Donald Trump's Lawsuit Against Univision Is Absolutely Hilarious

from the yes-we'll-add-the-obligatory-xkcd dept

Wed, Jul 1st 2015 9:32am — Mike Masnick

Donald Trump seems to be showing off what would happen if your prototypical internet troll had way too much money at his disposal. As you may have heard, he's putting on a big show of "running" for President, though as many have recognized, the move appears to be a hell of a lot more about getting himself publicity (thankfully, at least some news organizations are properly categorizing stories about Trump as entertainment rather than politics). Of course, the plan to get more attention may be backfiring somewhat, as some of the ridiculous comments he's made "on the campaign" are coming back to bite him -- including Univision cutting ties with him over the Miss USA telecast and NBC dumping both the pageants and his Apprentice series (that thing is still on?).

In response, Trump has filed what has to be one of the funniest lawsuits we've seen in a long time against Univision over the cancelled deal. It honestly reads like one of those nutty conspiracy theory lawsuits we see all the time, often filed pro se. You'd think that Trump would have trouble finding lawyers willing to file nuttiness on his behalf, but apparently there's always someone. It even resorts to the worst trolling tactic of internet commenters: complaining that his "First Amendment rights" are being violated because Univision dropped him. And it all involves a conspiracy involving Hillary Clinton. Seriously.

While Univision has claimed in the media that its decision to cut ties with MUO came in response to certain comments by Mr. Trump during a June 16, 2015 campaign speech announcing his candidacy for President of the United States, the decision was, in reality, a thinly veiled attempt by Univision, a privately held company principally owned by longtime Clinton Foundation donor and current Hillary Clinton fundraiser, Haim Saban, to suppress Mr. Trump's freedom of speech under the First Amendment as he begins to campaign for the nation's presidency and, in recent weeks, has dramatically risen in the polls while expressing critical views of Mrs. Clinton. Little else can explain Univision's decision to not only abandon its contractual relationship with MUO, but also, upon information and belief, pressure NBC to follow suit and cut longstanding ties with Plaintiffs nearly two weeks after the statements were made.

First of all, as all of you (minus a few trolls) are currently screaming right now, no the First Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with this. We'll let the obligatory xkcd explain: I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.

I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.

The statement is also entirely superfluous to the lawsuit as well, as none of the actual legal claims have anything to do with his First Amendment rights. Apparently Trump could get the lawyers to throw that bit into the description of the case, but when it came time to make actual claims, even the lawyers wouldn't go so far as to make a First Amendment claim.

Also, "little else can explain?" Really? Actually, there are tons of other explanations, with many of them being a hell of a lot more plausible than any fear of Trump being a legitimate contender for the White House -- for example, the actually stated reason that Trump out and out offended the entire country of Mexico with some ridiculous statements.

Next up in the internet troll playbook, we have the ridiculous claim of "defamation" over statements that the person doesn't like, but which are clearly statements of opinion, rather than fact:

In a move which can only be described as both tasteless and defamatory, on June 25, 2015, Mr. Ciurana, Univision's President of Programing and Content, then posted a photo on his official Univision Instagram account comparing Mr. Trump to Dylann Roof, the 21 year old who was recently arrested in the murder of nine (9) African-Americans attending bible study at a church in Charleston, South Carolina, one of the worst hate crimes to ever take place on U.S. soil. While Mr. Cuirana would later remove the defamatory post, the damage was already done: almost immediately, Mr. Ciurana's post was picked up by the media and became the subject of hundreds, if not thousands, of press articles, yet another example of Univision's dubious efforts to create a false narrative in an attempt to upset Mr. Trump's longstanding personal and business relationship with the Hispanic community.

If you're curious, here's the Instagram that Alberto Ciurana put up:

It's pretty clearly a somewhat weak attempt at humor, mocking the hair cuts of Trump and Roof. Tasteless? Perhaps, but there's no law requiring anyone to be tasteful in their internet jokes. Defamatory? Not in any way, shape or form. Not even close. And yet, unlike the non sequitur (and incorrect) First Amendment claims earlier, the lawsuit actually does claim defamation.

