joke) until he is completely exhausted financially. Now her lawyers keep defaming him. Hurray for the American justice system which declared Rachel's crimes a protected speech!

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

More accurate ....

* * * *

TRUMP OPENS FIRE ON THE MEDIA

TCinLA

Dec 17, 2024

The point is not necessarily winning. The point is fear. Now that Disney has surrendered and paid their initiation fee, Trump is ready to commit more extortion, er, I mean start more lawsuits.

In his rambling fact-challenged press conference yesterday, Trump targeted Bob Woodward, CBS, and the Pulitzer Board for awarding its 2018 Prize to the New York Times and the Washington Post for their coverage of Trump’s campaign, the Steele Dossier, and the Mueller investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 election. Trump also described recent visits from Apple CEO Tim Cook, Google co-founder Sergey Brin, and other tech barons. “In the first term, everyone was fighting me. In this term, everyone wants to be my friend.”

On Monday night, less than 48 hours after securing a $15 million settlement from ABC News, Trump filed a lawsuit in Iowa District Court accusing venerated pollster Ann Selzer and her polling company - and well as The Des Moines Register and its parent company, Gannett - of “brazen election interference” and “consumer fraud” over her November 2 poll showing Kamala Harris winning by 3 points in Iowa.

Whether Seltzer’s polling error constitutes an “election-interfering fiction,” as the suit alleges, is now the question before a Polk County court. Iowa lacks an anti-SLAPP law, a protection that gives judges the ability to swiftly toss out frivolous attacks on free speech. Trump’s newest legal adventure leans on an extremely aggressive reading of Iowa’s consumer fraud law intended to prevent businesses from making misrepresentations to deceive purchasers.

Selzer’s spent three decades in the polling business and boasts an A+ rating from Nate Silver, Her sterling reputation was the main reason why many in Washington and the media took her startling Iowa result at least somewhat seriously. Even among veteran political operators who wrote off the Harris +3 number as an outlier, the prospect that pollsters might be significantly undercounting Democratic votes fomented a temporary media narrative that Kamala’s campaign had crucial momentum heading into the final days of the race.

Two weeks after the election, Selzer announced she would be retiring from the polling business to explore “other ventures and opportunities,”a decision she said she made last year. “Would I have liked to make this announcement after a final poll aligned with Election Day results? Of course,” she wrote in a guest essay for The Des Moines Register. “It’s ironic that it’s just the opposite.”

Trump was still fuming over the last-minute narrative shift that the poll generated. He now appears eager to run up the score.

Ahead of filing the lawsuit Monday evening, Trump previewed his plans in an afternoon press conference. “We have to straighten out our press,” he said. “Our press is very corrupt, almost as corrupt as our elections.”

Besides the ABC News suit, Trump is suing CBS News for $10 billion for the way it edited Bill Whitaker’s 60 Minutes interview with Harris - claiming the edited broadcast amounted to “partisan and unlawful acts of election and voter interference.” He is now pursuing a case against the Pulitzer Prize board for awards to journalists from The New York Times and Washington Post who investigated his ties to Russia during the 2016 campaign.

Never before has a candidate sued a pollster for setting off a negative news cycle. Typically, if a pollster is wrong, their reputation suffers, but they are rarely blamed for damaging a campaign.

The Des Moines Register said they stand by their reporting and believe a lawsuit would be “without merit.” It will be interesting to see what Gannet does here - they are a major company in the news business without other corporate interests.

As with Trump’s other lawsuits against media organizations, the objective isn’t to win but to intimidate.

Litigation is expensive for all parties, especially in high-profile cases such as those involving a former and future president, even if the suit is ultimately found to be frivolous. There is also the burden of the discovery process, which is always invasive and frequently ugly. Already, nervousness is spreading, with media companies preparing for litigation targeting journalists, including charges like defamation or even violations of the Espionage Act. Axios recently told its staff to expect an increased number of lawsuits from the Trump administration.

The fact that Trump has filed litigation against Selzer, and 60 Minutes could undercut his argument he’s too busy as president-elect to shoulder the burdens of civil litigation.

