Sorry Ron Paul, You Don't Get To Abuse Trademark Law To Unveil Anonymous Internet Users
from the how-very-unlibertarian-of-you dept
Back in January, we wrote about the bizarre decision by Ron Paul to file a lawsuit to unmask some anonymous internet users, who had created a controversial anti-John Huntsman video. At the end of the video, the anonymous videomakers had endorsed Paul, but some conspiracy-minded folks insisted that they were really working for Huntsman and staging an elaborate ruse to put up a video that looked bad about Huntsman to have that backfire on Ron Paul. For a variety of reasons that's either improbable or just downright stupid. But even if we assume the worst case scenario, Ron Paul's lawsuit not only made absolutely no legal sense, but it also seemed to go against nearly everything he believed in concerning internet freedom and the overreaching power of the government.Either way, a judge has rejected Paul's attempt to unmask the videomakers on the narrow grounds that he failed to state a legitimate claim, since the video was not commercial in nature (necessary for a trademark violation). The judge did not go so far as to get into the First Amendment issues, but made clear that if Paul comes back with an amended suit with an actual claim, then the First Amendment considerations will be covered. Kudos to Paul Levy at Public Citizen for filing a pair of amicus briefs in the case to make sure the judge was aware of what was happening -- and hitting back at Paul's camp for its initial filing that completely ignored the relevant law and legal standards for unmasking anonymous internet users.
There are a number of especially troubling items in terms of how Paul and his camp went about this. First, just trying to unmask anonymous internet speech seems extremely problematic. Second, however, is the way in which he tried to twist trademark law to do so. As Eric Goldman explains, Paul's attempts to route around the clear requirements of trademark law were especially mockable:
To try to salvage the situation, Paul tries two mockable arguments. First, he argues that YouTube and Twitter are commercial sites, and that gives the dispute enough commerciality. The court rightly points out that the inquiry is about the defendant's conduct, not the websites where it took place, and notes the argument's illogic would mean non-commercial activity on any commercial website would be governed by the Lanham Act. In a footnote, the court adds that "using another company’s commercial website to post a comment or video is just far 'too attenuated' to result in an individual’s own conduct automatically meeting the Lanham Act’s commercial use requirement."Anonymous speech is protected under the First Amendment, and abusing trademark law to try to unmask anonymous speakers, whose speech was not commercial, is clearly an abuse of the law to try to "out" people online. As some have noted, it appeared to go against Ron Paul's own key principles -- and whether you agree with him or not, Paul certainly has the reputation for standing up for his principles. Yet here, suddenly, all of that went out the window:
Second, Paul argues that "the video was intended to frustrate Plaintiff’s fundraising efforts and increase the amount of money contributed to Presidential nominees other than Ron Paul." The court says the Lanham Act is predicated on the defendant trying to improve its competitive status, and these defendants had no competing services; and the video on its face didn't try to solicit any donations.
What continues to amaze me, though, is how Paul is getting a free pass for this assault on free speech. Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum haven't filed lawsuits over identical videos that use their names in attacking Huntsman; why is Ron Paul the only candidate who filed such a suit? Indeed, so far as I have been able to discover, he is the only serious candidate for President in the past few decades who has ever filed a libel suit, and there are certainly Presidential candidates who have suffered far worse attacks. (I am not thinking of candidates who sued longer ago, but fifty years takes us back to the beginning of First Amendment protection against libel litigation brought by public figures). Why aren't the reporters who follow him around on the campaign trail not asking him how he can justify his use of litigation to oppress his critics and how it is consistent with the principles of liberty for which he claims to stand? How is this consistent with his First-Amendment based assault on campaign finance regulation such as McCain-Feingold? Does he just want to substitute the courts and privately financed litigation for the FEC?Also surprising to me, is that even Paul's very vocal online supporters seem to refuse to recognize the issue here. I was amazed on our original post how many commenters came to Paul's defense here because they think that the videos were designed to make Paul look bad, and therefore the people "must" be revealed. That's not how the law works and that's not standing up for the basic principles of free speech, internet freedom and liberty that they supposedly stand for.
The sign of a truly principled person is when you're willing to retain those principles in the face of a situation where standing firm hurts you. Instead, Ron Paul folded and suddenly relied on big federal government regulations and abuse of the law to try to take away individuals' free speech rights.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: campaign advertising, campaigns, defamation, john huntsman, lawsuits, ron paul, states rights, trademark
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If that is surprising to you, you haven't dealt with vocal Ron Paul supporters very often.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"The sign of a truly principled person is when you're willing to retain those principles in the face of a situation where standing firm hurts you." Well it appears his whole life he has done this.
"Instead, Ron Paul folded and suddenly relied on big federal government regulations and abuse of the law to try to take away individuals' free speech rights."
So the whole of his life is ended by one bad decision?
(Not rhetorical)
Dont make me point out Bush I & II, and Barry Sorento's flaws.
A small mistake most likely brought upon by an over-aggressive lawyer/campaign manager.
Forgivable? Absolutely.
Its not like he started wars that resulted in hundreds of thousands dead, trillions of dollars spent, all on false, or selective "intelligence" for his Neocon agenda.
Yeah but that one bad lawsuit... OF WITH HIS HEAD!!!!
Ron Paul bashers come crawling out of the wood work in
3... 2... 1...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
First cockaroach, how the hell are ya?
"He's not as awful as everyone else" is not a valid defense of Ron Paul. - Where on earth, or outter space, did you come to the conclusion that is what I said. Please explain the thought process there.
RP in short:
He has held the same beliefs since the 80's and his voting record reflects that. He is a man of principal. Thats why his fans are so fanatical.
No where in my comment did I project that "He's not as awful as everyone else" Cause the fact is he is much much better than the rest.
Here ya go, 22 years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gjrCan9rtc
Moar?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MzdYEU0f ig
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't know AC's thought process, but that's exactly what I got out of your post.
You failed to address the point that Paul abandoned his principles in the attempt to unmask anonymous political speech. Instead of addressing it, you pointed out how much worse other politicians are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Help a brother out here:
"I dont agree with what he is doing here, but I will put his voting record against anyone you may have." - Dont see that here.
Nor here:
"Instead, Ron Paul folded and suddenly relied on big federal government regulations and abuse of the law to try to take away individuals' free speech rights."
