Oh motte and baily much? You said that social media and and I quote "are forced to carry vaccine disinformation, terrorist content, and Holocaust denialism."
Now with the motte "forced to carry vaccine disinformation, terrorist content, and Holocaust denialism" unable to hold to you retreat to the baily of
"I said the bill was unconstitutional, because it says how a website can and cannot moderate."
And no Mike, the bill dictates how terms of service which are legal contracts are to be enforced. States have every right to dictate how contracts are drafted and enforced in their states.
BigTech in the 90s.
'Oh we want our TOS treated as legal contracts.'
BigTech today 'Oh we meant we just wanted the upside of legal contracts like waving liability and setting jurisdiction, not the downside like state regulation'.'
Tough shit Mike! They wanted TOS to be treated as legal contracts they get the whole packaged. If you don't want state regulation don't have a contract. The moment you have a contract you surrender to state regulation.
BigTech has proven itself incapable of abiding by even the most common of contract law. Its so bad they seldom even bother to cite the TOS when sued because they are so vague and arbitrarily enforced that they aren't worth the paper they are not printed on. But they will still try and get venue changed to Cali.
Its about time states stepped in and held this industry to some basic standards as much as they make a mockery of contract law.
Mike you are simply lying. I read the act. The bill establishes a process for removing content and persons. The additiosn are attempts to create exceptions that let Big Tech ignore the process.
"Sec.A143A.006.AACONSTRUCTION OF CHAPTER. (a) This chapter
does not prohibit a social media platform from censoring expression
that:
(1)AAthe social media platform is specifically
authorized to censor by federal law;
(2)AAis the subject of a referral or request from an
organization with the purpose of preventing the sexual
exploitation of children and protecting survivors of sexual abuse
from ongoing harassment;
(3)AAdirectly incites criminal activity or consists of
specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group
because of their race, color, disability, religion, national origin
or ancestry, age, sex, or status as a peace officer or judge; or
(4)AAis unlawful expression.
(b)AAThis chapter may not be construed to prohibit or
restrict a social media platform from authorizing or facilitating a
user’s ability to censor specific expression on the user’s platform
or page at the request of that user."
Notice that these exceptions are only for criminal acts. Not this subjective bull. The site can take down whatever subjective bull it wants but it has to follow a process.
"ec.A120.103.AAREMOVAL OF CONTENT; EXCEPTIONS. (a)AAExcept
as provided by Subsection (b), if a social media platform removes
content based on a violation of the platform’s acceptable use
policy under Section 120.052, the social media platform shall,
concurrently with the removal:
(1)AAnotify the user who provided the content of the
removal and explain the reason the content was removed;
(2)AAallow the user to appeal the decision to remove the
content to the platform; and
(3)AAprovide written notice to the user who provided
the content of:
(A)AAthe determination regarding an appeal
requested under Subdivision (2); and
(B)AAin the case of a reversal of the social media
platform’s decision to remove the content, the reason for the
reversal.
(b)AAA social media platform is not required to provide a
user with notice or an opportunity to appeal under Subsection (a) if
the social media platform:
(1)AAis unable to contact the user after taking
reasonable steps to make contact; or
(2)AAknows that the potentially policy-violating
content relates to an ongoing law enforcement investigation.
Sec.A120.104.AAAPPEAL PROCEDURES. If a social media
H.B.ANo.A20
7 platform receives a user complaint on the social media platform’s removal from the platform of content provided by the user that the user believes was not potentially policy-violating content, the
social media platform shall, not later than the 14th day, excluding
Saturdays and Sundays, after the date the platform receives the
complaint:
(1)AAreview the content;
(2)AAdetermine whether the content adheres to the
platform’s acceptable use policy;
(3)AAtake appropriate steps based on the determination
under Subdivision (2); and
(4)AAnotify the user regarding the determination made
under Subdivision (2) and the steps taken under Subdivision (3)."