The two dominant theories about ABC’s surrender are that either Trump has unearthed potentially damaging information or correspondence at ABC News that Disney doesn’t want revealed, or that this is CEO Bob Iger’s gesture to Trump to avoid his vengeance and the lightning-rod spectacle of a public trial against a sitting president. Iger, since he returned to Disney, has been willing to placate the right to keep the company out of its crosshairs He knows he can’t give $1 million to Trump’s inauguration without causing an internal firestorm, and he hasn’t made his own tail-between-legs pilgrimage to Mar-A-Lago. But he knows this settlement is a way to buy some insurance for the next four years. The question is how much goodwill it actually buys. If Trump sees an opportunity to benefit from attacking Disney, he’ll do it, regardless of Disney’s surrender.

Michelle Goldberg wrote of these events, Collectively, all these elite decisions to bow to Trump make it feel like the air is going out of the old liberal order. In its place will be something more ruthless and Nietzschean.”

Anne Applebaum, an expert on descents into authoritarianism, said, “Many people assumed in the past that the news media in the United States was too big, too diverse, and too complex to be intimidated.”

So much for that cornerstone of democracy.

“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” - Edmund Burke

“You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war.' - Winston Churchill

[TCinLA]

[lawbyrhys]

The Logan Paul v. Coffeezilla Lawsuit: Part Two

Here's a situation I never thought I'd be talking about, but here we are! Let's dive on in to Logan Paul's huge defamation suit against Coffeezilla.

Finally, the lawsuit itself! Let's get into all the details of what exactly is going on in this wild case between these two YouTube juggernauts.

By the way, I'll be referring to Coffeezilla as Findeisen in my work about this case because that's his legal last name, and I didn't pass the bar and get a BigLaw job to spend my free time dictating the word "Coffeezilla" into my iPhone as I'm stuck in LA traffic. I'm gonna do it the legit way. Sue me, or don't—you know I'll win. ;)

Check back for updates as the case goes on; I will publish them when I have time to work on them. Let's get into the lawsuit as it stands now.

Logan Paul is the plaintiff in this lawsuit, and he filed the case in the US District Court of the Western District of Texas—Federal Court. Findeisen is based in Texas, while Paul resides in Puerto Rico. The latter made an interesting choice by filing in federal court, as Findeisen can't use the anti-SLAPP laws afforded in Texas and applicable in Texas state court. A SLAPP suit—meaning Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation—essentially means you can't sue your critics into silence or otherwise use your power combined with that of the justice system to intimidate or censor them. This also means the Texas Citizens Participation Act, an act that allows defendants to file to dismiss such a suit that infringes their free speech. Both of these statutes save time and money for the defendant, especially the latter, which would halt the suit before it even enters discovery, but why would Paul want to spare Findeisen any expenses? He doesn't, so he didn't. We can thank the 5th Circuit determined these laws don't apply in federal court; Paul's counsel appears to know the law, so that's something.

Now to the actual lawsuit; like, really this time.

Paul alleges that Findeisen's comments about his CryptoZoo debacle "perpetuates a false narrative that CryptoZoo was a scam orchestrated by Paul," continuing that Findeisen, "knew he was making false statements when he published the videos." All of this started as soon as Findeisen started publishing his commentary content to YouTube in December of 2022. Paul commented at the time, "You led the charge to drive and monetize a narrative telling millions of people that I'm a fraud or I tried to scam my audience. That is patently false." At the time, Paul said Findeisen didn't reach out until December 24th for "the facts," but the latter claims he reached out in October of 2022, ultimately getting no reply. This was enough to get Paul off his back for the timing being, even prompting the would-be crypto mogul to praise the commentator for "bringing [the situation] to light." This wasn't enough of a white flag for Findeisen, though, and he told Paul he'd continue to watch the story and advised the latter that, "the right thing to do here is file refunds; that's what this has always been about."

Since Paul confirmed Findeisen was being truthful, where's the defamation? Besides, Texas has a one-year statute of limitations on libel claims; it's been nearly two years. So, what now?

Shortly thereafter, Paul announced his new "three-step plan" to fix things, and it goes as follows: he would burn his coins so he had no financial interest, offer a rewards program worth $1.5M for disappointed players so they cash in and get out, and finish and deliver the game. Some of his fans weren't happy with that, though, and so they sued him, going into arbitration and being represented by none other than AttorneyTom himself, Tom Kherkher.

Six months after all of this went down, Findeisen tweeted that Paul had blocked him, writing that "Paul is the type of dude to thank you when you expose his scam, then block you when you remind him to pay up." This tweet is the first real example of defamation given by Paul, alleging it as libel per se, or a statement so damaging on its face the plaintiff doesn't need to prove special damages; essentially, it's damaging enough as is.