So the whole of his life is ended by one bad decision?"
This:
Dont make me point out Bush I & II, and Barry Sorento's flaws.
Or:
Its not like he started wars that resulted in hundreds of thousands dead, trillions of dollars spent, all on false, or selective "intelligence" for his Neocon agenda.
After reflecting on this, HELL YEAH ill defend the He's not as awful as everyone else stance because... well... he is just sooooo much not as awful to the point of being better.
AND AGAIN
Do we through out the whole of a mans life for one mistake?
If so, then there are/were never great men, just men that did great thing(s). (or women, whew dodged that bullet)
Thanks for the insight, its hard to see sometimes how the other side will perceive your comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're claiming that trying to compare Paul to these people is *not* trying to compare him to them?!?!??!
See, this is *exactly* why it's reasonable that the video was done by Paul supporters - even when you make plain statements in plain language, you still can't understand what it is you said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
See, this is *exactly* why it's reasonable that the video was done by Paul supporters - even when you make plain statements in plain language, you still can't understand what it is you said
If it was so plain, and YOU dont understand it, maybe its YOU. Just sayin.
"You're claiming that trying to compare Paul to these people is *not* trying to compare him to them?!?!??!" Please describe in detail what you read that brought you to that conclusion.
Hmmm. Still no answer to:
So the whole of his life is ended by one bad decision?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Failed to address?
"You failed to address the point that Paul abandoned his principles - Read below
"A small mistake most likely brought upon by an over-aggressive lawyer/campaign manager." My opinion, but addressed.
A small mistake no where near constitutes accusing him of altogether abandoning his principles, and that's exactly what I got out of your post.
"you pointed out how much worse other politicians are." - So we agree?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, but a racist who has no understanding of the 19th century economics is *not* better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, but the state of the world's economic system shows that none of these clowns understand economics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Like the racist rants that he signed his name to, but now disavows because they're politically embarrassing?"
Ha ha. You never called someone, even in your own head, a nigger, cracker, spic, etc. RHETORICAL no need to answer because we all know it.
"Like the racist rants that he signed his name to" Interesting. Signed his name to. Signed his name to.
Aww yep he is racist to the point of having KKK meetings every Wednesday at 3PM. /s
"Sorry, but a racist who has no understanding of the 19th century economics" Pfftt hahahahahahahah no understanding of economics. Yeah OK. You tell yourself that. Thats why when the bubble burst he was all over TV because he predicted it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't have racist rants in public, for public consumption and I don't sign my name to other peoples racist rants claiming them as my own until being racist is can only get you votes in a few states.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course, it doesn't hurt to point out the mistake as well so that it's noticed and hopefully not repeated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or be the regular member of Congress?
Your call people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yeah but that one bad lawsuit... OF WITH HIS HEAD!!!!
Did Mike directly state or even imply anything close to these statements in his post? Not as far as I can tell. If you equate pointing out an instance of hypocrisy on the part of a politician with decapitation, then that's your problem, not Mike's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I never implied that mike implied this. Who are you; his mother?
Trying to sound smart FAIL:
If you equate pointing out an instance of hypocrisy on the part of a politician with decapitation, then that's your problem, not Mike's
I also LOVE the way you didnt answer the question either:
So the whole of his life is ended by one bad decision?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're not very good an understanding how people interpret what you write. Most people reading what I quoted would think that you were implying just that.
I also LOVE the way you didnt answer the question either:
So the whole of his life is ended by one bad decision?
I didn't answer the question because the obvious answer is no. And that's the point. No one suggested otherwise. If you have a problem with how Mike or the Techdirt community has previously "nailed" Ron Paul, why don't you reference and address that instead of putting words into Mike's mouth?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"No one suggested otherwise."
You sure?
"If you have a problem with how Mike or the Techdirt community has previously "nailed" Ron Paul"
I dont. I called out his campaign on this and am waiting for their response. I agreed that this was out of hand and wrong. But to "nail" the man for this is stupid. He made a mistake.
"You're not very good an understanding how people interpret what you write." - I guess that's something ill have to work on now. NO ONE IS PERFECT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This wasn't an "assault on free speech", unless you believe campaigns should be able to anonymously smear their opponents in an election. He wasn't going after some random individual on the internet because he didn't like the message. He was suing because he was reasonable sure that the Huntsman campaign was behind it. There are different standards and would the press have done their job with some basic investigative journalism this could have been quite a scandal.
So yeah, you can complain about him using the wrong tools for the job, but to call this a flip flop on his ideals is stretching it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
and what would have happened if he was wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh yes, let's not forget his statement about young black men being able to run fast. I can't find the quote now, but it does pertain to crime in the D.C. area. Paul supporters have blocked out all of this like an abusive childhood and he is now their great hope. Then again, looking at the rest of the Republican candidates, I can see why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As for the CRA, it's really no longer necessary (though he is sure naive to think it never was or that inclusion could have been achieved more easily). There is a black president now, what else does anyone need to realize?
How can anyone be a racist who wants to scrap the most racist policy ever enacted in the post-1865 USA: the War on Drugs? That one really is beyond me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Glad to read this
Good to see third-party-liability-stretching being contained like this. i.e. Someone posts a youtube video about how bad [insert designer manufacturer] handbags suck, I could totally see [same] trying to sue YouTube over it, and attempting to go the Trademark route.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Noit always cut and dried though...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Noit always cut and dried though...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
48 hours
Which means this: Nobody even remembers the news story when Huntsman was criticized by a supposed Paul supporter(s). Nor do they remember what Ron Paul said concerning the lawsuit for it. In other words, Politicians are aware is only going to be a “story” for a few days before everyone forgets about it. So Paul saying he was taking legal action sounding good time, but now that it is forgotten I wouldn’t count on Paul filing a lawsuit any time soon..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If hes genuine, after this story, i can only hope that he trully listens to the wants of the people, as he's either a typical politician, or is unaware of the publics views on the sort of actions he's recently displayed......and being unaware of it, doesn't fill me with hope either
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That behavior is exactly the mindset that causes someone to believe in "intelligent design".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I did offend by making you think I was calling you a YEC supporter or what have you, sorry, that wasn't my intention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's practically spotless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The only violation of libertarian property rights here is trying to use the courts to force a private entity to turn over information that they otherwise wouldn't. As un-libertarian as that might be, free speech doesn't really factor in.