It's entirely possible that there are legitimate issues concerning breach of contract here, but even most of that seems like a stretch. Because Univision didn't just cut ties with Trump, it actually agreed to pay the full licensing amounts it promised for the next five years (totaling $13.5 million). In other words, Trump actually didn't lose any direct money from this, because Univision paid up (and, in theory, he could try to license it to someone else, though I'm not sure who would want to pay at this point). But Trump is -- hilariously -- claiming damages of $500 million because now people won't see the pageants.

Of course, Trump's own arguments undermine his arguments (because of course they do). The lawsuit repeatedly brags that there was a bidding war earlier this year, in which Univision emerged victorious. Thus, at least a few months ago, other TV media properties wished to broadcast the pageants. If it was true that this was all just a grand conspiracy by Hillary Clinton supporter Saban, then you'd think that Trump could simply move on to whoever else was in that bidding war (while keeping all the money that Univision paid him anyway!). But, of course, if the real reason for the cancellation was because of Trump's comments about Mexico and the concern about how Spanish-speaking audiences felt about that -- well, then Trump wouldn't be able to find that alternative.

The lawsuit is then equally hilarious in arguing that it can't possibly be Trump's offensive comments about Mexico because Trump has said the same offensive crap many times before. That seems like an odd thing to argue in such a lawsuit, but it's what Trump's lawyers have chosen to claim:

In reality, however, Mr. Trump's calls for immigration reform, particularly with respect to the U.S.-Mexican border, were nothing new. Indeed, for over a decade, Mr. Trump had, in numerous television and news interviews, consistently voiced his concerns regarding the influx of illegal immigrants pouring into the United States across the Mexican border and the crime that has resulted therefrom, views which were widely reported by every major media outlet, including, both Univision and NBC.

As Mr. Trump explained in an interview with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly on March 30, 2011, "[t]hey're coming over, and they're climbing over a fence, and there's nobody within 10 miles -- and they're selling drugs all over the place, they're killing people all over the place -- and we're not doing anything about it."

Indeed. It may be true that Trump has said offensive things in the past, but that doesn't mean that Univision can't later decide that the greater attention paid to his more recent offensive comments are such that it no longer wishes to do business with him. There's no rule anywhere that says, "Well, if you didn't complain four years ago when I said some stupid shit, you can't complaint now!" Even if it's true that Univision is only making this decision because Trump's comments went a bit viral, that's Univision's decision to make, and his previous comments are completely meaningless.

Frankly, this lawsuit is absolutely hilarious. The chances of it going anywhere are pretty slim. The First Amendment arguments are ridiculous, but meaningless, as there's no actual legal claim there. The defamation claims are going to get laughed out of court. The whole thing is fairly hilarious, and fits in with the designation of Trump as "entertainment" rather than anything even remotely serious.

270123665 Univision Trump (PDF)270123665 Univision Trump (Text)

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: breach of contract, contracts, defamation, donald trump, first amendment, free speech
Companies: nbc, univision

54 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 1 Jul 2015 @ 9:41am

You'd think that Trump would have trouble finding lawyers willing to file nuttiness on his behalf, but apparently there's always someone.

CAPTAIN PRENDA TO THE RESCUE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2015 @ 9:18am
  
  Re:
  The lawyers win, even if they lose the case... and Trump has more money than brains, it's a god damned jackpot for lawyers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris ODonnell (profile), 1 Jul 2015 @ 9:52am

You'd think that Trump would have trouble finding lawyers willing to file nuttiness on his behalf, but apparently there's always someone.