Understanding what actual defamation means in a court of law—I have made a post about it as a general referential educational tool already—Paul claims that the above statement was damaging to his reputation, saying that "the accusation that Paul operated a financial scam is one that tends to harm his reputation, so as to lower him in the estimation of the community, or deter third persons from associating or dealing with him. The June 29, 2023 X post is libelous per se as it tends to affect Paul and his profession or occupation and accuses Paul of engaging in illegal conduct."

Interesting, though, as Paul's profession does not fall within the realms of development, finance or business, and rather within the social media space, the allegations of libel per se are applied narrowly at best in this situation. Regardless, though, Paul claims Findeisen knew CryptoZoo wasn't a scam, and posting otherwise would lead others to believe differently. Essentially, Paul is casting the blame onto his various business partners in the endeavor while claiming Findeisen's prior research and documentation validates the former in his role as a mere "hoodwinked" victim in all of this, too, but took it too far as the research swung out of Paul's favor and crept into territory that would "intentionally defraud people in order to increase [Findeisen's] own profile by continuing to attack a well-known celebrity."

A glaring issue with this, though, is not only would Paul have a hard time proving concrete damages as a result of Findeisen's claims, but he'd be hard-pressed to prove the latter's characterizations of him untrue, as everything stated by Findeisen was factually based in the reality Paul and his team had created. It's funny that everybody agrees CryptoZoo was a scam, and there's fault to be assumed; the question flying around is, who is actually liable to assume that fault? There's a lot of pointing fingers here.

On June 30, 2023, Findeisen released another video to YouTube, "Logan Paul's Scam Isn't Over," and Paul hit him with a libel per se allegation once again. This is essentially the same as above, with updated claims such as Findeisen's naming of CryptoZoo users as "Paul's victims," and the insinuation of Paul's guilt throughout the June 30 video expose.

Again, the plaintiff's claims here are essentially a reiteration of what is stated above, with Paul claiming Findeisen knew he was promoting false claims in his videos and the latter pointing out that despite Prime's multimillion dollar success, none of Paul's fans had been reimbursed thus far. Paul claims the beef could be squashed if Findeisen reached out to him instead of getting with his manager, while Findeisen says he tried and was met with Paul's criminal defense counsel instead.

The next post will be a continued explanation of this suit, starting with a total breakdown of what Paul's lawyer, Jeffrey Neiman, had to say in response to Findeisen's attempted contact. Important to not here, though, is Neiman "regularly defends individuals and corporations in white collar criminal litigations."

Check back for part three soon. What do you think of this case so far, though? Do you think the defamation allegations are accurate? Whose side are you on? Let me know all your thoughts!

[quinnfabrayapologist]

Today on twitter:

A gay man and actor, JJ Wells (intentional misspelling to avoid the wrong crowd finding this), several weeks ago, noted some parallels between JKR's actions and the alt right groups her actions align with. This is not unfounded, as it follows her sending support to publicly known alt right figures.

JKR responds that JJ is libelling/defaming her. Her followers go after JJ. JJ has to lock his account. This is the second gay man JKR & Co have bullied off twitter in the span of a few months, the first being Graham Norton, following Graham saying that he didn't want to take a side in the trans debate, but he encouraged people to talk to trans people, and this was somehow offensive to JKR.

Today, JJ has tweeted a very carefully worded statement, apologising for defaming/libelling JKR.

England has absolutely ridiculous laws RE libel, that likely meant that when JJ called a spade a spade a few months ago, JKR was able to sic her team of lawyers on him. So, not just satisfied with bullying gay men off social media, she's now hitting them with SLAPP laws. It would also be remiss not to point out that she is a millionaire and JJ is... not.

If I've said it once I've said it a million times; there is nothing more fragile than the ego of a rich conservative woman.

[gamingavickreyauction]

I often hear it said that the first amendment is like the one really good achievement of the US political system, but, from my vantage point, it looks like the first amendment gets ignored whenever it's convenient.

There are relatively mundane examples like SLAPP suits which the powerful can use to shut down critics - technically if it went to trial, the court would rule in favor of the critic's right to speech, but the point is this isn't what happens. And sometimes the speech wouldn't even be ruled in favor of: courts are far from infallible at judging the truth, so it's still possible to be charged with libel over saying something true.