(If he had called up Google and asked them to turn over the logs, and they had complied willingly, it wouldn't have been inconsistent with libertarian principles at all.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And after re-reading your comment, the only thing he could stand on is a defamation of character suit, which would not be covered under slander or libel aspects of protected free speech. And even the defamation of character suit is iffy, becuase he's running for president... how many other candidates do you see filing defamation of character suits when their opposition runs a nasty ad campaign against them? not too many.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They were aware the case was doomed. It's not like career politicians are unfamiliar with law. The Paul campaign organizers saying they were taking action sounded good at time, but it was a very empty threat. All smoke and mirrors.
Politics as usual. Now that the story is forgotten nobody even cares what happens. John Huntsman? Who is that? LOL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wanting to hide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Principles?
[Waves hand.] These aren't the principles you're looking for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
unlibertarian of doing so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: unlibertarian of doing so?
How was Ron Paul "invaded" by the video in question? Which property right did they infringe upon?
This is a misstep for his campaign, for sure (even though I don't find it to be a huge one).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: unlibertarian of doing so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Big Checks
As far as the 'big checks' go, I actually laughed out loud. There are no big checks with Ron Paul's name on them. Check out the FEC site, and see for yourself.
I think about this sometimes - We've been 'at war' since 2001, and probably about 70% of my life. And we have now, in the person of Ron Paul, the opportunity to stop the war(s) and stay out of the next one (Iran?, Syria? somewhere else?). And this is not important enough to enough people to happen. And I don't know if it (the opportunity) will ever come around again.
I think on that, and I am dismayed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...
It's pretty laughable to read Mr. Masnick's account above and how shamelessly he supports fraud perpertrated under our current system of jurisprudence and statute law with its standard of 'precedent'.
We'll see you on the battlefield Mike...don't worry, I'll aim for your head to make it nice and quick for yah!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...
Do this country a favor and stop supporting Ron Paul, so he might actually win.
Have a great day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Please
The only saving face that i can give Ron Paul here, is if he'll be the kind of president that will make his decisions based on what the people want, everyone makes mistakes.........its your actions afterwards that will show the man....we'll never know what kind of president he'll be, until he's actually president
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Please
And I am thankful you are not a Supreme Court Justice.
The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment.
The Illinois Supreme Court Rule 224 requires that the verified petition for discovery must set forth "the reason the proposed discovery is necessary." Basically it means that there needs to proof sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, even though the anonymous defendant isn't required file a motion to dismiss.
So, just because "you think" someone falsely trashed your reputation, you need to prove illegality before unmasking them, which is as it should be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Please
That isn't unimportant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Please
Superficial as in the act of unmasking an unknown, for the sake of a low priority action(i.e Creating a video for the purpose of slandering), i sure as hell dont condone it, but if this is the line that needs to be crossed before the courts can be used, how many other things will be allowed to be brought to the to courts
Saying that
If what you say is true, (ive not reasearched yet), then my blood boils just as much as yours my friend
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Please
Yes, it's as convoluted as that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mass confusion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: mass confusion
So, he was against the Founding Fathers publishing under pseudonyms? Because that seems pretty reactionary coming from him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: mass confusion
If I say something--anything at all, positive, neutral, or negative--under a false name or no name, that's anonymity. But if I say the same thing while intentionally representing myself as a different, real entity whom I am clearly not, that's fraud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To all you who can't fathom a conspiracy ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some Perspective
"Sure, he's been consistent in his positions to end the ruinous war on drugs, stop murdering people overseas, and keep the government from detaining you indefinitely, but . . . he filed a questionable lawsuit to unmask someone who was putting out vile and defamatory content in his name. I guess that means he's now an establishment candidate and devoid of any principles."
To that I have to ask: Wat?
The Paul campaign screwed up. It happens. We should definitely speak out and make sure they know that they screwed up, and at no time should we turn a blind eye to these things merely because we like the rest of what they do. But let's keep some perspective, here. If you expect any person to refrain from making any mistakes, ever, in order for them to win your approval, then you're going to spend most of your life without friends of any kind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
let's see
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ron Paul's lawsuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ron Paul's lawsuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really...?
"'What continues to amaze me, though, is how Paul is getting a free pass for this assault on free speech. Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum haven't filed lawsuits over identical videos that use their names in attacking Huntsman; why is Ron Paul the only candidate who filed such a suit?' "
The point is correct; identical videos were put out like the one in question that replace Ron Paul with 'Rick Santorum' and 'Mitt Romney'. News articles were not written about Mitt Romney's or Rick Santorum's campaigns making these videos, but wouldn't you know that the media DID write articles expressing the belief that the version of this video with Ron Paul's name on it was released by his 'supporters'. Does it strike no one as odd that this video was attributed to Ron Paul's supporters at face value but not to Romney's or Santorums's supporters? Want to ask again why Paul's campaign felt it necessary to publicize that they were trying to find out who made it even if the case had no chance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(Now to sit back and watch the Paulites go up in flames)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One small misstep isn't enough to get me to change my opinion of him. My worldview remains firmly intact. Now, if he were to come out in support of invading Iran like the rest of the warmongering chicken-hawks the GOP has put up so far, I'd be gone in a split second.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
i support the messeage, not the man
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"all that I care about is that Ron Paul is not quite the honest man everyone seems to think he is.." Cuz for no good reason, you hate him. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
Right, wrong, no matter. Just as long as your sour view of him was met.
RP is... GASP... is human and makes mistakes. Ohhhh Nooooosss we cant vote for him.
Lets put another Bush/Obama in there. They were such beacons of integrity. /s
Troll:
(Now to sit back and watch the Paulites go up in flames)
So you said it because you believe it or just another troll trying to incite the RP crowd? I believe the latter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The movement is sort of dead in the water when the Figurehead is just as bad as the rest of them..
As I said in the first comment, I don't care what's in it. Does not matter. I am not interested in Huntsman, and I sure as hell as am not interested in Stormfront. Or anything else. This isn't about the video.. It might be libellous crap, it may be 100% accurate, I don't know, don't care..
