The difference being that anti-SLAPP laws still give the plantiff a chance in court, instead of having a Clerk of Court flat out reject the filing by saying it's not allowed.
This should be obvious. If it were a car being searched, a person's consent to a search would not justify officers towing the vehicle to place away from the public and detonating it just because of the slim possibility something inside it might pose a threat to officers.
But that is exactly the type of behavior Qualified Immunity encourages.
I understand that. My point was that if you banned these types of lawsuits, you're just adding fuel to their claims of being censored. Doesn't mean they're correct, it just means they have more to whine about. And considering her job is to pass legislation, if you take away the courts from them then they will just try and legislate their goals. It would almost surely spell the end of any hope for a national Anti-SLAPP law with any real force behind it.
Considering most of these lawsuits include some type of claim the plaintiff has been censored in some way, do you REALLY want to give them any support to that claim?
It's much easier to blame the latest thing as damaging to the children than to realize one of the most damaging and dangerous things out there is bad parenting.
The higher up in government you go, the less they know what they are talking about, and the less they care if they are right or wrong just so long as they get their way.
Personally, I've seen 4 year olds with better reasoning skills than most senior government officials.
Of course it is. In some people's view, the issue with free speech is the"free" part. Too many believe that you should only enjoy speech if you pay for it.
Well, yeah, Nunes is a modern American conservative. That means he’s a grifter, plain and simple. But he ended up trying to grift from someone who isn’t going to play his game.
Being elected pretty much guarantees you are a grifter.
Do you really think someone crossing into this country and trying to evade CBP would take the time to bring/find wire, find two things to anchor it to at neck height, and take the time to do so?
I don't ever remember hearing anything like that in the news, but it is possible I missed it (unlikely as that is).
Fair enough. Remember the oath you swore, especially the part about "supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States"?
Exactly how does that reconcile with your stated belief that only certain people are entitled to its protections, especially considering the Supreme Court has stated just the opposite making it the law of the land?
On the post: As Tulsi Gabbard's Silly Attention Seeking Lawsuit Against Google Falters, She Files Equally Silly Lawsuit Against Hillary Clinton
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PR lawsuits should be banned
The difference being that anti-SLAPP laws still give the plantiff a chance in court, instead of having a Clerk of Court flat out reject the filing by saying it's not allowed.
On the post: Supreme Court Asked To Tell Cops That Consenting To A Search Is Not Consenting To Having Your Home Destroyed
But that is exactly the type of behavior Qualified Immunity encourages.
On the post: As Tulsi Gabbard's Silly Attention Seeking Lawsuit Against Google Falters, She Files Equally Silly Lawsuit Against Hillary Clinton
Re: Re: Re: PR lawsuits should be banned
I understand that. My point was that if you banned these types of lawsuits, you're just adding fuel to their claims of being censored. Doesn't mean they're correct, it just means they have more to whine about. And considering her job is to pass legislation, if you take away the courts from them then they will just try and legislate their goals. It would almost surely spell the end of any hope for a national Anti-SLAPP law with any real force behind it.
On the post: As Tulsi Gabbard's Silly Attention Seeking Lawsuit Against Google Falters, She Files Equally Silly Lawsuit Against Hillary Clinton
Re: PR lawsuits should be banned
Considering most of these lawsuits include some type of claim the plaintiff has been censored in some way, do you REALLY want to give them any support to that claim?
On the post: As Tulsi Gabbard's Silly Attention Seeking Lawsuit Against Google Falters, She Files Equally Silly Lawsuit Against Hillary Clinton
Who knew the Nunes Effect was a bipartisan effort?
On the post: SmileDirectClub Is Trying To Silence Criticism By Tying Refunds To Non-Disparagement Agreements
Oh yay....the Roca Redux.
settles in with a bowl of popcorn
On the post: Academic Consensus Growing: Phones And Social Media Aren't Damaging Your Kids
It's much easier to blame the latest thing as damaging to the children than to realize one of the most damaging and dangerous things out there is bad parenting.
On the post: Attorney General Barr's Anti-Encryption Efforts Aren't Supported By Many FBI Officials
The higher up in government you go, the less they know what they are talking about, and the less they care if they are right or wrong just so long as they get their way.
Personally, I've seen 4 year olds with better reasoning skills than most senior government officials.
On the post: Germany Wants To Limit Memes And Mashups Derived From Press Publishers' Material To 128-by-128 Pixels In Resolution, And Three Seconds In Length
Re:
Of course it is. In some people's view, the issue with free speech is the"free" part. Too many believe that you should only enjoy speech if you pay for it.
On the post: Court Sides With Nintendo Over RomUniverse In Atttempt To Dismiss The Former's Lawsuit
Re:
Careful, or Nintendo will sue you next for trademark infringement.
On the post: Rep. Lieu Tells Rep. Nunes He Looks Forward To Discovery, As More Evidence Of Nunes Connections With Parnas Emerge
Re:
Being elected pretty much guarantees you are a grifter.
On the post: New Report Says Apple Dropped Plans To Fully Encrypt Backups After FBI Complained
Re: Re: Re:
Now I have to change the PIN number to my phone and luggage.
On the post: New Report Says Apple Dropped Plans To Fully Encrypt Backups After FBI Complained
The FBI's real going dark problem is that they keep turning off the damn phones before contacting Apple for help.
On the post: Verizon Launches New Private Search Engine In Hopes You've Forgotten Its Terrible Track Record On Privacy
Verizon: "Google us a search monoply that needs to be subject to more federal regulations.,
Also Verizon: " Google is a search monoply...got to get me some of that."
They should just name their search engine Y'ahole and at least be accurate about it.
On the post: City Of Dallas Shuts Down Business Of Man Who Called Cops Over 100 Times In 20 Months To Deal With Criminals Near His Car Wash
Fixed that for you to reflect what actually happened.
On the post: DHS Move Ahead With Plan To Harvest DNA Samples From Nearly Everyone Detained By ICE And CBP
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you really think someone crossing into this country and trying to evade CBP would take the time to bring/find wire, find two things to anchor it to at neck height, and take the time to do so?
I don't ever remember hearing anything like that in the news, but it is possible I missed it (unlikely as that is).
On the post: DHS Move Ahead With Plan To Harvest DNA Samples From Nearly Everyone Detained By ICE And CBP
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But he knows things, so we're just supposed to believe him without question because he says so.
It doesn't matter what the rest of us know, because we're all wrong in his mind.
On the post: DHS Move Ahead With Plan To Harvest DNA Samples From Nearly Everyone Detained By ICE And CBP
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And Google's search results show only a CBP agent being arrested after a headless body was found.
On the post: DHS Move Ahead With Plan To Harvest DNA Samples From Nearly Everyone Detained By ICE And CBP
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You made the claim, so it's up to you to prove it.
On the post: DHS Move Ahead With Plan To Harvest DNA Samples From Nearly Everyone Detained By ICE And CBP
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fair enough. Remember the oath you swore, especially the part about "supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States"?
Exactly how does that reconcile with your stated belief that only certain people are entitled to its protections, especially considering the Supreme Court has stated just the opposite making it the law of the land?
Next >>