Given Trump's wealth I would assume lawyers line up for a chance to bill $350 an hour to Trump, Inc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2015 @ 2:35am
  
  Re:
  They had a contract loser.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
MDT (profile), 1 Jul 2015 @ 9:55am

Defamation insane, breach of contract, probably not so much...
I'm expecting a split decision personally, I think he'll probably win on the breach of contract, but almost certainly loose and lose big on the defamation, as it's nutty. From what I've read from legal commentators who have read the contract, there's no morals clause in the contract (which was stupid on someone's part considering who Trump is).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2015 @ 9:56am
  
  Re: Defamation insane, breach of contract, probably not so much...
  Would care to speculate how the contract was breached?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mason Wheeler (profile), 1 Jul 2015 @ 10:30am
    
    Re: Re: Defamation insane, breach of contract, probably not so much...
    Most likely, as you noted below, because the contract lacked an exit clause. :P
    
    (Just to be clear, I'm not saying that it did. I don't know either way. But if that's true, it would be a valid reason to claim breach of contract.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2015 @ 11:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Defamation insane, breach of contract, probably not so much...
      Yes, its just hard to believe that there isn't any kind of termination or exit. Im assuming that trump and others have done contracts before.
      
      but anyway, it seems like they bought out the contract. Im thinking he will not win on breech of contract.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - MDT (profile), 1 Jul 2015 @ 2:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Defamation insane, breach of contract, probably not so much...
        Yes, its just hard to believe that there isn't any kind of termination or exit. Im assuming that trump and others have done contracts before.
        
        but anyway, it seems like they bought out the contract. Im thinking he will not win on breech of contract.
        
        Just the first link I found on a search for 'Toobin Trump Contract Univision'.
        
        http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/06/30/cnns-toobin-on-trump-suit-no-provision-for-univ ision-to-withdraw-not-a-frivolous-lawsuit/
        
        Saw Toobin on CNN talking about this. Apparently, someone screwed up in the contract, and not on Trumps side. I think he's a jerk, and I wouldn't knowingly do business with him, but, in this case, it's entirely possible the contract didn't have an exit (at least, not that covers this).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        G Thompson (profile), 2 Jul 2015 @ 12:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Defamation insane, breach of contract, probably not so much...
        Most likely able to prove frustration or unconscionable conduct (it's a stretch) due to his behaviour.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2015 @ 2:42pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Defamation insane, breach of contract, probably not so much...
      Trump will win this lawsuit. watch and learn
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 1 Jul 2015 @ 2:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Defamation insane, breach of contract, probably not so much...
        Win or lose, this lawsuit still makes him even more of a laughingstock than he already was.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MDT (profile), 1 Jul 2015 @ 10:48am
    
    Re: Re: Defamation insane, breach of contract, probably not so much...
    [quote]Would care to speculate how the contract was breached?[/quote]
    
    Hmm, let's see, I have a contract that says you will show my show on your network. You back out because I say something you don't like, and there's nothing in the contract that says you can do that... breach of contract. As I said before, if you go look at the commentary on the contract, it appears Univision didn't have any 'we can cancel for moral turpitude' clauses. Which means they have no right to cancel the show because Trump is a jerk.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2015 @ 11:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Defamation insane, breach of contract, probably not so much...
      You're gonna have to get a clue before you address me.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - btr1701 (profile), 1 Jul 2015 @ 11:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Defamation insane, breach of contract, probably not so much...
        > You're gonna have to get a clue before you address me.
        
        Says the guy who doesn't even know it's "breach of contract", not "breech of contract".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2015 @ 1:43pm
    
    Re: Re: Defamation insane, breach of contract, probably not so much...
    They paid him in full for the product that they don't plan to use for five years so unless he had a cut of the ad revenue I thing they are fine. The absence of the broadcast for five years will devalue his investment.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2015 @ 9:57am
  
  Re: Defamation insane, breach of contract, probably not so much...
  was there an exit plan in the contract?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2015 @ 10:04am

...the decision was, in reality, a thinly veiled attempt by Univision, a privately held company principally owned by longtime Clinton Foundation donor and current Hillary Clinton fundraiser, Haim Saban, to suppress Mr. Trump's freedom of speech under the First Amendment as he begins to campaign for the nation's presidency and, in recent weeks, has dramatically risen in the polls while expressing critical views of Mrs. Clinton.