This is about the hero of the libertarians, and how his principles only last until the become inconvenient to him.
The as I said the "Only honest man in American Politics" He only sticks to his principles while they are convenient. He is just the same as the rest of bastards.
What annoys me, isn't Ron Paul, I don't care about him (oh I'm not an american btw...) What annoys me is the blind belief that he is engenders is his followers..
I don't care about him, you (and people like you who will not hear a bad thing said about there hero) are what annoys me..
I don't like fanatics of any sort. I put them all in the same grouping. Be it "Born again Zealots", some idiot terrorist, an out of control rogue soldier, or a Paulite..
I'm not saying people are perfect, I know damn well they are not. But the Ron Paul fans need to realise that only honest man in US politics, isn't.. And that is the end of that..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The central principle of libertarians is non-aggression. One is free to do anything as long as no one else is harmed. Ron Paul was harmed and has every right to defend himself. He is not a pacifist. Freedom is not without responsibility and consequences. Find some other reason to malign Ron Paul. This one doesn't fly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem is, the trademark claim is obviously invalid and is just something he is using, via his lawyers, to find out who made these videos. No one should be allowed to misuse the legal system, which is what it appears RP is doing..
A valid response to lies is the truth, not a bogus lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That he was harmed is incontrovertible. His supporters were also harmed by this smear attempt that an independent analysis determined was likely initiated by someone close to the Huntsman campaign. Ron Paul was absolutely right to seek to expose this kind of despicable tactic.
How can one mis-use the legal system? A poor or invalid claim merely loses. Maybe Ron Paul's lawyers could have chosen a better argument but that does not invalidate the attempt to uncover the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I really don't believe he was harmed by this video, that I hadn't heard of until he sued about it, nearby as much as his attempt to use trademark law to attempt to remove someone's right to anonymous free speech.
He's still got my vote, but I'm not going to pretend he is perfect. I'll call out his mistakes, just like anyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't believe anyone has a right to fraudulent misrepresentation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How do I know it's simply speech he doesn't like? Because if it were actually illegal, you bet your ass he would have sued under slander laws. He didn't. His lawyers used trademark law because they knew that the speech was legal. This is the entire point.
... and one other thing. If you don't think RP has more than his fair share of "crazy" supporters, you're willfully ignorant. I'm a RP supporter, and even I can admit that. Someone in this post said he would shoot Mike in the head! For stating facts! Ron Paul supporters do the most harm to Ron Paul.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe you're just trolling for attention because youre not respected enough at work... But where do you compare Luap with Obama, Newt, Mittens, or Santorum? In what category? Obama has a list of lies from his campaign in '08 that is just painful to recollect. Newts a corrupt "born again" politician, who's repented since he was ousted from the speakership (so he says), Mittens has his magic underwear violated every time Wall Street comes looking for him. Santorum is the REALLY scary one because he believes what he's saying about Muslims, defending Isreal because the bible says so, and bring Gov' and the Church closer together ...
So really, you put Paul in the same boat with these guys?! Please give some proof of his disgusting, hypocritical, bigoted, corrupt lies and evil deeds?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misrepresentation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
contradicted yourself
Your assertion that the videos being released by the Huntsman campaign as a smear would be "improbable or downright stupid" are clearly contradicted later in your article.
When you mention that Romney, Santorum, and Paul all had IDENTICAL Huntsman attack ads released in their names, you make it seem a lot less improbable or downright stupid to claim that Huntsman was behind the videos.
That every trackback and every origin of those videos was from the Huntsman staff, or the Huntsman official website, makes me think it is actually ALL TOO PROBABLE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: contradicted yourself
Was he using a loophole? Yeah. Abusing the trademark law? Probably. Would the result have justified the means? I think it might have. I certainly would have liked to know if the Huntsman campaign actively smeared a candidate using a false flag attack. But the one thing I'm sure about is that Mike never bothered looking into the case, or he's so biased that he doesn't care about the facts. I'm not even a Ron Paul supporter and that much is obvious to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: contradicted yourself
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I will conceded however...
This to me is like the "flying planes on taxpayer dime" argument though. We aren't Ron Paul supporters because we demagogue little things like that, we want to see enormous change. Little things like this lawsuit pale in comparison to getting our troops out of Afghanistan before they feel compelled to go door to door murdering women and children again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hypocrites
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hypocrites
Ill continue to support the message, and hope hes the man to deliver it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hypocrites
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hypocrites
I "worship" the message not the man, if the worship rubs of on the man then so be it, if in time it is proven that he deserves it......so be it, anyone who can bring about real change deserves some awe, as they are few and far between, ill tell you this for nothing........there is NOTHING about the other candidates that makes me think they'll try and change the bigger problems that need addressing, as long as Ron Paul is not playing us, i think him to be that man.......if he does'nt stand behind his supposed convictions then he'll lose all that support, just like obama
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hypocrites - Must be a Republican
Rachel... dear... All of the things you cite began wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy before Barry. I am no Barry Sorento fan, but all of that cant be dropped on him. C'mon now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hypocrites - Must be a Republican
Yes, not all the blame can be put at he's door, but no other president has dissapointed me more
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hypocrites - Must be a Republican
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You idiot
Plus the user released the same video with different names and one was for Romney, but of course idiots in the media like you focused on the Paul video because it was first.
So then Ron Paul was forced to sue the idiot Huntsman daughters, which of course at the time didn't know they did it because the video was hurting his campaign and fund raising efforts.
But you stupid idiot is too idiotic to know about this, you stupid piece of shit excuse for a journalist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You idiot
Dont get me wrong, what he stands for right now, is more then enough for my support, but im starting to realise, there are a whole lot of issues out there we dont know he's stance on..........will he be consistant throughtout the board?