Your statement of "are forced to carry vaccine disinformation, terrorist content, and Holocaust denialism." Is nothing more than baldfaced lie.
If the terms of service has a rule against vaccine misinformation that's fine. But there is a process they have to explain why and allow for a formal appeals process.
Im sorry mike. Maybe if your BigTech overloads didn't make a joke of contract law but BigTech is so off the rails with how they enforce their terms of service this is needed.
Oh look its the idiot that doen'st know the difference between a 16th century public houase and a 21st century pub. Also doesn't know the difference between a consitutional right and a legal privlage.
I said in my very first post that it varies from state to state but the general rule is you cannot forcefully remove someone from your property if they have not used force against you. Your ass must have searched every single state codes to just find the exception Texas. Stupid stupid stupid!!! A leftists having to praise Texas law which is an exception not the rule.
And inst a constitutional right its a legal privilege.
"In fact, the use in maritime transport comes from land transport. Common carrier is derived from communis pax nuntius. The senatorial law that kept Roman forces from intercepting non-military messengers. It translates as peace of the common message. That itself is an early form of government grant to privacy."
Now what you are saying
"No, ‘peace for the common diplomat’, meaning non-military messengers."
Meaning diplomatic immunity. Nothing to do with common carrier law. You lied. You tried to say that "communis pax nuntius" was for any messenger.
While nuntius can be translated as message, in this concept it means diplomats or envoys.
You also said that it begins in Rome which is also a lie. Herodotus called the killing of the Persian diplomats by the Athenians(not the Spartans) a crime. The truth is we don't know when diplomatic immunity began. All we know is that from our earliest history it already existed.
"Correct. Note that that includes telephone and broadband, and public utilities are also unrelated to maritime law. Again, just because two completely unrelated bodies of law use the same term doesn’t mean that they use it the same way. Maritime law has no precedential value regarding non-maritime law."
They are not unrelated. We made the decision to treat telecommunications the same way we treat shipping.
You have to carry without bias. It was an existing legal framework that worked well and has worked well for telecom.
Whether your a carrying goods and people across bodies of water or you are carrying electronic communications across wire and air the same legal framework works and has worked very well for both.
This is not a hard concept. Its only difficult for Mike's four cronies who fight extension of common carrier to social media.
That is one of the dumbest things I've read. Common carrier as it relates to maritime law has nothing to do with radio and other communication. Its a ship to the public for a fee, and free of most bias. This concept was later extended to ground based transportation, and later to communications.
"The court said Maddow is expected to express her opinions, not that everything she says is an opinion."
Its in the nature of what dismissal with prejudice means. 'There are no set of facts that could possible support the claim.'
Which is exactly what the original judge said
"there is no set of facts that could support a claim for defamation based on Maddow's statement,''
This is in the context of the show as a whole not just the segment. Even if you had an e-mail where Maddow admits the statement is deliberately false and made with malice it would still not be actionable because at its core Maddow is an opinion show and no reasonable person would take anything on an opinion show as a statement of fact.
And BTW I agree with this. No reasonable person should ever take anything said on an opinion show as fact.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a Matter of Law Now
My career has been killed? When? How?
A quick look at your bio shows that your career has effectively stalled. You had a great future in the 00s into the mid 10s. But somewhere around 2016 your career stalled. Can't imagine what could have happened in 2016 to cause you to lose your mind and cut off your nose to spite your face. A look through your history shows that you ran off most of your best commentators and basically anyone who disagreed with your world view. Your blog comments became an echo chamber of basically the same 4 losers with anyone who disagreed having their posts flagged and their IPs restricted. Since 2016 you aren't known for a single significant intellectual contribution.
Your bias has killed your career. Now you are left running around screaming 'I invented the keyboard neck tie!' Your 15 minutes was up an hour ago.
Now your blog could be good again. You blog does tackle very significant subjects. But the way you chose to run it has ruined you.
