Trump Adds To His Anti-First Amendment Legacy In Threatening To Sue Clinton For Campaign Ads
from the have-you-read-the-bill-of-rights dept
Donald Trump keeps insisting that he's a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights, but he appears to have skipped right past the 1st Amendment. We've discussed his stated plans to "open up" libel laws and his regular threats to sue newspapers for reporting on him in ways he dislikes. Trevor Timm, of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, recently tried to count how many times Trump had threatened to sue the media since his campaign began (ignoring all the threats from before the campaign). Turns out it's difficult to count them all:He also left out the non-journalists that Trump has similarly threatened with lawsuits -- including some of the competitors for the Republican Presidential nomination:I had intended to quantify how many journalists or news commentators Trump has threatened to sue over his lifetime, but that quickly turned into a fool’s errand. A simple Google search of “Trump threatens to sue” will return an overwhelming number of stories. In the past decade alone, he’s sued a former Times journalist who wrote a book about him that he later admitted he didn’t even read; he’s threatened to sue former View host Rosie O’Donnell for allegations that have been shown over and over again during this campaign to be correct; he’s sued HBO’s Bill Maher over a joke bet that involved proving he was not, in fact, born an orangutan.
He threatened to sue a journalist at the Village Voice as far back as 1979, and he actually sued a newspaper as early as 1984: the Chicago Tribune, for calling building plans of his “aesthetically lousy.” My personal favorite was his threat to sue The Onion, the popular satirical news site.
You can then read the still quite long list of examples that Timm did eventually count.I did not count the nine news organizations Melania Trump, the Republican candidate’s wife, also threatened to sue, nor the Daily Mail along with a small blogger, both of whom she actually sued in September for publishing stories containing rumors about her past.
Nor did I count when Trump threatened to sue an artist for creating a hilariously unflattering portrait of him, a conservative group called Club For Growth for running campaign ads that Trump did not like, former Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz for running negative ads against him, or former Republican presidential candidate John Kasich and a Super PAC supporting Kasich for the same—all of which would have serious First Amendment implications. Another time, he seemed to threaten Amazon founder Jeff Bezos with tax audits for owning The Washington Post, which has been critical of Trump. I’m not including this in my count either.
But apparently Trump isn't done threatening to sue his election opponents over protected speech either. He's now moved on and is threatening to sue the Clinton campaign over the "nasty" ads they're running against him:
“And then I saw today ... a commercial where — it was really a nasty commercial, totally made up, about me with vets,” Trump said."I guess we'll sue them. Let's sue them." Remember, again, that Trump has happily admitted in the past to filing bogus defamation lawsuits because he knows it will cost a lot to defend against them. It's one thing to be thin-skinned. It's another to continue to trample on the First Amendment while running to be the person in charge of upholding it.
“There is nobody that loves the vets more or respects the vets more. They’re spending hundreds of millions of dollars on false commercials, and it’s a disgrace. So what we’ll do, I guess we’ll sue them. Let’s sue them.”
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: defamation, donald trump, first amendment, free speech, threats
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Re: Not a License to Commit Offenses
If Clinton's ads are truthful, then I agree they are protected.But many of Clinton's ads use Trumps OWN WORDS.
Therefore, they cannot possibly be true. :-) And are subject to a lawsuit.
made the First Word by Dark Helmet
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a License to Commit Offenses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a License to Commit Offenses
But many of Clinton's ads use Trumps OWN WORDS.
Therefore, they cannot possibly be true. :-) And are subject to a lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a License to Commit Offenses
Throw in the fact that it happened during a presidential campaign, and I'd say he stands zero chance of ever winning.
Plus, there's a reason why campaigns never sue each other for lies, 1) the lawsuit would never be settled till after the campaign, and 2) the lawsuit would just bring more attention to the lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not a License to Commit Offenses
Discovery.
Unless you're pure as the new fallen snow, you don't know what the other side will learn in discovery. Or, rather, you do know, and therefore want to avoid this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not a License to Commit Offenses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a License to Commit Offenses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We don't cover politics, but we do cover policy, and that often includes politicians and those running for office. We also regularly cover the First Amendment and free speech issues.
This is firmly within the realm of what we cover and is not, actually, "about the election."
[ 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:
At least, judging by your apparent belief that this is the first time Techdirt has covered a story about a frivolous, anti-First Amendment lawsuit threat by Donald Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Even that might be too soon.