Please dont get angry my friend, the moment we stop questioning is thhe moment we get complacent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Odd Ron Paul behavior
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Odd Ron Paul behavior
If someone can think of another route, legally and technically, please post it. I'm being sincere here, please post it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Odd Ron Paul behavior
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Odd Ron Paul behavior
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Odd Ron Paul behavior
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FAIL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FAIL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FAIL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a collective failure of idiots posting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a collective failure of idiots posting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What a collective failure of idiots posting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow. Are you that stupid? There is a CLEAR difference in the tones of other negative ads and this ad we are talking about. This was a blatantly RACIST video. It must suck really, really bad to wake up each morning and look in the mirror and know in your heart how absolutely dim you are. I feel bad for you : (
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.roflcorner.com/wp-content/gallery/facepalm/facepalm2.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
protecting your good name
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are doing it wrong. Ron Paul bases ALL of his political decisions on The Constitution. Therefore, you can answer any of your suspicions yourself. I don't like some of his stances that he bases on The Constitution (see his voting record and explanation for the law against CRUSH videos) but he is damn consistent ALWAYS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If he delivers the "message" across all boards then, hallelujah praise the lord
but this story, might seem minor to some, but the precedent it sets sure as hell isn't
Question is, is Ron Paul someone who can learn to adapt to the views of he's people on a given subject, previously on different sides of the track, such as the right not be tracked via the internet? Without due process?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He needs the internet as a medium for unbiased news, if it is unbiased, i can not fathom why he's people have not set something like this up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ron Paul needs to open a dialogue to the internet
http://www.ronpaul.com/contact/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ron Paul needs to open a dialogue to the internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so ron paul needs to put out some fake videos of his opponets taking cheap shots at him so he can be one the same playing field? And its legal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so ron paul needs to put out some fake videos of his opponets taking cheap shots at him so he can be one the same playing field? And its legal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What TD is missing
Also since all signs point to it coming from the Huntsman campaign itself, if they are innocent they deserve to know who did it too, in order to exonerate themselves.
Free speech can be absolutely respected and still does not protect fraud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What TD is missing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What TD is missing
It's great that you think that Bob, but, the correct procedure in such a situation is to prove in a court of law that something illegal happened before unmasking the anonymous defendant. The Supreme Court recognizes anonymity as a part of our First Amendment rights and shouldn't be revoked just because *you think* it's fraud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dirty Politics
Wouldn't you like to know by who?
Remember Huntsman's daughters on CNN the next day saying how horrified they were at this video attack? Insinuating that Ron Paul is a racist?
Why would you protect such dirty politics?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dirty Politics
Not sure I have seen anyone trying to protect that.
The problem lies with invoking a invalid lawsuit just to unmask the video creators. Anonymity is a right recognized by the Supreme Court as part of our First Amendment rights.
With Paul being such a staunch supporter of the Constitution, this seems like completely hypocritical move.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
niiiice....
Using his name instead of "his committee" or anything like that even once.
You put it in your own damn article "Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee".
He rarely remembers the details of all of the upcoming events being scheduled and planed by his committee... why would this be any different?
A really pathetic and sad excuse for a hit piece.
The entire thing is one big fallacy made up of smaller ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: niiiice....
We either assume that the man in charge is responsible for those under him, or we don't. We don't get to have it both ways depending on how it suits our narrative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another Thought
The first amendment is not the fourth. I believe that Ron Paul does personally value and would as president uphold the first amendment more-so than many other politicians either running for office, or are currently in positions of legislative or executive power. And as he said in a debate last fall "The first amendment doesn't exist to talk about the weather. It's to say controversial things."
If you then want to argue the fourth amendment... (and if you do, then what did YOU do in response to the patriot act back in 2003???) Then I propose this is a political matter more than it is a legal one. In one scenario it could be more to prove that they had absolutely nothing to do with the ad. More likely, or interestingly, I think it was an attempt to tie another campaign to the video, perhaps one that is still in contention, and damage their public opinion. If you were considering voting for Romney, Gingrich, or **yuck** Santorum, what would you think about them if they were behind such a viral personal attack??
The game is the game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fairly amazed...
My post was about disappointment that he wouldn't live up to his principles here.
For those of you insisting that he *has* to abuse trademark law to uncover who made those videos... you really ought to learn a little about the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fairly amazed...
I still can't see any other avenue to clear his name than revealing the uploader; and I can't see how to do that without a court order, which implies suing (even if trademark is the wrong suit to file).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul is right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Paul is right
Content providers (candidates)
bash internet companies such as google(ron paul),
because they wont do everything that is demanded...
..users (supporters) speak up,
now all who speak up, are deemed a bunch of filthy stinking pirates (paraphase)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Paul is right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let me see if I understand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let me see if I understand
Just a heads up: you're making yourself look stupid.
I have no problem with people being held accountable *if they broke the law*. There's where we run into a problem.
In this case, if you had a defamation claim, then you'd go after them on defamation charges. Problem, the first, there is no defamation here. Defamation has a high bar for public figures. There's no defamation claim here.
Instead, Paul tried to file a federal trademark lawsuit. There IS NO trademark claim. First of all, the use was not "in commerce" as is required. Second, there's no likelihood of confusion. Trademark claim, dead in the water.
Third point: the right to anonymous speech is widely recognized as protected under the first amendment. This DOES NOT mean that you don't get held accountable, but it means you don't identify willy nilly unless you FIRST prove they broke the law.
And there's the problem. There's no evidence these people broke the law.
Did they do something scummy? Sure. But just because YOU don't like it, doesn't mean YOU get to ignore the law. That's the point we're making.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let me see if I understand
The school GIIS Singapore Global Schools later threatened the blog for alleged trademark dilution.
Then they resurfaced in India (as GIIS K-12 India) and sued Google in India.
(Google was the blog hosting provider and India has an internet-unfriendly regime with some form of 'invisible censorship of the internet', one which outlaws "insults" and "lascivious" content).
The key question emerging in both situations is, whether the goal justifies the method used. My answer is a clear no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Demeaning and atrocious are not the standards for defamation.
There is no defamation claim here. Learn what defamation is before you make a fool out of yourself.
There is some injury there and usually you can make a claim against an injury.
Learn the law. Seriously. He filed a TRADEMARK lawsuit. There is no trademark claim here.
Paul was trying to clear his name as well as Huntsmans' to show that he didn't create or authorize the video. At least that would be my take on it.
That's great. But don't ABUSE the law and violate the first amendment in an attempt to "clear your name." There are plenty of other ways to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What you do is tell the truth: you didn't create the video and all signs point towards the Huntsman campaign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mission Accomplished
Win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So why hasn't Ron Paul sued anyone else for defamation?