Little else can explain Univision's decision to not only abandon its contractual relationship with MUO, but also, upon information and belief, pressure NBC to follow suit and cut longstanding ties with Plaintiffs nearly two weeks after the statements were made.
We assert, in the strongest lawyerly language possible, that Mr. Trump is not a racist asshole, and furthermore, we invite you to look at that squirrel over there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Baron von Robber, 1 Jul 2015 @ 10:06am
  
  Re:
  squirrel holds up sign, "Yep, he's a douche"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lurker Keith, 1 Jul 2015 @ 11:12am
  
  Re:
  Squirrel? I thought you're supposed to distract the court & jury w/ a Wookie?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violynne (profile), 1 Jul 2015 @ 10:05am

You'd think that Trump would have trouble finding lawyers willing to file nuttiness on his behalf, but apparently there's always someone.
Of course there is.

Even if Trump's case goes no where, it's still the lawyer's payday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2015 @ 10:07am

Trump suing for defamation?
About that side-by-side picture- between the two of them, why is Trump the one suing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 1 Jul 2015 @ 10:11am

Hourly wage...
Heck, attorneys work by the hour. If the D wants to pay them their $400-500 per hour (or more) to assuage his ego, then go for it dudes (and dudettes)! I have an attorney who would be happy to take on the case. Win or lose, he still gets paid!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Labeling Isn't Proof, 1 Jul 2015 @ 10:18am

"Little else can explain" -- Okay, Masnick, explain it! You have no alternative for this complex sequence of events.
So you're okay if a public figure is harassed by a corporation for no articulable reason? -- There's no reason for you to be concerned, is there?

And what happened to sticking up for the principle Free Speech when it's arbitrarily suppressed? Guess that only applies to speech you approve of. This is BAD precedent, so you should be on Trump's side, regardless of all else.

What I think funny is that Trump has already retaliated by prohibiting a hotel golf course to Univision execs! (Their properties adjoin; were even making a special entrance for them.) What a great cut. Whatever you say about Trump, he's straightforward.

This is Techdirt's usual easy target so the fanboys can spew.

There. I've had my Free Speech, and you're hosting it. Dare you to remove it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2015 @ 10:53am
  
  Re: "Little else can explain" -- Okay, Masnick, explain it! You have no alternative for this complex sequence of events.
  You have no idea what you're talking about.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mark Twain, 1 Jul 2015 @ 11:56am
    
    Re: Re: "Little else can explain" -- Okay, Masnick, explain it! You have no alternative for this complex sequence of events.
    Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 1 Jul 2015 @ 6:25pm
  
  Re: "Little else can explain" -- Okay, Masnick, explain it! You have no alternative for this complex sequence of events.
  "So you're okay if a public figure is harassed by a corporation for no articulable reason?"
  
  The reason was quite clearly articulated.
  
  "And what happened to sticking up for the principle Free Speech when it's arbitrarily suppressed?"
  
  Please refer to the above XKCD cartoon. Let us know if you're having trouble understanding this simple concept, and we'll explain it using small words.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G Thompson (profile), 2 Jul 2015 @ 1:01am
  
  Re: "Little else can explain" -- Okay, Masnick, explain it! You have no alternative for this complex sequence of events.
  In this matter TRUMP is also a corporation you dimwit!
  
  Free speech between two PRIVATE individuals/corporations is null and void since it does NOT exist!
  
  There. I've had my Free Speech, and you're hosting it. Dare you to remove it.
  I'd rather leave it here and mock you over and over for the stupidity of it!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2015 @ 6:37pm
  
  Re: "Little else can explain" -- Okay, Masnick, explain it! You have no alternative for this complex sequence of events.
  An idiot defending an asshole? I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Baron von Robber, 1 Jul 2015 @ 10:29am

"Whatever you say about Trump, he's straightforward."