I think you are a biased actor as illustrated by how your bias has effectively killed your career. The 9th circuit is trying their best to tip toe around the issue but the obvious inference in their decision is that anything said on the show is opinion and cannot be libel. I agree with this and I'm glad the court agrees that nothing said on Maddow or any other opinion show can be taken as fact.
I already said I don't believe it is defamation because its an opinion show. But on the matter of it being a ridiculous laughable opinion. It fails the shoe on the other foot test. There a multiple state media outlets in this world. Working for one does not make someone and whoever hires them paid propaganda.
I think in the wake of how the ABC is reporting on Australia's draconian tactics, you would have a hard time arguing that the ABC isn't a government propaganda outlet.
Correct, would this survive the shoe on the other foot test? If someone is working for, or has worked for the BBC, ABC, PBS, etc. and also working for a private US news agency does that make that entire news agency "literally British/Australian/American" propaganda?
""fact checkers” would disappear if it were easy to sue such entities for defamation. "
That is why for decades news organizations resisted the push for their papers to do "fact checking." If you get a "fact check" wrong its libel because a "fact check" is clearly a statement of fact.
Hence the shell game that gets set up by the likes the Tampa Bay Times set up with politifact to avoid liability.
"Dismissing with prejudice is actually something that is very rare."
I think you are confusing dismissal with prejudice following a settlement with dismissal, or procedural violations such as missing a filing deadline with prejudice in general. Yes if you include all the dismissals with prejudice following a settlement, procedural violations etc. its a large number but when you exclude those its far more rare at last I saw about 30%. In general if a case gets to that point the court will give leave to amend.
When you boil down what the court wrote in order to dismiss with prejudice is that if Rachel Maddow said it, it cannot be taken as factual.
I dont disagree with this. I believe that this should be the law of all opinion shows. I simply don't agree that Alex Jones should be held to a higher standard than Rachel Maddow.
"We agree with the district court’s conclusion that the broad context of Maddow’s show makes it more likely thather audiences will “expect her to use subjective language that comports with her political opinions.”"
Nothing she ever says can be taken as fact. I'm happy its a matter of law now.
I agree with the court that opinion shows are opinion. My problem has always been with people like you who proport that opinion shows are fact, at least the ones you agree with, and how hard news and "fact checkers" have hid behind the protection of opinion when sued for defamation.
That's a lot to write for a simple concept. Rachel Maddow the Stanford and Oxford genius doesn't know how to correctly use the term word "literally."
“Maddow’s show is different than a typical news segment where anchors inform viewers about the daily news. The point of Maddow’s show is for her to provide the news but also to offer her opinions as to that news.”
That is all you needed to say. The court is saying that there is no circumstance when Maddow can every be taken as fact.
No you are the illiterate one. Dismissing with prejudice is actually something that is very rare. It means that the plaintiff cannot amend the complaint should new evidence arise.
If you carefully read the decision it is not specific to this event. Even if an e-mail came up where Maddow admits the claim is false. That alone would not be enough fact to support the claim.
The court is saying that nothing Rachel Maddow ever says can be taken as a statement of fact.
To dismiss with prejudice means that there is no fact pattern in which this could ever be considered a statement of fact. That basically means that nothing Rachell Maddow ever say can possibly be taken by a reasonable person as a statement of fact.
Oh well at least now its a matter of law that Rachel Maddow can never be taken as true.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: I Read the Act
Oh motte and baily much? You said that social media and and I quote "are forced to carry vaccine disinformation, terrorist content, and Holocaust denialism."
Now with the motte "forced to carry vaccine disinformation, terrorist content, and Holocaust denialism" unable to hold to you retreat to the baily of
"I said the bill was unconstitutional, because it says how a website can and cannot moderate."
And no Mike, the bill dictates how terms of service which are legal contracts are to be enforced. States have every right to dictate how contracts are drafted and enforced in their states.
BigTech in the 90s.
'Oh we want our TOS treated as legal contracts.'
BigTech today 'Oh we meant we just wanted the upside of legal contracts like waving liability and setting jurisdiction, not the downside like state regulation'.'