And journalists are fallible, so if, when they seek to criticize the powerful, their claims have to be 100% correct 100% of the time or they get shut down, they will get shut down - or rather the threat of this will keep them from speaking out. We can see this practically with how many open secrets just never got reported, like Weinstein's actions prior to MeToo. I think the costs of libel laws far outweigh the benefits, and they're really incompatible with strong protections for speech. Perfectly legal speech can often still garner police attention.

But there are more severe cases where the first amendment is ignored, like the espionage act, most brutally displayed with the US's persecution of Julian Assange - making speech less free across the entire world. Of course, what Assange made public were classified documents, and it's understandable if exceptions need to be made for national security reasons. But crucially, most of the documents classified were not damaging to national security, and their classification only served to cover up war crimes by the US. This is a way of leveraging national security protections in order to get around first amendment protections to silence critics, and it's very widespread.

Historically, the whole red scare happened while the first amendment was supposedly a respected principle in the constitution, and the McCarran-Walter act made it possible to deport naturalized citizens for, among other things, advocating communism. Slave owners could beat their slaves for sedition.

So it's not clear to me that the first amendment really makes much difference. I would like to hear why others think that it does.

[boaringoldguy]

Sadly, a blow against Free Speech!

ntd.com

Judge Rejects Trump’s Latest Bid to Dismiss Lawsuit Seeking to Bar Him From Colorado’s 2024 Ballot

NTD

5–6 minutes

Former President and 2024 Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump holds a campaign event at Club 47 USA in West Palm Beach, Fla., on Oct. 11, 2023. (Giorgio Viera/AFP via Getty Images)

Former President Donald Trump’s latest attempt to dismiss a lawsuit seeking to keep him off Colorado’s 2024 Republican primary ballot was dismissed by a judge on Oct. 12.

In her 22-page opinion (pdf) published Thursday, Second Judicial District Judge Sarah Wallace denied President Trump’s attempts to dismiss the lawsuit, effectively paving the way for a trial on the matter to go ahead at the end of October.

The ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed by a liberal watchdog group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, on behalf of a group of Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which was filed in September, argue that President Trump is disqualified from serving as president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars people who have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or have “given aid or comfort to the enemies” of the Constitution while under the oath of office from holding office.

They cite President Trump’s alleged effort to challenge the results of the 2020 election and his role in the events of Jan. 6, 2021, as reasoning for his proposed disqualification and have thus asked the court to remove him from the Colorado Republican primary.

Trump Claims Protections Under Anti-SLAPP Law

His lawyers have further argued that a Colorado law protecting individuals from being sued over exercising their free speech rights shields him from the lawsuit; pointing specifically to the state’s anti-SLAPP law, which protects individuals from Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.

The measure, enacted in 2019, safeguards the “constitutional rights of persons to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and otherwise participate in government to the maximum extent permitted by law” and protects them from lawsuits that harass them for First Amendment-protected speech.

President Trump additionally contends his statements regarding the 2020 election did not amount to insurrection.

However, in her 22-page opinion, Juge Wallace dismissed President Trump’s anti-SLAPP motion, writing instead that it is in the public’s best interest, regardless of their political affiliation, that “only constitutionally qualified candidates are placed on the ballot” and “only constitutionally qualified candidates can seek to hold the highest office in the country.”

More States Move to Get Trump Off Ballot

“The Court, again, has little trouble finding that it would. It goes without saying that, in the abstract, ensuring that only constitutionally qualified candidates can seek to hold the highest office in the country, particularly when the disqualification sought is based on allegations of insurrection against the very government over which the candidate seeks to preside, seeks to enforce an important right which confers a significant benefit to the public.

“For the above stated reasons, the Court holds that the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to this matter and for that reason denies the motion,” Judge Wallace concluded.

President Trump is currently leading the GOP field, holding a significant lead over competitors including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, ahead of the Nov. 5, 2024 elections, according to multiple polls.

Similar lawsuits seeking to remove President Trump from the 2024 Republican ballot have also been filed in Michigan, Minnesota, and West Virginia. A separate one filed in Oklahoma by presidential candidate John Anthony Castro was dismissed on Thursday, The Oklahoman reports.

“We are pleased with the court’s well-reasoned and very detailed order, leading to a thorough decision, and look forward to presenting our case at trial,” the attorney for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Mario Nicolais, said in an emailed statement to Courthouse News Service.

The Epoch Times has contacted a spokesperson for President Trump for comment.

From The Epoch Times