You never know when one of those policy issues may get coverage.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Plus, there's lots of articles that don't interest me on most sites I visit. You know what I do? I scroll past it to the next one, not complain that I don't like the subject matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good one, Danny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: As usual, you're full of shit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: As usual, you're full of shit...
*plugs clinton site:techdirt.com into DuckDuckGo*
Okay, first match: Clinton Campaign Happily Using Strong End-To-End Encryption To Communicate; Will They Let The Rest Of Us Use It Too?
Lambastes Clinton for holding her own communications to a different standard than everybody else; mocks her "nerd harder" approach to encryption. Trump's name is mentioned once, in a quote from a linked article.
Well, okay, your claim's already disproven, but let's go ahead and look at the second match.
FBI Publishes Clinton Email Investigation Documents; More Bad News On Documents Mishandling, FOIA Compliance
Huh. That really doesn't sound pro-Clinton at all. Trump's name is not mentioned.
Well, that one's not by Masnick; maybe you only meant Masnick writes exclusively pro-Clinton articles? Let's check the next one. Ooh, it's by Masnick!
Hillary Clinton To Silicon Valley: To Silence Terrorists, Nerd Harder, Nerds!
First sentence is, "With the explosive devices in NY and NJ from this past weekend, Hillary Clinton has decided, once again, that it's time to blame Silicon Valley for not doing more to magically stop terrorists from terroristing." Trump's name does not appear in the article.
Let's see...the next two are about Clinton's support for TPP and how she's obviously lying when she claims to have changed her position; the one after that is called Hillary Clinton's Intellectual Property Platform: Too Vague & Confusing, and then there are a bunch about her e-mail scandal.
tl;dr you're a moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: As usual, you're full of shit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: As usual, you're full of shit...
The 11111100000 election for ya!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: As usual, you're full of shit...
Please tell me you're joking?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"You like dogs right?" "No." "Oh, then you must like cats." "No." "But... those are the only two options."
Being critical of A does not mean you're showing support of B, anymore than being critical of B means you're showing support of A. If you believe that any 'anti-Trump' article is 'pro-Hilary', then clearly the multiple articles critical of Hilary are evidence of a pro-Trump stance by TD, right?
This will probably shock you, but it is in fact entirely possible to be critical of A without supporting B because, and here's the crazy part, there are more than two possible options.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "You like dogs right?" "No." "Oh, then you must like cats." "No." "But... those are the only two options."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "You like dogs right?" "No." "Oh, then you must like cats." "No." "But... those are the only two options."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: As usual, you're full of shit...
It takes a staggering lack of basic thinking skills to claim an anti-Trump position must be pro-Clinton. But since you're ok with making dumb leaps of logic, can we assume that since you're critical of this article then you must be against the First Amendment and free speech? What's your beef with that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: As usual, you're full of shit...
Uh, no. We've criticized both candidates pretty equally for saying stupid stuff.
You're not actually fooling anybody, Mike. Perhaps one day, you'll have your lips surgically removed from her asshole.
Can you present a single shred of evidence that I support Clinton? I don't recall ever saying anything supportive of her.
You seem to be one of those idiots who thinks that if you don't support Trump 100% you must support Hillary 100%. Go away, you're an idiot.
This site is not about politics. It's about policy and civil liberties and innovation. I criticize people from both parties equally when they say something or do something stupid. I don't give the slightest shit about the horse race tribalism that you seem to have bought into.
Don't like it? Go away. I won't miss you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: As usual, you're full of shit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: As usual, you're full of shit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't even support Trump, nor Hillary, but I can see this campaign against him is nothing less than defamation and you'd have to be far left leaning regressive to believe any of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You can only see that because you have no idea what defamation is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Alright, apparently I'm going to have to do all of the work since TD is so 'triggered' by Trump that it's affecting their journalistic integrity.
Let's start from the beginning, line for line, shall we?
"Donald Trump keeps insisting that he's a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights"
True: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf2STe6Cb-g
"but he appears to have skipped right past the 1st Amendment."
He's speaking about expanding libel laws to prosecute people who attempt to destroy the lives of others which is typically done by far left leaning regressive extremists via 'doxing' which is more common than you think:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5TMmxlsLN8
If anyone is more anti-first amendment than anyone, it's the regressive left which is basically the twisted twin sister of the religious right. Which I would like to call the Columbus Affect: The only way to hit far right is to go far left...