Tough shit Mike! They wanted TOS to be treated as legal contracts they get the whole packaged. If you don't want state regulation don't have a contract. The moment you have a contract you surrender to state regulation.
BigTech has proven itself incapable of abiding by even the most common of contract law. Its so bad they seldom even bother to cite the TOS when sued because they are so vague and arbitrarily enforced that they aren't worth the paper they are not printed on. But they will still try and get venue changed to Cali.
Its about time states stepped in and held this industry to some basic standards as much as they make a mockery of contract law.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
I Read the Act
Mike you are simply lying. I read the act. The bill establishes a process for removing content and persons. The additiosn are attempts to create exceptions that let Big Tech ignore the process.
"Sec.A143A.006.AACONSTRUCTION OF CHAPTER. (a) This chapter
does not prohibit a social media platform from censoring expression
that:
(1)AAthe social media platform is specifically
authorized to censor by federal law;
(2)AAis the subject of a referral or request from an
organization with the purpose of preventing the sexual
exploitation of children and protecting survivors of sexual abuse
from ongoing harassment;
(3)AAdirectly incites criminal activity or consists of
specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group
because of their race, color, disability, religion, national origin
or ancestry, age, sex, or status as a peace officer or judge; or
(4)AAis unlawful expression.
(b)AAThis chapter may not be construed to prohibit or
restrict a social media platform from authorizing or facilitating a
user’s ability to censor specific expression on the user’s platform
or page at the request of that user."
Notice that these exceptions are only for criminal acts. Not this subjective bull. The site can take down whatever subjective bull it wants but it has to follow a process.
"ec.A120.103.AAREMOVAL OF CONTENT; EXCEPTIONS. (a)AAExcept
as provided by Subsection (b), if a social media platform removes
content based on a violation of the platform’s acceptable use
policy under Section 120.052, the social media platform shall,
concurrently with the removal:
(1)AAnotify the user who provided the content of the
removal and explain the reason the content was removed;
(2)AAallow the user to appeal the decision to remove the
content to the platform; and
(3)AAprovide written notice to the user who provided
the content of:
(A)AAthe determination regarding an appeal
requested under Subdivision (2); and
(B)AAin the case of a reversal of the social media
platform’s decision to remove the content, the reason for the
reversal.
(b)AAA social media platform is not required to provide a
user with notice or an opportunity to appeal under Subsection (a) if
the social media platform:
(1)AAis unable to contact the user after taking
reasonable steps to make contact; or
(2)AAknows that the potentially policy-violating
content relates to an ongoing law enforcement investigation.
Sec.A120.104.AAAPPEAL PROCEDURES. If a social media
H.B.ANo.A20
7 platform receives a user complaint on the social media platform’s removal from the platform of content provided by the user that the user believes was not potentially policy-violating content, the
social media platform shall, not later than the 14th day, excluding
Saturdays and Sundays, after the date the platform receives the
complaint:
(1)AAreview the content;
(2)AAdetermine whether the content adheres to the
platform’s acceptable use policy;
(3)AAtake appropriate steps based on the determination
under Subdivision (2); and
(4)AAnotify the user regarding the determination made
under Subdivision (2) and the steps taken under Subdivision (3)."
Your statement of "are forced to carry vaccine disinformation, terrorist content, and Holocaust denialism." Is nothing more than baldfaced lie.
If the terms of service has a rule against vaccine misinformation that's fine. But there is a process they have to explain why and allow for a formal appeals process.
Im sorry mike. Maybe if your BigTech overloads didn't make a joke of contract law but BigTech is so off the rails with how they enforce their terms of service this is needed.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
Oh look its the idiot that doen'st know the difference between a 16th century public houase and a 21st century pub. Also doesn't know the difference between a consitutional right and a legal privlage.
I said in my very first post that it varies from state to state but the general rule is you cannot forcefully remove someone from your property if they have not used force against you. Your ass must have searched every single state codes to just find the exception Texas. Stupid stupid stupid!!! A leftists having to praise Texas law which is an exception not the rule.
