Iâm fucking roaring in laughter at the details in that complaint. I can picture his attorneys doing the same as they wrote it. Surely they know how absurd this is.
I also find myself wishing for a judge who might ask the prosecution, âHow is it defamation to call Mr Nunes a feckless cunt when that is an objectively true description.â
Unfortunately, there appears to be a darker strategy behind this.
Remember the good old days of conservatives crying for âtorte reformâ?
Isnât it ridiculous to suggest that Twitter is going to be put under by legal fees from this lawsuit? Theyâre not exactly Gawker.
Not so much Twitter (though theyâll enjoy squeezing legal fees out of them). DevinNunesMom and Cow, on the other hand.
The real point is the overarching strategy angle.
This was the strategy of the RIAA for a while. It doesnât work when there are too many targets to sue.
There is a scenario where it backfires spectacularly. If they can get the suits moved to state court. Californiaâs anti-SLAPP law is not on Nunesâ side here.
No way he wins this case. Itâs meant to harass the defendants, not to win. If people arenât allowed to insult politicians, then the entire country including all of congress and the administration would be liable.
Which is exactly what anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) laws are designed to prevent.
The fun thing here is that the defendant is apparently a Republican operative with an axe to grind.
The GOP - never not pieces of shit
That seems blatantly illegal. You canât have poll taxes
Yeah⌠that seems like, super duper illegal.
Illegality and unconstitutionality are just words, you know.
As long as its still tied up in court for the 2020 election, who cares?
I have always wondered why Twitter, or any voluntarily participated in social media, has to be fair? Radio and TV stations are not required to show both sides equally and surely the airwaves are more limited than the internet. In TV we have Fox and MSNBC, so why not a right wing Twitter and a left wing Twitter?
Same with Facebook.
By the way, I donât do any social media, except forums like this. And it seems forums are now pretty much left or right oriented.
They used to be, though. =/
And thatâs why Nunes (a CA Congressperson) filed suit against Twitter (a CA Business) and the user(s) in VA and not CA.
No SLAPP law in VA (edit - after actually reading further, there is some):
From the click through:
A new law will go into effect on July 1, 2017, that creates what amounts to a qualified privilege against defamation actions for statements regarding matters of public concern that would be entitled to protection under the First Amendment. Under the amended and restated Va Code § 8.01-223.2, the immunity would be lost with respect to any statements made with actual malice (i.e., statements made with actual knowledge that they are false, or with reckless disregard for whether they are false) or âconstructive knowledgeâ of the statementsâ falsity. Significantly, because the General Assembly chose to incorporate the privilege into Virginiaâs existing anti-SLAPP statute, if a defendant is successful in having a defamation case dismissed on grounds of this new statutory immunity, he may be entitled to reimbursement of his attorneysâ fees. The amendment appears to be designed to drastically expand Virginiaâs anti-SLAPP statute (which had previously been limited to statements made at public hearings) and will almost certainly lead to an uptick in plea-in-bar hearings seeking quick dismissals and fee awards.
I got my degree in Radio-TV in 1982. A lot has changed since then. I remember a professor threatening a student because he wrote an ad for a class assignment, for an X-rated business. It was in good taste, well done, but man that professor blew his stack. I donât think he had any idea where TV was headed in the future.
Sadly, nostalgia for the Fairness Doctrine ignores the reality of bad faith in the right wing media machine. I recall watching an episode of Wally George in a high school civics class (George was an early precursor to Limbaugh et al.). This was in the early to mid 80s, while the Fairness doctrine was still in full effect. George did an episode in which he had on a Moral Majority type to discuss conservative Christianity as one side, and on the other side, he brought inâŚ
A ecumenical/liberal Christian? Nope.
A member of another well-established world religion? Nope.
A skeptic/agnostic/atheist? Nope.
No. Wally George satisfied the Fairness Doctrine by bringing on, as âthe other sideâ to the Moral Majority, a full on Satanist. A goatee-sporting, tatted up Satanist, which in 1983 was actually pretty much way off the rails. Plus a Satanist.
In other words, Wally George has your Fairness Doctrine right here.
No rule, no process, no concept of fairness can overcome bad faith. The rot is deep.