"Just so you know, I don’t support gerrymandering even when it benefits the Democrats. All district maps should be drawn using non-partisan factors—and that doesn’t include “communities”.
You don't even understand what the hell I'm talking about. Within every city there are communities. Different cities call them different things. In some places they are called communities, in some places they are called subdivisions, some places they are called districts. But they are all the same thing. They are a division smaller than a city. They have defined boundaries and legal weight. Many of them are former villages, towns, etc. that were absorbed by the larger city as it grew. I've been using Chicago as an example. Hyde Park is one of the 77 community areas of Chicago . It was once Hyde Park Township.
This isn't an abstraction. You only think its an abstraction because you don't know what you are talking about.
That's a big problem on a site called "TechDirt" because common carrier is maritime law. Google it genius.
Maritime law as applied to telecom. Now people like Mike who work in social media don't want the same law applied to them so they argue that social media isn't' enough like telecom to warrant it. But social media is far closer to telecom than telecom is to maritime.
"But Democrats aren’t nearly as bad about it as the GOP—because the Dems would have control of more state legislatures and far more seats in the House of Representatives if they were."
That isnt proof. Blue states are heavily gerrymandered with districts that look far worse than anything North Carolina did. Democrats control larger states which gives them greater opportunity to gerrymander. There isn't really that much of an opportunity to gerrymander when you are splitting all of Iowa's 4 electoral votes.
"This does. Now explain why these maps, and not non-partisan factors such as county lines, should determine whether one party has a distinct (and often insurmountable) advantage over the other."
Jesus its like talking to a wall. Plat maps are non-partisan. Many of those communities are hundreds of years old. You started thinking these communities are arbitrary, they are not. The legal address of your parents house, the basement which you live in, is most likely Community, Block #, Lot #. That you don't know any of this just proves you have no life.
"Land doesn’t vote; people do. I’m all for giving those in suburbs and rural areas a voice and a vote, don’t get me wrong—I’d just like to know the reason why their concerns should get to at least nullify those of the people living in the areas where the most people live."
People within land vote. We don't have a direct democracy. We have an representative republic. Our communities vote for who we want to represent us in government. Currently with the size of the House that's 711,000 people voting for a representative. The suburbs aren't canceling out the vote of the urban.
Your entire frame of reference comes from political parties. We don't vote for political parties we vote for people. Okay district A's candidate won with 95% of the vote. Distinct B won with 55% of the vote. Now the people who live in district A want 44% of district As population wants to vote in district B's election instead. This is democrat gerrymandering. You flat out steal community representative by zoning your community into theirs because you have spare votes. Again Chicago has the population for 4 districts. But the city is zoned into 9, more than double the representation its population entitles it to.
"Let’s assume that in a given district, more people live in the combined suburbs and rural areas than live in the “urban center” of the district—and that same combined populace makes the district effectively lean Republican. Would that be fair to you because such an imbalance would cancel out the Democrats of the “urban center”?"
Again they shouldn't be zoned together in the first place.
"Then why do the Republicans, to a greater degree than Democrats, try to pick and choose which communities they get to serve by gerrymandering districts in ways that make them look completely illogical? Seriously, what makes Republican gerrymandering more acceptable to you?"
You keep assuming facts not in evidence. Just because republicans control more state governments does not mean they have more gerrymandered districts. Its very hard to do much gerrymandering in Iowa, Montana, West Virginia etc.
"Oh, and if you use “man-child” one more time, I’m going to report you to the Feds for spreading NAMBLA propaganda."
You don't even know what plat maps are. That means you have never owned your own property. You are a man-child!
"Please provide proof that Democrats gerrymander to a worse degree than Republicans. A court case saying an explicitly Democratic gerrymander was done for nakedly partisan powergrabbing would be an ideal start"
Benisek v. Lamone, Maryland is one of the worst gerrymandered states in the country. Nothing North Carolina did comes anywhere close to Maryland ridiculous districts.
You are trying to make a you did it too argument because you aren't a smart person. You you are just linking to a single court decision thinking that this is the only such case ever. It isn't and its not even the most recent.
"Please define “local community boundaries”
You are clearly a man-child. You have no experience in the real world what so ever. Somewhere on your city and state websites there are these things called plat maps. I suggest you look at one. You counties, cities, and communities actually exist, are named and have defined boundaries. People who have actual lives have looked at these at some point in their life.
"I mean, it’s like you said: “If we proportioned districts by local community boundaries republicans wound never lose the House.”
Because that is just the way it is. You choose to be the urban party. That doesn't mean the urban centers get more representation. It is not fair when 2.7M person Chicago has 9 representatives representing the city in the House of Representatives when its population entitles it to 4.
"By this logic, the suburban soccer mom can’t represent the artist in the city. Your plan for “community boundaries” districting would likely give her that power anyway. Hell, that’s exactly how gerrymandering works."
She doesn't live in the city and the artist doesn't' live in the suburbs that is the point. They should not be zoned together because too many democrats live in the city. Its not the House of the Parties. Its the House of Representatives they represent their local community. Those communities with boundaries found on any city and state plat map that you had no idea existed because you are a man-child.
"That's kind of the thing with gerrymandering. Everyone thinks the other side is doing it."
"The problem for you is, we know Republicans are doing it—and they’re not shy about that fact, either."
Thank you for proving my point.