And inst a constitutional right its a legal privilege.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Oh How Time Flies
A little over a month ago Dave Rubin was suspended on Twitter for spreading vaccine misinformation.
The misinformation was saying that boosters were coming.
You are a hopeless shill Mike.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
You are the one taking proactive action. You lose on the tie-break on the non-aggression principle.
On the post: Dominion Sues Newsmax, OAN, And The Head Of Overstock.Com For Election-Related Defamation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
What you originally said.
"In fact, the use in maritime transport comes from land transport. Common carrier is derived from communis pax nuntius. The senatorial law that kept Roman forces from intercepting non-military messengers. It translates as peace of the common message. That itself is an early form of government grant to privacy."
Now what you are saying
"No, ‘peace for the common diplomat’, meaning non-military messengers."
Meaning diplomatic immunity. Nothing to do with common carrier law. You lied. You tried to say that "communis pax nuntius" was for any messenger.
While nuntius can be translated as message, in this concept it means diplomats or envoys.
You also said that it begins in Rome which is also a lie. Herodotus called the killing of the Persian diplomats by the Athenians(not the Spartans) a crime. The truth is we don't know when diplomatic immunity began. All we know is that from our earliest history it already existed.
On the post: Dominion Sues Newsmax, OAN, And The Head Of Overstock.Com For Election-Related Defamation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
"Correct. Note that that includes telephone and broadband, and public utilities are also unrelated to maritime law. Again, just because two completely unrelated bodies of law use the same term doesn’t mean that they use it the same way. Maritime law has no precedential value regarding non-maritime law."
They are not unrelated. We made the decision to treat telecommunications the same way we treat shipping.
You have to carry without bias. It was an existing legal framework that worked well and has worked well for telecom.
Whether your a carrying goods and people across bodies of water or you are carrying electronic communications across wire and air the same legal framework works and has worked very well for both.
This is not a hard concept. Its only difficult for Mike's four cronies who fight extension of common carrier to social media.
On the post: Dominion Sues Newsmax, OAN, And The Head Of Overstock.Com For Election-Related Defamation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
communis pax nuntius
Common peace diplomats. Its the basis diplomatic immunity not common carrier.
Under roman law diplomats were unassailable even during times of war,. That has nothing to do with common carrier.
Stop spinning its pathetic.
On the post: Dominion Sues Newsmax, OAN, And The Head Of Overstock.Com For Election-Related Defamation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
That is one of the dumbest things I've read. Common carrier as it relates to maritime law has nothing to do with radio and other communication. Its a ship to the public for a fee, and free of most bias. This concept was later extended to ground based transportation, and later to communications.
Its a frame work you moron.
On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit
Re:
"The court said Maddow is expected to express her opinions, not that everything she says is an opinion."
Its in the nature of what dismissal with prejudice means. 'There are no set of facts that could possible support the claim.'
Which is exactly what the original judge said
"there is no set of facts that could support a claim for defamation based on Maddow's statement,''
This is in the context of the show as a whole not just the segment. Even if you had an e-mail where Maddow admits the statement is deliberately false and made with malice it would still not be actionable because at its core Maddow is an opinion show and no reasonable person would take anything on an opinion show as a statement of fact.
And BTW I agree with this. No reasonable person should ever take anything said on an opinion show as fact.
On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a Matter of Law Now
My career has been killed? When? How?
A quick look at your bio shows that your career has effectively stalled. You had a great future in the 00s into the mid 10s. But somewhere around 2016 your career stalled. Can't imagine what could have happened in 2016 to cause you to lose your mind and cut off your nose to spite your face. A look through your history shows that you ran off most of your best commentators and basically anyone who disagreed with your world view. Your blog comments became an echo chamber of basically the same 4 losers with anyone who disagreed having their posts flagged and their IPs restricted. Since 2016 you aren't known for a single significant intellectual contribution.
