Ridiculous: Judge Says Devin Nunes' SLAPP Suit Against An Internet Cow And Others Can Continue
from the well-that's-disappointing dept
In some surprising, and ridiculous, news the local court judge, Judge John Marshall (no, not that Judge John Marshall), has decided not to dismiss the lawsuit that Nunes filed against Twitter, two satirical Twitter accounts, and political strategist Liz Mair. As you'll recall, Mair and Twitter had both argued that the case had no reason to be in a local Virginia court, and that, if anything, the proper venue was in California. The judge had demanded that Twitter reveal to him the details of who was behind the Twitter accounts (something that was already questionable under the 1st Amendment, which protects anonymity). Twitter refused, though did say that neither account holder was based in Virginia.
Of course, now it looks like none of that even mattered anyway, as the judge has said that the venue is fine because Mair once lived in Virginia (she doesn't any more) even though it was a different county from where the lawsuit was filed. The reasoning from the judge is... weird.
The court rejects this argument and finds in this case that the posts to social media were made in Virginia and therefore publication occurred in Virginia and the cause of action for defamation arose in Virginia.
The judge also rejects Twitter's argument that Nunes signed Twitter's terms of service which require any disputes to be handled in California by saying (perhaps slightly more reasonably) that since the lawsuit isn't about things that Nunes did on Twitter, but about third parties, what Nunes agreed to has nothing to do with the venue question. The logic there makes some sense, actually, even though there are many other reasons why the court should say that California is the proper venue (including both Nunes and Twitter and the servers all being based in California).
The negligence claim of the Plaintiff against Twitter here arises from the Defendants use of twitter not the Plaintiff's use of twitter. The use of twitter by the Defendants to post allegedly defamatory statements cannot subject the Plaintiff to the terms of use agreements and the forum selection clause as it would not subject a plaintiff who did not have a twitter account to the terms of use agreement. The court finds the terms of use agreement does not apply to the Plaintiff here.
And, no, I have no idea why the judge chooses not to capitalize Twitter in that paragraph (he does elsewhere in the document). But the logic there is pretty sound if you're looking at this strictly about whether or not the terms of service are binding on Nunes for venue choice. However, the court notes that since Twitter has business activity in Virginia, the case is fine to remain there. It also notes that much can be done by video in the case, so it shouldn't "inconvenience" anyone too much if the case is in Virginia (ignoring that the whole damn lawsuit is an inconvenience...). Either way, in the end, the court has said Virginia is just fine and the case can move forward.
The court refuses to do so as litigation over the defamation claim will necessarily involve Twitter as the claim relates to the use of Twitter's social media platform and the fact that the negligence claim against Twitter is totally dependent upon the success or failure of the defamation claim. The court has ruled that the Defendants' cases are properly raised in Virginia. The Plaintiff came to from California to Virginia to pursue claims that arose in Virginia against Defendants in Virginia. The causes of action in this case are interdependent and for the other reasons in this opinion the court will not dismiss the action against Twitter based on forum non conveniens.
That's disappointing (and a bit surprising), but hardly the end of things as the case can still be tossed on other grounds. The defendants can (and likely will) ask for the case to be dismissed for failure to state a claim (i.e. even if everything in the complaint is accurate, it's still not defamation or any other violation of the law).
Meanwhile, not surprisingly, Nunes, who has historically positioned himself as a "small government" type whose own website focuses on all the ways he's cut "wasteful" government spending, is now crowing about using "every lever that we have in this government" to tell Twitter how to run its business.
His message is actually... contradictory:
"As conservatives and Republicans, we have to use every lever that we have in this government and we really have to have the courts step in and right these wrongs," Nunes said. "It's not OK for tech oligarchs to allow for their platforms to be used to slander conservatives — silence conservatives while at the same time, treating the Democrats differently."
Nunes said these are "monopolies that have full power over spaces of the internet" and "this can't be allowed to happen."
Of course, we don't need to go over (yet again) how there is no evidence to support that Twitter is actually treating Republicans differently than Democrats, but he seems to be saying that Twitter must do the reverse. It can't be allowed to silence conservatives... but it has to silence... people criticizing Devin Nunes? That's about the only interpretation of his statements that make sense. No censorship... except for my critics. Censor them. Also, Rep. Nunes, "slander" is spoken. Twitter is written. The word you want is "libel." And, criticizing you is not libel anyway. You're in Congress, man. Get a grip.
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: anti-slapp, defamation, devin nunes, devin nunes cow, free speech, jurisdiction, liz mair, slapp, virginia
Companies: twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
“Your in Congress man get a grip”
I don’t know man he seems to be in court over that damn cow more then that these days I did not know he was In lol
Of course I guess that’s easy to miss since it’s hard to tell when they work and they don’t because it always seems like they don’t....