"We've discussed his stated plans to "open up" libel laws and his regular threats to sue newspapers for reporting on him in ways he dislikes. "
His first citation "open up" links to one of his earlier articles which is a citation of an even earlier TD article which cites an article from The Verge:
http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/7/9869308/donald-trump-close-up-the-internet-bill-gates
Which gives no citations that link to anything Trump has actually said thus is nothing less than a baseless accusation.
The second citation links to yet another past TD article on the NY Times illegally obtaining and releasing his past tax records, which in fact is a federal crime since it falls under identity theft. One of the key resources in stealing somebody else's identitiy is to first obtain their tax records. There is nothing in the first amendment that protects criminals from stealing your tax records. If there were, then identity theft would run beyond rampant.
However, this isn't a case of identity theft, obviously, but yet another case of 'doxing'. Not to mention, The Verge, Gizmodo, NYT, and Buzzfeed are notorious for not only reporting in favor of doxing those with dissenting points of view but actively engage in inciting a race war.
They're not journalists, they're bonafide agent provocateurs.
"Trevor Timm, of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, recently tried to count how many times Trump had threatened to sue the media since his campaign began (ignoring all the threats from before the campaign). Turns out it's difficult to count them all:"
First of all, Trump pays out of pocket for all of his venues which gives him the right to pick and choose who may attend. All to often, regressive extremists attempt to attack him on stage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06d4t1704N8
http://www.dangerandplay.com/2016/03/12/thomas-dima ssimo-i-want-to-be-a-martyr-trumps-would-be-killer-confesses/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnqyafP dAyo
And then these nut cases are glorified by the MSM for the attempt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-VO9CKhBC0
If you read his tweets, it was his intention to kill Trump for the things he says. Now that right there, is an attack on the First Amendment. But it doesn't stop there, most regressive extremists are in fact anti-first amendment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMux_UHmpvc
TD want's to ignore all of this and claim that 'doxing' and assaulting people is a first amendment right?
Get real....
---
I could keep going on and on about how bogus this entire article is but I think I've made my point.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, no.
An ad hominem attack would be "You're an idiot; therefore you're wrong."
I'm saying: "You're an idiot, and you're also wrong."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you have link to all of your comments?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So ultimately, no, I can't list all of my comments since they're all under different IP addresses, but I'm willing to bet that some heuristic ingenuity would reveal some sort of grammatical pattern...lol!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=trump+open+up+the+libel+laws
You've made a point. But we already knew that about you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I suppose that would be pretty difficult with the evidence I've provided, however, I admit I didn't present evidence for every claim that I've made and that some of it is open to interpretation, but I'm willing to dish it out if requests are made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'll bite. What point is it you are asserting that you've made?
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
List one, and we can go from there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, he is not. He's speaking about expanding libel laws to make it easier to sue journalists who write unflattering stories about him.
The quote is this:
Politico has video of him saying it.
His "open up our libel laws" line has exactly jack and shit to do with doxxing.
This is because doxxing is not libel, you doofus; libel involves making false statements. Sharing a person's name, address, phone number, etc. is not libelous, because those are true facts. Doxxing may be harassing or threatening, and it may be illegal on those grounds. But it's not libelous.
It also has fuck-all to do with what Trump was talking about. He mentioned newspapers and you pulled a reference to doxxing out of your ass, and then went off on a strange and irrelevant tangent about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Alright, lets start with an article by Buzzfeed since you refuse to list anything:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/donald-trump-in-2005-i-did-try-and-fuck-her-she-was -married?utm_term=.xwNRqk8aK#.sweoEVDYy
Ok, so lets move on to the citation they made of a voice recording listed by the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about -women-in-2005/2016/10/07/3b9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html
1) The person pretending to be Trump isn't on the Bus and 2) They record Trump coming out of the bus as he's pretending to be Trump...
How is that not defamation by the journalists if the person who's making the recorded is not Trump yet claiming to be?
You'd have to be a complete moron to believe any of this is true. And these a$$holes do it constantly (and I'll be glad to list a hundred others if requested...) and they are some of the most racist and unintelligent people you'll ever meet:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c24_1466104413
This kid even puts an anti-trump protester to shame. These are the types of people you're supporting... but I'm sure you're well aware of it but simply don't care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We're talking about Trump's comments on "opening up our libel laws." Are you fucking with me, are you legitimately crazy, or did you click "Reply" on the wrong post?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seriously, tell me: are you trolling me, or are you just completely incoherent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
About that... Do try to keep up with the news of the day.