You can praise Ron Paul for suing youtube, and you can make excuses for the fact that he didn't sue his secretary. But you can't do both. If his secretary didn't warrant a lawsuit, then neither did youtube. If youtube deserves to be sued, then so does his secretary. If you honestly believe that Ron Paul didn't write those newsletters, if you praise him for suing youtube, then you should demand that Ron Paul sue his secretary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm not trying to "come up" with stuff on Paul. I'm expressing *DISAPPOINTMENT* in a candidate whose views I mostly (but not fully) agree with appears to have not lived up to his own principles.
You're not my buddy.
Grow up, learn to read, and stop being such a fanboy that your brain shuts off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So classy with the name calling. I bet you wrote that under a crystal chandelier :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Heh. I've been called all sorts of names in this thread, and literally had my life threatened all by a bunch of people who don't even bother to understand the rather basic details.
Telling someone to grow up is not name calling. It's an instruction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymity is not guaranteed
Nobody has the right to misrepresent somebody else and then demand anonymity. That's got nothing to do with freedom of speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymity is not guaranteed
And this is why it helps if you know something about what you're talking about before opening your mouth. From the Supreme Court:
I accept your apology.
if you say something slanderous the other party has a right of response or to seek compensation. Neither can be done effectively if you don't know who you're talking to.
And there are clear rules on how you do that -- including having to first show the other party broke the law. That's what Paul failed to do here, because he made a totally ridiculous claim (trademark law) that has nothing to do with anything -- and then sought expedited discovery, totally against those protections on anonymous speech you incorrectly insist don't exist.
Nobody has the right to misrepresent somebody else and then demand anonymity. That's got nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Look, you don't know the law. Don't pretend you do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymity is not guaranteed
If you can get a third party (such as Youtube) to willingly release information about the video creator, then you have done nothing that violates libertarian principles. If you file a lawsuit seeking to use force to compel someone to answer, then that is un-libertarian.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Such a silly lawsuit
For instance, Stormfront is a lot more racist than that Jon Huntsman video. So is David Duke, and the Neo-Nazi movement. All of these groups are strong Ron Paul supporters. Why does Ron Paul sue youtube, but not these other groups? Is that because Ron Paul thinks embraces Stormfront support as a good thing? Remember, Ron Paul refused to donate Stormfront's donations to charity, because he was happy to accept their support. So why is he suing youtube? That makes no sense.
Unless Ron Paul is breaking the law, every ad created by the Ron Paul Super PAC is produced without his consent or authorization. Can we safely conclude that Ron Paul will sue his own Super PAC, for creating ads that support him without his consent? Again, this is a very stupid lawsuit. You can't sue your own supporters for claiming to support you, even if they're being idiots, even if you think they're fake. For instance, suppose the Ron Paul Super PAC ran a racist ad. Would Ron Paul sue them, or not?
According to Ron Paul's defenders, I guess we can safely conclude that Ron Paul is pro-Nazi, anti-Youtube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Irony
Very disappointing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huntsman
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huntsman video
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Speech does not mean one can't sue another in court.
Free Speech means the GOVERNMENT can't silence you.
See the difference?
This whole article is useless...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The court system is government force, and for someone who claims to be a libertarian, it should only be used in response to force. (NAP ring a bell?) Explain what force was used on Ron Paul by the video creators or Youtube. If there was none, then suing Youtube to make them act like you want is not a libertarian action.
I love Ron Paul, but these stupid posts defending a stupid action by his campaign make us look like cultists, rather than reasoned champions of liberty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul Supporters are Such Hypocrites
@Greg So you're claiming Ron Paul was harmed because an idiot claimed to support him? Because that pretty much describes 90% of the people who vote for him. Dude, there are leaders in the Neo-Nazi movement like Jamie Kelso who have been in charge of rallies for Ron Paul, or Bill Johnson who hosted a $2000/plate dinner for Ron Paul at his house. Did Ron Paul sue these guys for making him look bad? No? Someone claiming to support you is not grounds for a lawsuit, period.
Greg, why didn't Ron Paul sue the person who wrote the newsletter for damaging his name, assuming a ghostwriter actually existed? Why didn't he sue the guy in charge of running the newsletter, assuming the guy who ran the newsletter dropped the ball and published articles without Paul's consent? Why is Paul concerned with naming the author of an anonymous youtube video, when he established absolutely zero concern with investigating the name of the author when he has specifically been asked to name the author repeatedly for years and years? Why hasn't Ron Paul sued his secretary, who contradicted his claims and told the press that Ron Paul actually did proof the racist articles before they went out, despite his denials?
The hypocrisy is astounding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So Paul supporters are okay with Nazis, but against youtube?
If you can acknowledge that Neo-Nazis support Ron Paul, then why is it so hard to believe that someone who is racist against the Chinese would support Ron Paul?
@Hugo: Please explain the exact grounds for a libel suit. How exactly does "Vote for Ron Paul" qualify as libel? Should we sue everyone on the internet who has a "Vote for Ron Paul" sign, or do we only sue people with a "Vote for Ron Paul" sign if he's also an idiot, which is most of the time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why don't Ron Paul's lawyers understand the constitution?
Another defense from people like Greg is, "He got advice from bad lawyers" or "It wasn't him, it was his staffer." Question: Why in the world is Ron Paul hiring lawyers and staffers who don't understand the first amendment? If you're a lawyer who intends to sue on defamation and trademark, shouldn't a basic understanding of the first amendment be pretty standard?
And how exactly can Ron Paul claim that he will defend the constitution, when not only does he not understand the constitution, but apparently the legal experts he chooses to hire don't understand it either? That doesn't make any sense. Stop making excuses, guys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just realized something
Why are Paul supporters different? Because Paul supporters treat youtube like the church treats biblical text. In their eyes, if something is on youtube, it must be true, which is why they prefer to present all their arguments in Youtube form even though 10 minutes of Youtube can often be summed up in a few paragraphs of text. For instance, their entire defense against the newsletter accusations is a youtube interview where Ron Paul said he didn't write it... and that's it. He doesn't provide any explanation, he doesn't address any of the accusations specifically. But he said he didn't write them, on video, so it must be true. The same thing goes with most of their economic arguments. "Hey, here's a guy on youtube talking about economic theory, it must be legit!"