Mike are you sure he’s a congressman? Lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This reads like he wants special treatment for conservatives instead of equal treatment for both “sides”. I wish I could say that surprises me, but I’m more than used to seeing conservative distress because someone openly mocked and ridiculed conservative ideas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: special treatment
I don't get how you read it that way.
The core of his complaint is "while at the same time, treating the Democrats differently".
Not that the whole thing isn't silly and pointless in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He wants the U.S. government to prevent perceived “anti-conservative bias” and “conservative slander” on social media. Do you think he wants the government doing that for liberals/progressives? Because I don’t.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: special treatment
"The core of his complaint is "while at the same time, treating the Democrats differently"."
Which is yet to be proven. Sometimes the reason why more Republicans than Democrats are being blocked or censored is because there's simply more openly racist shitheads on the R team.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are republicans born dumb or are politics to blame for their descent into stupidity? Not that democrats are really better but we're getting a better view of the right wing than the left lately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is definitely politics. The Republicans want power — the power to enact their vision of what society should be, that is — but they can’t get that power through fair elections and “clean” politics. Their policy positions are, by and large, indefensible. That is why they stoop to gerrymandering, disenfranchisement, bullshit legislative maneuvers, and any other dirty tactic they think they can get away with. Trump is their last gasp of hope, their last real opportunity to push through their backwards-ass agenda and keep America mired in conservative “values” for another generation. (To wit: Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh and all the other politically motivated lower-level judicial appointments.)
Republicans will not abandon their strongly-held beliefs when those beliefs prove largely unpopular and increasingly indefensible. They will instead abandon democracy and any pretense of “fair play” to achieve their goals. They no longer want to govern — they want to rule.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: abandon their strongly-held beliefs
You sound pretty partisan there, Stephen.
Do you really expect ANY group holding a minority opinion - let alone a principled moral stance (in their own eyes) - to simply "abandon their strongly-held beliefs" because their viewpoint is unpopular?
If people have strongly-held beliefs that prove unpopular (say for example, that slavery is immoral, or that homosexuals should have the right to marry - both of which were unpopular for centuries before their proponents managed to convince the majority of their validity), the normal and proper thing to do in a democracy is to keep on advocating for those views, and attempting to convince the majority to change their opinion - with arguments, facts, and appeals to fairness.
Sure, there plenty of people on the right who would be happy to "abandon democracy and any pretense of fair play to achieve their goals" - if they thought they could get away with it.
Do you honestly think there aren't an equal proportion of people on the left and in the Democrat party would also do so?
Whenever people feel strongly about things, esp. when they perceive a moral imperative, some will be willing to abandon democracy to get their way - if they can.
I don't think Republicans have any monopoly on that. (Look at Antifa, for example.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, I don’t. But I also expect those groups to abandon any pretense of “fair play” when it comes to democracy and politics.
Bernie Sanders stans will tell you — not entirely incorrectly, might I add — that the DNC screwed Sanders out of the 2016 nomination because they didn’t want him running as the Democratic candidate, for whatever reason. Hillary was supposed to be “next in line”, and nothing was going to stop that unless it was entirely out of the DNC’s hands (e.g., Obama).
Last time I checked, antifascism was not a movement dedicated to the minority rule of an entire country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: antifascism was not a movement dedicated to the minority rul
Anti-facism, no.
Antifa, yes. Antifa loves to claim they're "anti-facist", but look at their methods, tactics, and goals - they are facists, just in the disguise of anti-facists.
As I've said elsewhere, somewhere Joseph Goebbels is laughing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“Antifa” is not an actual group. Antifa is short for antifascism, which is a political protest movement centered around…well, antifascism. While antifascist groups may use the word “antifa” in their names, there is no organized “antifa” group in the sense that there is a national “antifa” organization with leaders who hand down orders or whatever you think is the case.
If you can provide evidence that proves me wrong, now would be the time to do it. If you cannot, that is your problem, not mine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: evidence that proves me wrong
Stephen, for somebody who talks about fascists a lot, you don't seem to know much about fascist history.
Google "Brownshirts".
Compare. Antifa matches the description to a T.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Except for one meaningful distinction: Brownshirts worked for a fascist. Antifascists, by definition, do not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: call DRs Dunning & Kruger to the white courtesy phone
You’re not just ignorant bro. You’re so ignorant you’re calling people who know what they are talking about ignorant. That’s “special.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: evidence that proves me wrong
"Google "Brownshirts".
Compare. Antifa matches the description to a T"
Antifascists match the description of fascists? I dare say you need to start using actual verified sources for your information rather than just believing the first thing that pops up in Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: evidence that proves me wrong
I think OldMugwump is trying to equate fascism with mindless violence, then hufing when we don't play along.