I'll add this to the "things you're wrong about" pile. Along with every other comment you've made, on this article and others. Truly impressive record. Top-notch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So much bullshit to unpack in that one sentence.
First, no, that's not what he's talking about. He's talking, quite clearly, about opening up libel laws to prosecute reporters and publications that report on Trump in a negative way. His "open up libel law" comment came in reference to the Washington Post, who had covered Trump in an unflattering light, which IS NOT LIBEL.
Second, privacy violations have nothing to do with libel law. If you're concerned about "doxxing" then, no, you don't talk about opening up libel laws. And Trump was not talking about doxxing at all.
Third, "doxxing" is done on both sides pretty equally. It's not a "left" thing or a "right" thing. And, honestly, in most cases, when anyone says "the left" does this or "the right" does that, they're full of shit and playing "the people wearing my uniform are pure and the people wearing the other uniform are the enemy" bullshit politics. There are sleazy people on all sides who using doxxing.
Fourth, legitimate reporting on issues of public interest is not "doxxing." If someone is running for office and making specific claims publicly, finding relevant information about them and reporting it is not an invasion of privacy, nor is it doxxing. It's *reporting*.
If anyone is more anti-first amendment than anyone, it's the regressive left which is basically the twisted twin sister of the religious right.
Again with the bullshit "left/right" distinction. I don't give a fuck. I call out anyone trying to trample free speech, and I don't care what team they play for. Which is why I don't think either side is more likely to make stupid claims. Both Hillary and Trump in this very election cycle have mocked the idea of free speech.
And people across the spectrum regularly seek to abuse the court system to silence people.
The fact that you keep talking about "left" this and that suggests you're not here for a real discussion but to play sportsball.
Sorry, we don't play that game.
Your claims are ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you seriously trying to defend Buzzfeed et al?
They are some of the most racist and bigoted publications out there and yet you're defending them because they're getting rejected from attending Trump rallies that are paid out of pocket by Trump?
Dude, I don't know how anyone can take you seriously anymore if you're defending the most bigoted publications out there that are all well known for pushing garbage.
Listen, all I'm asking for is that you do some REAL investigative journalism and actually making direct citations of the sources instead of tricking us all with the 'phone game' that you're playing.
Pfft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All of your citations are citations of citations...shame.
Do some real work for once.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Huh? Who said anything about Buzzfeed?
I was specifically discussing Trump's claims about opening up libel laws. I note that you don't actually respond to my point, which is that his reference in opening up libel laws was directly in reference to an article that he did not like, not one that was defamatory.
They are some of the most racist and bigoted publications out there and yet you're defending them because they're getting rejected from attending Trump rallies that are paid out of pocket by Trump?
Huh? You're changing the subject. First off, whether or not they are racist or bigoted is really besides the point (also, you're totally full of shit on that, but that doesn't even matter -- it is not illegal to be racist or bigoted, other than in specific areas, such as hiring).
Even if they were upset about being barred from Trump rallies (which -1- they're not and -2- the campaign reinstated all of them after the primaries anyway), again, so what? So long as they're not knowingly making deliberately false claims, it's not defamation.
Dude, I don't know how anyone can take you seriously anymore if you're defending the most bigoted publications out there that are all well known for pushing garbage.
If someone as clueless as you doesn't take me seriously, I consider that a victory.
Listen, all I'm asking for is that you do some REAL investigative journalism and actually making direct citations of the sources instead of tricking us all with the 'phone game' that you're playing.
When you own this publication, then you get to tell me what to do. Until then: fuck off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which they are...and which you so blatantly support in your article.
FFS, you even list an article about some artist who made a bogus claim that she was threatened by Trump yet she provides no evidence of such a threat. And then you go to list a conservative group that threatened to talk shit about him unless he donated a million dollars to their cause...which of course, you blatantly ignore.
It's like you're just listing shit willy-nilly without actually fact checking any of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FFS, you even list an article about some artist who made a bogus claim that she was threatened by Trump yet she provides no evidence of such a threat. And then you go to list a conservative group that threatened to talk shit about him unless he donated a million dollars to their cause...which of course, you blatantly ignore.