So for most people, the Huntsman video is just people on the internet being dumb. But for Paul supporters, it qualifies as sacrilege. "How DARE someone violate the institution of Youtube!" It's the equivalent of someone who is delusional enough to believe that soap operas are real, and then sues ABC when he realizes that all of the characters are played by actors. And then he goes around trying to shout to everyone, "OMG, these characters aren't real, this is an outrage!" And everyone else is just standing there confused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uhh... is Ron Paul a Lawyer?
So, really, techdirt? More smears on the good doctor? c'mon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uhh... is Ron Paul a Lawyer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL
Most up front admission of not knowing anything about Ron Paul that I've ever read. Thanks for saving me tons of time trying to figure out where you're coming from.
By the way. Libel, slander, and defamation have been here in various forms for thousands of years. They were never actions for which there were no consequences. Whether or not those consequences were visited upon someone was and still is the choice of the victim. Nothing about the first amendment has changed that.
You (author) are merely another one of millions in this country who assumes freedom from accountability is a rider to freedom of speech. Stupid assumption - if not dangerously so. And that's how it should be. Because one has, and will always be, only as good is one's word.
The irony in your article is that you're attempting to call Paul out for abandoning his word while defending the right of those he's suing to shirk any accountability for theirs. Please tell me your association with Techdirt is naught but an internship. I'd hate to think they're paying for such oversights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LordRhynn, please answer
@LordRhynn: No one has actually explained how "Vote for Ron Paul" qualifies as libel, slander, or defamation. The definition of "defamation" isn't simply "Someone said something I didn't like." You can't really lecture us on the law when you demonstrate absolutely no understanding of how the law works. "It's okay to violate the constitution, as long as we go after people we disagree with!" Sorry, Paulbots, that's not how the constitution works.
It's not enough to say "slander is bad!" You have to establish that saying "Vote for Ron Paul!" qualifies as slander. Because if it does, then Ron Paul has a lot of other youtube videos he needs to sue.
Also, LordRhynn, please answer my question earlier: Why hasn't Ron Paul gone after the supposed ghostwriter for writing racist newsletter articles under his name? Why has Ron Paul told reporters that he has absolutely NO INTEREST in even INVESTIGATING this matter, when he claims that he was taken advantage of? Why hasn't Ron Paul sued the person in charge of the newsletter? And why didn't Ron Paul file a lawsuit against former employees who went to the press saying that he personally proofed every article, despite the claims to the contrary? Please explain this double standard for everyone to hear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: LordRhynn, please answer
With that said, Paul's right to bring his case is not predicated in any way on whether or not it will end up winnable. Surprised I had to tell you that; you with all your vast legal knowledge.
And that should just about conclude the discussion on demonstrated understanding of how the law works. Now let's discuss the comedy gold that makes up your previous post.
Therein lies another example of your failure to grasp simple concepts concerning personal injury, as outlined in my own previous post. Whether or not a slight is actionable is purely up to the slighted. Now to those who don't resort to false dilemmas and begged questions when considering the sources of Paul's beliefs and character, there is sufficient proof in his voting record, his conduct, the on-record statements of those who have known him his entire career, like former heads of the NAACP and others for whom sheltering/defending a racist would run counter to their vested interests, and finally in the words of the newsletter publishers who are on record disavowing any active participation by Paul, to be able to make up their own minds without a color by numbers rebuttal from Paul on every single point.
The phrase "I won't even dignify that with a response" is older than Paul. It is used sometimes when the truth of a matter is evident to those who want to see it, in this case because there is enough in the public record of deeds over time to provide clarity on a person's nature.
The point here is that your decision, and that of others like you, is to cherry pick one item out of 40 years of political existence and then resort to unrepresentative sample and sweeping generalization to make that the entirety of what Paul is about. Your right to pull this does not dictate Paul's response to it.
I could go into a whole LOT of detail about what a double standard really is, given the sudden rise of the Republican base as Anti-Bigotry Superheroes now that it's time to get rid of Ron Paul while the same group has elevated whining about so-called "race pimps", using "race cards", and trotting out the same tired crime statistics in an attempt to portray blacks as a blight on American society to a fine art.
Same people who whine every Martin Luther King day about why he gets a holiday while ripping a guy who voted for it as a racist.
Same people who want to bomb Iran in defense of a foreign regime with its own lobby that plays the race card at every criticism while bashing blacks for nearly the exact same complaints about America under almost the exact same circumstances (except of course for the UN stepping in and creating a sovereign nation out of Compton).
You'll call those straw men. I'll call that a discussion you really don't want to get into about racial politics in this country, and for that reason the last thing you want to bring up to me is double standards involving action of any type involving racism and the American public and political participants.
You might at least have made an effort to anticipate the mention of on-record racially questionable speech by at least one other Republican candidate before zeroing in on this topic and Paul. Be sharper than the usual dreck who get into this. No? Okay.
Back to your post. If you want to be taken seriously, once again. You will have to provide something more than poisoned wells, begged questions and generalizations. You talk as though nothing about the history of American finance was available before Youtube appeared. You'd be wrong there. The Fed was a mistake since inception. Offshoring jobs, destroying the manufacturing base and converting the country to a service only economy was stupid and suicidal long before the computer. So is blowing up the Federal budget by a couple billion per war and lying to the public about why you're doing it.
For you to be disingenuous and arrogant enough to try and hustle readers into some Candyland of your own creation where people supporting Paul's views have no trough of experience or historical precedent to reach into besides a 7 year old website half devoted to morons? You've got nothing to substantiate this and since you don't, you simply beg the question. It's this way because you say it is. And you do this while ridiculing Paul advocates about the same thing involving Paul's statements. You were discussing double standards, no?