Old Mugwump, read this: https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html
Antifa is what happens when 4Chan dresses in black, wears masks, and clobbers people they perceive to be fascists irrespective of whether they actually are or not. It's a boogeyman to frighten right-wingers, nothing more. They don't have an organised, hierarchical, centralised structure, they just dress in black, show up, and start fighting.
I don't approve of violence from anyone; it's not the answer to fascism. If you know anything about fascism (follow the link I posted) you'll realise that all it does is give them ammo to be more authoritarian. The only effective way to beat fascism is to promote diversity and internationalism. Show up to protest bearing dishes of goodies from the targeted group and give them out. You won't win the fascists over but you will win their intended audience over. Rinse and repeat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: evidence that proves me wrong
Antifa is not a single, monolithic organization. There are multiple groups—some organized, some not— within the U.S. alone that identify as Antifa. They use different means to achieve their goals, and their goals are not all identical. Those goals do not include support for any single candidate or political party.
Fascism is based on silencing dissent against an individual or a specific political party, as well as unquestioning obedience to that person/group. It is not just using violent means to achieve some sort of end; the ends are an important distinction.
You have not provided evidence to disprove the former or to show there are no significant differences between the two movements. You cannot simply paint all people who identify as Antifa with the same broad brush.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: evidence that proves me wrong
... so, exactly what Antifa has been doing since day 1?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: evidence that proves me wrong
Opposing all that, duh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They’ve been fighting against fascists. It was kind of a big deal back in, say, 1939 to 1945.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: evidence that proves me wrong
Well you almost sort of tried. 😕
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: evidence that proves me wrong
Explain what specific political party or individual that each Antifa organization is advocating unquestioning obedience to. Last I checked, they’re not exactly for anyone in particular so much as they’re against some people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All the evidence that proves you wrong
Hey bro where did you go? You seem to have pissed off like a bitch ass punk soon as we called you on your obvious bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marked as funny. Though I do think you are actually serious.
Sure bro. The “real” fascists are the ones demonstrating against people openly marching in actual fascist uniforms and spouting actual fascist ideology. Whatever breitbart talking point helps you sleep at night bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That reminds me. White supremacists and their ilk are directly responsible for a shitload of deaths in the United States, including — but not limited to — Heather Heyer, the Charleston church shooting, the recent racially-motivated shooting in El Paso, and the Atlanta Olympics bombing. We can show that those assholes are White supremacists (or White supremacist-adjacent).
How many such deaths can be directly attributed to antifascists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"We can show that those assholes are White supremacists"
The only "censored" speech I've heard about is white supremacist/racist speech. Is that the speech that Devin Nunes supports? I suppose if he simply calls it political right speech it's ok, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"The only "censored" speech I've heard about is white supremacist/racist speech"
There have been other examples, to be fair. But, the lion's share of "censored" speech is simply examples of speech that no right-minded person would choose to give a platform to, and they're just whining that these platforms have exercised their right not to provide it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: antifascism was not a movement dedicated to the minority
"Antifa loves to claim they're "anti-facist""
Fascists love to claim that "antifa" is a close-knit organisation in order to defame their movement, but like Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street, they're an actual ground root set of different groups with a common goal. Stop falling for the lies - just because one "antifa" group doers something, that doesn't mean all of them support it, nor does it mean that their goal of opposing fascism is wrong. Hell, it doesn't even mean that the group claiming to be "antifa" actually is that, there are real example of false flag operations intended to undermine them.
"As I've said elsewhere, somewhere Joseph Goebbels is laughing."
He is... at the fools who've been convinced to oppose those fighting against fascism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: antifascism was not a movement dedicated to the minority
Antifa targets fascists. No surprise there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Right Wing boogeyman strikes again
“Look at Antifa, for example”
You should have written that first so everyone could save time and not read the rest of the garbage written under it. Instead of saving it for the really big, really stupid reveal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: abandon their strongly-held beliefs
"simply "abandon their strongly-held beliefs" because their viewpoint is unpopular?"
Abandon their beliefs? No. But, they should realise that they are unpopular and are not guaranteed a popular platform as a result.
The problem, as ever, isn't that these people aren't able to state their beliefs. The problem is that they want to be able to force people who don't want them to host them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
…those beliefs into law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'I'd already made up my mind, the requests were rhetorical.'
The court rejects this argument and finds in this case that the posts to social media were made in Virginia and therefore publication occurred in Virginia and the cause of action for defamation arose in Virginia.
By that 'logic' the posts were also made in every other state in the US, along with numerous other countries, making any of those locations the proper venue for the lawsuit.