Aye, makes it easy to identify the racist douche.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2015 @ 11:01am

I don't get why a guy like Trump would hate illegals. After all he probably has no problem using them as cheap labor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2015 @ 11:10am

TRUMP 2016 - ALL THE WAY - RACE MATTERS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jason, 1 Jul 2015 @ 11:17am

HTTPS?
Am I right that the embedded xkcd must be what's making this page fall back to "partially encrypted"? (I can only assume so... I get the same condition going to the linked comic page, despite it also being HTTPS.)

That really bums me out for some reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 1 Jul 2015 @ 11:37am
  
  Re: HTTPS?
  Am I right that the embedded xkcd must be what's making this page fall back to "partially encrypted"? (I can only assume so... I get the same condition going to the linked comic page, despite it also being HTTPS.)
  
  Yes. I've fixed it now. Hopefully should work. Sorry about that...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jason, 1 Jul 2015 @ 11:46am
    
    Re: Re: HTTPS?
    No worries. The same thing happens at https://xkcd.com/1357/ too.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
btr1701 (profile), 1 Jul 2015 @ 11:37am

Trump
> As Mr. Trump explained in an interview with
> Fox News' Bill O'Reilly on March 30, 2011,
> "[t]hey're coming over, and they're climbing
> over a fence, and there's nobody within 10
> miles -- and they're selling drugs all over
> the place, they're killing people all over
> the place -- and we're not doing anything
> about it."

> Indeed. It may be true that Trump has said
> offensive things in the past

How the hell is that offensive? It's *true*. Illegals *do* account for a significant amount of crime in the U.S. Are we not even allowed to acknowledge reality anymore out of the abject terror of offending someone?

We had a brilliant Chinese kid at USC get viciously murdered by a couple of illegals last year. Illegals who were on their second or third capture-deport-capture-deport merry-go-round. When the kid's parents in China tried to book travel to the U.S. to claim their son's body and bring it back home, U.S. Immigration gave them no end of grief and red tape. When it comes to grieving parents, they're suddenly all concerned about strictly enforcing immigration law-- dotting those i's and crossing those t's-- but the two sociopaths who killed the kid? It's hands off them. They're Mexicans and enforcing the law against them would rrraaaaaciiiist or something.

This crap is getting absurd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AH2014 (profile), 1 Jul 2015 @ 11:55am
  
  Re: Trump
  No , illegals do NOT account for a significant amount of crime in the U.S. See the report from the national criminal justice reference service.
  
  https://www.ncjrs.gov/criminal_justice2000/vol_1/02j.pdf
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Toestubber (profile), 1 Jul 2015 @ 12:09pm
  
  Re: Trump
  I’m going to grant many of your vague assertions as if they were true. Your position is not that the INS should lay off the Chinese kid’s grieving parents, but that INS should instead work harder to make everybody else’s lives miserable with red tape? This faith in a strong daddy-government must bring comfort.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btr1701 (profile), 1 Jul 2015 @ 12:20pm
    
    Re: Re: Trump
    > but that INS should instead work harder to make
    > everybody else’s lives miserable with red tape?
    
    Not everyone else. Just illegal aliens.
    
    They certainly don't have any right to a hassle free experience while entering the country illegally.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2015 @ 1:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Trump
      Good luck with that. Expect the knock-on effects to result in harassment of innocent citizens. Oh wait, you're one of those 'small government for me, big government for thee' types
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - btr1701 (profile), 1 Jul 2015 @ 2:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Trump
        > Expect the knock-on effects to result in
        > harassment of innocent citizens.
        