Gotta move on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
distraction and deception
off the subject, staight and foward, i have spent a lot of time researching articles and debates this election season. what i found in my research is shocking, unbelievable, but very true. the course our government has taken for the last 50yrs i say is not and has not been for the interest of the american public.
im not going to get into details because it would take pages and pages to cover. however if you care to, you may look up at least one of many conspiracies against our freedom and liberty, the U.N. agenda 21. this agenda is about sustainable growth. unfortunately this agenda has nothing to do with growth and has everything to do with elimination.
the ndaa and the patriot act are tell tales that lead me to believe we are in a s--t storm folks. obama, romney, gingrich and santorum have publicly stated their support for both the patriot act and the ndaa (national defense authority act). as it is and stands today we are incrementally loosing our rights. this is not good at all.
we have only one choice and that is to replace all senators that support unconstitutional acts. all unconstitutional acts have cost us so much. our blood, our money, our f----n future. i am making a public plea for all to support
Dr.Paul for president.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hypothetical Question
What if David Duke creates a blog entry, telling people to vote for Ron Paul? Does that qualify as slander? Can Ron Paul sue David Duke? Because David Duke actually does support Ron Paul. So would Ron Paul be able to sue him?
Now, replace "David Duke" with "Anonymous Anti-Huntsman racist." An anonymous Anti-Huntsman racist creates a video, telling people to vote for Ron Paul. Would Ron Paul be able to sue anonymous anti-Huntsman racist for telling people to vote for him?
Because the last time I checked, it's not a crime to support someone who personally doesn't like you. Pizza Hut might not like David Duke, but that doesn't mean they can sue him for making a pro-Pizza Hut Video. So someone please explain how that's any different from what NHLiberty4Paul did. It doesn't even matter if it turns out that David Duke actually hates Pizza Hut. You can't sue someone for insincere praise. That's not a crime, that doesn't qualify as defamation, and Paulbots make themselves look really foolish by trying to argue otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Libertarians don't support allowing defamation any more than anyone else. Nice try though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would hope most libertarians would recognize that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Heck, there are examples of newspapers and public figures that accidentally quote the Onion as a factual news source. Does that mean that the the Onion can be sued for defamation?
@AM: I'm still waiting for the Paulbots to explain how this qualify as libel. Basically, all you guys are saying is "crime is bad," without actually explaining how any crime actually occurred. Typical Ron Paul disregard for facts.
BTW, I'm still waiting for you guys to answer my questions: 1) Why hasn't Ron Paul sued anyone for defamation over the newsletters? 2) Could Pizza Hut sue the KKK if the KKK made a video encouraging people to eat at Pizza Hut? Can Ron Paul sue David Duke if David Duke supports Ron Paul?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LordRhynn just typed 818 words and answered zero direct questions
You can't explain why Ron Paul would sue youtube and not his newsletter. You can't explain why he would sue youtube and not his former staffers. You can't explain what law was actually broken by youtube, nor can you address any comparable situation where a lawsuit would be justified.
Instead, you just wrote out an 818 word incoherent rant about how Ron Paul should be considered infallible and beyond question, and therefore all criticism is automatically void. BTW, Ron Paul voted against MLK Day, twice. What he voted yes on was an AMENDMENT to change the proposed date, which was part of a parliamentary procedure to delay the bill from passing. Of course, facts take a back seat to personal belief in Paultopia.
Why are you avoiding every single question that directly relates to the lawsuit, Rhynn? Oh, that's right, because this is an uncomfortable topic where you haven't gotten your pre-assigned talking points on what to say from the higher ups. So rather than thinking for yourself and risk implying that Ron Paul isn't perfect, you try to evade the topic using every tool to your disposal.
We're discussing the merits of Ron Paul's lawsuit. That's the entire purpose of the article. If you want to be a grown up and engage in this discussion, then please tell us the exact merits of this lawsuit and demonstrate that a crime actually occurred. Then explain why Ron Paul hasn't taken similar measures in cases that would be much stronger, assuming that Ron Paul is actually telling the truth.
Or, you can rely on the preschool tactic of "Hey, look over there!" when you find yourself cornered. You can leave telling yourself your dignity is still intact, but your refusal to address basic points will make it so that Ron Paul and his supporters continue to seem like a delusional cult to the very voting base that you're trying to win over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paulbots will cause their own demise
I say all this knowing that people like Joe seem pretty reasonable. But then, Joe seems to know exactly what I'm referring to. For instance, if I'm a liberal and someone accuses liberals of being spineless, I'm not terribly offended by that, because I can acknowledge there's truth to the statement. Guys like Joe can be honest about the flaws in the movement, and thus, has the capacity to improve it. The first step to any addiction recovery problem is admitting you have a problem. But the people who refuse to change and who keep relying on the exact same tactics that got you nowhere in 2008 will insure that the movement will forever be seen as a radical fringe.
So when I see a particularly delusional Paul supporter spouting all sorts of crazy, I don't get angry, and I don't get worked up. I just laugh and laugh at the fact that your tactics will cause you to lose, and you will never understand why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid video
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ron Paul Realtime Geo-Tag Map
Try to ignore the dissemination of the administration's faulty rhetoric and galvanize your presence on this campaign trail. Tally your support/nonsupport for the Ron Paul phenomenon at ronpaulitic. com - the only worldwide, realtime Ron Paul geo-tag map on the web.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dr. Paul wins
Sometimes we win without going to court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: Ron Paul and the 1st Amendment
Free speech is protected. Anonymity may be protected. But for it to be the expression of oneself, that "self" cannot be anonymous, because "nobody" (null set) has no rights. Null set does not exist.
I agree with you overall, and everything else written, but in that one aspect neither party looks particularly impressive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE: Ron Paul and the 1st Amendment
Though couched in mathematical-sounding terms, the above argument is facetious. By the way, not just that, the "null set" exists just as an empty cup exists ! Every null set is equal to any other null set and set operations with it (union, intersection, complement) are well defined. For the mathematically inclined: Axiom of empty set (Wikipedia). If the null set didn't exist, set theory itself would not exist !
Now to deal with the the core argument. The very existence of the expression implies the existence of somebody who expressed it. That the actor is nameless (anonymous) whether by choice or by other limitations, does not deny the expression or action nor its authorship. That *you* are unable to (or, that you have been denied the ability to) attribute that authorship, make that connection, does not take away from the expression a wee bit. You are simply unable to traverse from the expression to its author, the author remains veiled, and you can't reach out and touch (or by extension hit, trample, or silence) him or her. And the reason for protecting anonymity in cases where whistle-blowing is involved is exactly to deny that traversibility ! (To be doubly sure, let me clarify that I am not at all implying that this is a case of whistle-blowing).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]