Heh. Seriously, I would suggest that if you're not just trolling, that you learn something about defamation law. None of the things you talk about are defamation, no matter how much you want them to be.
Him threatening people with defamation lawsuits over them is a out and out attack on the First Amendment.
It's like you're just listing shit willy-nilly without actually fact checking any of it.
Take a look in the mirror.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't know the details of what you're referring to. But such a threat sounds like extortion. Can you provide the details?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did I hit a soft spot?
Well, if I were your boss, I'd fire your ass just for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let me guess, your not being paid enough to divulge the truth...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
First, you're wrong. I just read it now. Second, huh? It seems that you don't know the first thing about what investigative journalism actually is. Third, we're not an investigative journalism outfit anyway. Fourth, you're not my boss.
Fifth, and finally, you don't seem to know what you're talking about. Please go to some other site where people care about politics. This site isn't it. Go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/nbc-delayed-publication-of-lewd-trump-tape-bec ause-of-lawsuit-fears/2016/10/08/a3c6850e-8db9-11e6-875e-2c1bfe943b66_story.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e76_1476034700
Stupid times we live in, but if anything, it's going to grab more of the college vote.
A failed wild card on the leftist side most especially since most who are in support of Trump, including women, don't give a flying shit about guy talk behind closed doors since everyone knows women can be just as lewd with their girl talk:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cd9_1475989889
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait, what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's Tuesday now. What excuse have you shifted to at this point? Are you still in denial, or have you moved on to anger by now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not to mention, they don't want their taxes going towards paying for for racist social justice courses that promote anti-white rhetoric by college professors:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9iomIA_ZXN9kdecGgTz8FGyV6Az6SKi8
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait, what?
Not to mention, they don't want their taxes going towards paying for for racist social justice courses that promote anti-white rhetoric by college professors
Wait, what?
You're living in a fantasy world of ignorance. Please, I beg of you, educate yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A few examples might benefit your argument. Also, does your claim then imply that Breitbart is guilty of defamation regarding their editing of clips from a planned parenthood "interview" ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Knowingly skews the truth." This is from someone who has repeatedly "skewed the truth" in this very thread. Hilarious.
Anyway, the First Amendment and all the case law about it says that's not how it works. You might want to learn something, because you're "skewing the truth" about the First Amendment, and according to your own demented logic, you should be prosecuted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They call deserving parties out on First Amendment ignorance frequently, including calling Trump and Hillary out before they were running; I see no reason it should stop because the election is getting closer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Agree, TD has been a pretty decent advocate for constitutional issues of late.
But I still have not quite forgotten he anti-1st Amendment rant TD had about the Redskins and the USPTO bullshit. TD needs to keep up the good work though, as flawed as it may be it still does better than most others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I assure you, neither has TechDirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wonder...
[ 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:
And a life without consequences is what he knows best. So he sees himself as well qualified.
I doubt he has thought this through beyond his coronation* ceremony.
* not a typo
[ 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 ]
Actually...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can SLAPP lawsuits be used?
Or here is an approach that I bet would not scale well for Trump. Whenever Trump issues a threat or actual lawsuit for something he doesn't like, if the party can afford to, sue/countersue Trump asking the court for a declaration of non slander.
Trump would have to defend against the swarm of counter suits. And maybe he's not so rich as he pretends to be. The wealth, like almost everything else may simply be a can man's illusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can SLAPP lawsuits be used?
Guessing you mean anti-SLAPP laws? They're very state specific and many states have none at all, or very weak ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can SLAPP lawsuits be used?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For reasons that are too long to go into here, but which I discovered for very specific reasons -- courts frequently reject declaratory judgment filings in defamation cases. While they're considered fine in copyright cases, for some reasons, courts take a very different view of them in defamation cases. So it is *very rarely* a good idea to file for a declaratory judgment in a defamation case, and opens up some problematic results....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While that sentence sounds completely ridiculous, sadly, I think it's entirely possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I figure TD would at least fact check all of their sources and citations but apparently they don't since more than a few are completely made up stories while some of them are the result of people attempting to extort him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100922/03180811104/is-quoting-someone-out-of-context-def amation.shtml
So TD, since it's Trump, it's okay to defame him? Typical far Leftist logic would say 'yes' and that everything is legal unless you hold a dissenting point of view that conflicts with their interests...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Trump's own mouth, along with his twitter feed are Trump's worst enemies.