        Unless those citizens are swimming across a river or climbing a fence to get into the country, I see no reason why they'd be harassed. Indeed, if they *are* doing those things, they deserve to be harassed right along with the illegals.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Sunhawk, 1 Jul 2015 @ 8:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trump
        > Unless those citizens are swimming across a river or climbing a fence to get into the country, I see no reason why they'd be harassed. Indeed, if they *are* doing those things, they deserve to be harassed right along with the illegals.
        
        Oh, my sweet summer child... to think that the actions will be taken against only those "climbing fences" or "swimming across a river"...
        
        As opposed to "driving while Hispanic" within... oh, say, a hundred miles of a border.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btr1701 (profile), 2 Jul 2015 @ 8:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trump
        I must have missed the meeting where everybody decided that having actual national borders is a violation of basic human rights. (But only for the U.S.-- every other country can have borders with no problem.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 2 Jul 2015 @ 8:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trump
        I must have missed the meeting where everybody decided that having actual national borders is a violation of basic human rights.
        
        I think that meeting might have happened in the summer of '67 in the Haight-Ashbury district.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2015 @ 12:28pm

Not a lawsuit, a campaign press release
Take a look at the filing. It's designed to enrage Trump's base. It's not about the lawsuit, it's about staying in the news and getting people out to vote for Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
michael, 1 Jul 2015 @ 1:03pm

Actually, there is lost revenue
While I agree with this article about the ridiculousness of the lawsuit, it's inaccurate to say that because Univision will still pay their contract fee, there is no lost revenue to Trump.

Obviously, he's losing millions in ad revenue by the shows not airing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 1 Jul 2015 @ 6:17pm
  
  Re: Actually, there is lost revenue
  Entirely possible, but to the tune of half a billion dollars? Somehow I'm not seeing it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2015 @ 9:14am
  
  Re: Actually, there is lost revenue
  "Obviously, he's losing millions in ad revenue by the shows not airing."
  
  why obviously?, there is nothing obvious to suggest ad rev to the fart.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jacob H, 1 Jul 2015 @ 3:28pm

Minor correction to the original story
dumping both the pageants and his Apprentice series

Actually, the Apprentice series will continue on NBC, licensed through Mark Burnett's production company, only with a different host (TBA). NBC stated this in their initial release
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2015 @ 4:32am

I wonder...
I wonder when XKCD will finally be immortalized in a court order or law... after all, it seems to be spot on on so many issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Peerless Leader, 2 Jul 2015 @ 10:44pm

Know the difference
1st Amendment: the gov't can't censor you

Freedom of Speech: a general principle that allows persons to air dissenting, opposing, different, even obnoxious views
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ruben Quintanilla, 3 Jul 2015 @ 10:42pm

Alberto Ciurana’s Instagram
"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists." --Donald Trump, Jun. 16, 2015

"You don’t have to do this." --Tywanza Sanders, Jun. 17, 2015

"Yes. You are raping our women and taking over the country." --Dylann Storm Roof, Jun. 17, 2015

See also:

http://werehistory.org/charleston-rape-myth/

http://www.thenation.com/article/the-historical-roots-of-dylann-roofs-racism/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JayGoldenBeach, 9 Jul 2015 @ 4:51am

Trump's lawsuit
"A lawyer with a briefcase can steal more money than a hundred men with guns."
- Mario Puzo, 'The Godfather'

Presumably the attorneys who drafted Trump's lawsuit get paid regardless of the outcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Immigrant, 27 Aug 2015 @ 6:17am

I am immigrant with no status (Mexican), I am not a rapist, or drug dealer, or killer. What I am is ...Mechanical Engineer and Physicist. Spent 5 Years in am ac-creditable US university.
Paid more than 120,000 thousands dollars in tuition. I support this economy more than some people in the "room" with my engineering skills and science skills creating technology for everyone to enjoy in their homes, in their cars, in hospitals, refineries, etc. I also know people in the same situation I am.

Per some comments in this "room" I am a bad influence, question is how am I bad influence if I do a lot of good for every single one in this room, in this nation, and the world?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]