Twitter was asked where the defendants lived. Twitter was told by the lawyers for the defendants that that location was not virginia. The judge decided that virginia was the 'correct' venue anyway.
This positively reeks of a judge having decided ahead of time what they outcome would be and working backwards from there to get the desired result. I'd hope that they'll give this farce of a lawsuit the legal kicking it deserves and ideally toss it as an empty PR stunt by a blatant hypocrite, but given their track record so far I wouldn't put good odds on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And here it's the right wing constantly bitching about "activist judges."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As conservativism has long taught us, it has absolutely no qualms about hypocrisy as long as it is done for its own benefit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am almost sure this crap lawsuit will be tossed eventually. Maybe at the Supreme Court if his entire circuit is "standing up to the liberals together" but I doubt the conservatives that were judged competent enough to be on the Supreme Court want to band together with the "abolish satire" wing of the "conservatives" (they are not real conservatives unless their still loyal to king george) branch of the republican party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It doesn't matter if they appeal after. All he really wants is to get to discovery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
except that by accepting this...
That's about the only interpretation of his statements that make sense. No censorship... accept for my critics. Censor them. Also, Rep. Nunes, "slander" is spoken.
So is Twitter receiving something on behalf of the critics?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suit against Devin Nunez's cow belongs in Iowa.
That is the home of all the Nunez cows. Once the guilty one is identified, PETA can file a cross-suit to protect the defendant from retaliation, eg being sent to the knacker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Devin Nunes thoughts
"‘At Least They Don’t Know About My Leaking, Prolapsed Anus,’ Thinks Devin Nunes Filing Lawsuit Against Mocking Twitter Accounts"
https://politics.theonion.com/at-least-they-don-t-know-about-my-leaking-prolapsed-a-1 838921227
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"accept for my critics." ??
" Twitter's argument that Nunes signed Twitter's terms of service"
"forum selection clause as it would not subject a plaintiff who did not have a twitter account to the terms of use agreement"
If I was Twitter, I wouldnt say a thing...Just ask for proof..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A different perspective:
https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/08/devin-nunes-lawsuit-against-twitter-could-turn-into-the-compan ys-worst-nightmare
It directly addresses this point,
It's hard to have evidence when the alleged abusers are able to hide the evidence behind a wall of proprietary IP. With any luck, the discovery process will finally bring to light the solid evidence for what everyone already knows is true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There are 2 problems.
I doubt twitter actually tracks whether people are democrats or republicans
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even if someone can prove Twitter treats conservatives differently than liberals (fat chance), so what? Doing that isn’t illegal and anyone who has a problem with Twitter doing it can go find a platform that doesn’t do it. The existence of Twitter does not entitle anyone to use it, and no law requires it to remain “neutral” towards or host all legally protected speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then let's add them to the fairness doctrine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You mean this fairness doctrine, the one that doesn't exist anymore?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cool. And would you keep using Twitter after it’s overrun with spam, White supremacist propaganda, and other offensive-yet-legal speech to the point where that is all anyone sees on a regular basis?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Steve TS.
there is a way...
Consider that Most Republicans are not in the major cities. They are in farming communities.. WITH LESS ACCESS TO THE NET..
Older persons that cant figure the net..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Show me the statute
And even if and that a mighty big if all the accusations about Republicans being treated worse than Democrats is true.
So what?
It’s not illegal.
And if you can point to the statute that says it is illegal you’d better go tell Devon cause his lawsuits are going to fail otherwise.
So again bro.
Show
Me
The
Law
Twitter
Broke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I see that the Federalist's understanding of lawsuits is about at the same level as their understanding of, well, just about everything. The idea that this lawsuit would do any harm to Twitter is laughable.
I look forward to their article when the case gets dismissed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let's say that's true - so what? Whiny bitches still have no right to use Twitter if Twitter doesn't want them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Like any conspiracy theory, the lack of any evidence PROVES it's true!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[AC provides no facts in his Complaint to support his contention]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More fun from the history books:
Rep. Nunes drops lawsuit against constituents who called him 'fake farmer'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We already covered that one.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190904/16354242924/devin-nunes-drops-one-ridiculous-lawsuit -only-to-file-another-one.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wondered what out_of_the_blue's been up to. Guess this is why he hasn't come up for air in a while...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think he’s most likely riding out a 5150 mental health hold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a good ruling because now Nunes will be able to continue his suit via videoconference from Leavenworth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fixed the title for you
It reads much better without the colon (:);
"Ridiculous Judge Says Devin Nunes' SLAPP Suit Against an Internet Cow and Others Can Continue"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
15 minutes of fame? (well, just about anyone can become a local judge--one needs neither intelligence nor a passable understanding of the law... as we see here)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Masnick always has been a left wing hack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]