He should sue himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
'Here is what the ad said/implied, here's the context in which he said it that changes the meaning', that sort of thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't come to TD to do their jobs for them. Believe me, I'm tempted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or in other words I don't believe you and will assume you're attempting a 'Look, a distraction!' until you provide supporting evidence to back up your claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're not being asked to. You're being asked to back up your own claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice job here. /s
Seriously, comments are here - amongst other things - for constructive criticism. And TD has already proved that it takes it quite well.
Now, if you don't want to prove your own accusations, don't be surprised if you don't get much sympathy. Saying things like "you're wrong and I don't need to prove it" is one of the worst reply you can make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's not out of context; it's the entire tweet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is why nobody is outsourcing any jobs to the US when it comes to just about anything and everything...Except for maybe small time niche markets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you just say "endless regulations imposed by multinational corporations"?
you...you've gotta be trolling, right? You can't possibly be that confused.
Multinational corporations are *in favor* of more regulation? That's, like, Borat-level "the Jews did 9/11" stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, but building '500 million' solar panels as Hillery has promoted (despite the fact that the manufacturing process consists of releasing mass amounts of the most potent GHG in existence, sulfur hexafluoride aka SF6: http://www.solarindustrymag.com/online/issues/SI1309/FEAT_05_Hazardous_Materials_Used_In_Silicon_PV_ Cell_Production_A_Primer.html) is not going to build any new jobs if the entire manufacturing process relies on fossil fuels that are being taxed to death and/or outlawed on the basis of the hypothesis of catastrophic anthropocentric global warming (CAWG) which has never been validated in any of the IPCC reports nor has been elevated to theory since it has never confirmed as to the exact extent to which humans have an effect on the climate.
FFS, meteorologist can't make a sound prediction past 72 hours without the level of certainty dropping to the toss of a coin. 50/50
And we're basing a global western policy on a hypothesis that could potentially destroy us?
And before you go off and start citing the anti-science claim of 96%, go research what the actual questions were, who participated, how many, and then come back with me with a list of names...oh that's right, they don't list the names.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29310475
So don't even try to say I'm a shill for big oil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In what way does "the Rockefellers have investments in clean energy" support your assertion that multinational corporations favor increased regulations?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And you're doing a bang-up job, BTW.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You didn't die today; does that mean that if somebody says "you're eventually going to die" they must not know what they're talking about?
Climate is not weather. Don't be stupid. Long-term trends produce more reliable predictions than short-term ones; that's basic fucking statistics.
I can't predict when you're going to die. But I can predict with absolute certainty that it's going to happen within the next 100 years.
Maybe it'll rain tomorrow and maybe it won't. But it's hotter this year than it was last year, or the year before, or the year before, or any other time on record.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Weather and climate are not the same thing. Rather than filling this space with reasons why, I'll just link to a very short article written in layman's terms that answers your question.
http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/weather-prediction-climate-prediction-wha t%E2%80%99s-diff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
and those people are idiots.
[ 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:
because
you can't run a manufacturing plant off of solar or wind .. and still remain competitive
----------------------------
I think this claim needs additional data, otherwise it is complete bunk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That makes sense if he wishes to form a cadre with a name like umm... orange shirts. That man is a bad loser.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's face it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's face it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's face it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
STICK A SOCK IN IT
.
Please!... no emails!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wouldn't it be nice to hold politicians to a higher standard and actually require their speeches and ads to be truthful and not just the half or less truths that they deliver?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The devil's in the details. I think most people agree with the basic premise of truth in advertising, but how that's actually evaluated and enforced is a pretty complex and often subjective issue.
As for regulating what politicians put in their speeches, I'm not sure how you'd do that without serious First Amendment concerns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ugh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ugh!
I'm really curious who these people are who keep claiming this. They're not actually readers of the site:
1. We didn't jump on the Trump bashing bandwagon. We wrote a story about a key thing that Trump has done repeatedly (issue bogus defamation threats against the 1st Amendment) which is a topic we've covered over and over and over again on this site.
2. We are not Hillary supporters either, and have written many stories commenting on our issues with her actions and policies -- including one on her mocking the First Amdendment as well.
3. It's possible to call out the bad actions of one candidate without being in the tank for the other.
4. "Keep it neutral." This site has always been an *opinion* site. We state our opinion. And, in my opinion, your comment is ridiculous. How's that for neutral?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]