Your bias has killed your career. Now you are left running around screaming 'I invented the keyboard neck tie!' Your 15 minutes was up an hour ago.
Now your blog could be good again. You blog does tackle very significant subjects. But the way you chose to run it has ruined you.
On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a Matter of Law Now
I think you are a biased actor as illustrated by how your bias has effectively killed your career. The 9th circuit is trying their best to tip toe around the issue but the obvious inference in their decision is that anything said on the show is opinion and cannot be libel. I agree with this and I'm glad the court agrees that nothing said on Maddow or any other opinion show can be taken as fact.
On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re: Show on the Other Foot Test
I already said I don't believe it is defamation because its an opinion show. But on the matter of it being a ridiculous laughable opinion. It fails the shoe on the other foot test. There a multiple state media outlets in this world. Working for one does not make someone and whoever hires them paid propaganda.
I think in the wake of how the ABC is reporting on Australia's draconian tactics, you would have a hard time arguing that the ABC isn't a government propaganda outlet.
On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit
Re: Show on the Other Foot Test
Correct, would this survive the shoe on the other foot test? If someone is working for, or has worked for the BBC, ABC, PBS, etc. and also working for a private US news agency does that make that entire news agency "literally British/Australian/American" propaganda?
On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit
Re: That Why
""fact checkers” would disappear if it were easy to sue such entities for defamation. "
That is why for decades news organizations resisted the push for their papers to do "fact checking." If you get a "fact check" wrong its libel because a "fact check" is clearly a statement of fact.
Hence the shell game that gets set up by the likes the Tampa Bay Times set up with politifact to avoid liability.
On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a Matter of Law Now
"Dismissing with prejudice is actually something that is very rare."
I think you are confusing dismissal with prejudice following a settlement with dismissal, or procedural violations such as missing a filing deadline with prejudice in general. Yes if you include all the dismissals with prejudice following a settlement, procedural violations etc. its a large number but when you exclude those its far more rare at last I saw about 30%. In general if a case gets to that point the court will give leave to amend.
When you boil down what the court wrote in order to dismiss with prejudice is that if Rachel Maddow said it, it cannot be taken as factual.
I dont disagree with this. I believe that this should be the law of all opinion shows. I simply don't agree that Alex Jones should be held to a higher standard than Rachel Maddow.
On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit
Re:
"We agree with the district court’s conclusion that the broad context of Maddow’s show makes it more likely thather audiences will “expect her to use subjective language that comports with her political opinions.”"
Nothing she ever says can be taken as fact. I'm happy its a matter of law now.
I agree with the court that opinion shows are opinion. My problem has always been with people like you who proport that opinion shows are fact, at least the ones you agree with, and how hard news and "fact checkers" have hid behind the protection of opinion when sued for defamation.
On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit
Re: Re: Its a Matter of Law Now
That's a lot to write for a simple concept. Rachel Maddow the Stanford and Oxford genius doesn't know how to correctly use the term word "literally."
“Maddow’s show is different than a typical news segment where anchors inform viewers about the daily news. The point of Maddow’s show is for her to provide the news but also to offer her opinions as to that news.”
That is all you needed to say. The court is saying that there is no circumstance when Maddow can every be taken as fact.
On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit
Re: Re: Its a Matter of Law Now
No you are the illiterate one. Dismissing with prejudice is actually something that is very rare. It means that the plaintiff cannot amend the complaint should new evidence arise.
If you carefully read the decision it is not specific to this event. Even if an e-mail came up where Maddow admits the claim is false. That alone would not be enough fact to support the claim.
The court is saying that nothing Rachel Maddow ever says can be taken as a statement of fact.
On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit
Its a Matter of Law Now
To dismiss with prejudice means that there is no fact pattern in which this could ever be considered a statement of fact. That basically means that nothing Rachell Maddow ever say can possibly be taken by a reasonable person as a statement of fact.
Oh well at least now its a matter of law that Rachel Maddow can never be taken as true.
Next >>