"Yeah, no, Republicans view districts as partisan power grabs; read the story I linked above."
I didn't say republicans don't also gerrymander. They dont do it nearly as bad as the democrats do and they don't really have to. If we proportioned districts by local community boundaries republicans wound never lose the House. Like I said above proportioned by community lines Chicago would get only 4 districts, not 9.
This is true over most of the country. Democrats self select. They prefer to live in ideologically homogeneous communities.
If you apportioned as intended you would have a minority of extremely far left representatives representing a minority of extremely far left communities.
We don't have proportional representation. Parties don't run for election in our country, people do. If your community is ideologically homogeneous and extremely left-wing you get an extremely left-wing representative. You dont get two. You dont get to divide your community that has the population to get 1 representative into two districts to spread your vote around.
That disfranchises whatever 2 districts your district was cut into to spread your vote around.
The guy who lives in the city art district cant represent the suburban soccer mom. But this is how democrats zone their districts. Large portions of the suburban community are disenfranchised.
Re: Re: Re: That's Kind of the Thing with Gerrymandering
That's kind of the thing with gerrymandering. Everyone thinks the other side is doing it. Democrats believe that districts should be proportional to the vote. So they like to cut their districts like a pie. With the city being at the center of the pie cut and widening out to the suburban and rural. This spreads their heavily democrat urban vote around many districts when the actual urban city would have far fewer districts.
Illinois does this. By population the city of Chicago would be included in 4 districts. Instead because of pie cutting the city is part of 9 of the states 18 congressional districts. Some of these districts look ridiculous with a narrow bands going through the suburbs and then expanding like tumor in the city.
Democrats consider this "fair". They dont think its gerrymandering.
Republicans on the other hand view congressional districts as geographic communities representing the communities interest not parties. They prefer to see districts drawn around community boundaries. Democrats think that his is gerrymandering because their vote is largely centered in urban communities.
Now I got with the republican view. We don't have proportional representation in our system. If you want proportional representation you are welcome to amend the constitution but manipulating districting to create proportional representation is an unconstitutional end around something that should only be done by constitutional amendment.
Sometimes stupid people are needed to advance the law on principle such as the Nazi's right to march through Skokie.
Just because someone is a nutjob doesn't give anyone any right to deny them their rights.
You are missing the point entirely. It has nothing to do with the truth of the claims. Under contract Dominion is assuming a public function of the Secretary of State. As such they have no right to sue anyone for libel for any reason related to that function. They cannot enjoy anymore legal privilege than the Secretary of State.
The issue has nothing to do with elections or dominion but entirely with our function of government. We have Homeland Security currently looking to contract with private firms to perform surveillance because there are too many Constitutional constraints if they did it themselves.
This issue came up in the 00s with Blackwater. Blackwater sued for libel and it was tossed because they are a government contractor. If people can make libelous statements about the military in the execution of the public function they can make libelous statements about the military contractor in the execution of the same public function.
This site has a lot of people who claim to care about 1st Amendment issues then throw them out the door when the 1st Amendment becomes a problem.
Fundamentally we cannot allow government contractors to sue for libel related to the contract.
It's an interesting argument. If conflicting statements from the same news organization is evidence of actual malice then a lot of news organizations are in serious trouble.
No the case would just be thrown out like Blackwatter's case was back during the Iraq war. Blackwatter endured much more libel from much more mainstream sources back in the 00s. Than Dominion is today. But when they tried to sue of the libel they didn't even gat passed the 4th circuit.
Government contracts are big guaranteed money, the government is never going to file a chapter 11 and leave the contractor up @%% creek. Plenty of contractors will be and are willing to take the negatives that come with those contracts.
The Dominion case is a very good case for the SCOTUS to finally lay down the law on contractors carrying out public functions. Not just for dominion but because we also have HSS openly discussing using contractors to carry out surveillance for the explication purpose to avoid constitutional constraint. The "contractor" issue needs to be put to rest by the SCOTUS.
Like a Secretary of State who in most states handles elections? How much libel did Katherine Harris endure. I don't think it ever crossed her mind to sue for libel. In contracting with the state to tabulate votes they are assuming a public function, a public function generally and traditionally performed by the Secretary of State and the office. A contractor should have no more legal recourse than the Secretary of State. If the private contractor enjoys greater legal privilege than the Secretary of State when engaging in a function of the Secretary of State then the contract is infringing on the rights of the people.
I believe there was a case in the mid 2000s when Blackwater tried to sue for libel. The 4th circuit quickly thru the case out because the alleged libel was related to the execution of a government contract for a basic public function, in that case military.
So this would also apply to military contractors like Halliburton. Now granted there is not much case law on this. Most military contractors like Haliburton know full well that any libel suit isn't getting past motion for dismal.
There was a libel suit filed by Blackwater that was thrown out under SLAPP.
I hope this case gets to the SCOTUS because this is an issue that needs to be hashed out.
We have the Biden administration looking into partnering with private contractors to evade constructional constraints on surveillance. This use of contactors is relatively new and murky having largely grown out of the war on terror. The courts have to step in.
Mike, you have repeatedly buried you head in the sand when it comes to public function and other basic legal precidence basic state actor law. Your go to argument has always been 'that isn't 100%' the same. Its your stock in trade argument you might say.
You make ridiculous arguments like 'You cant treat BigTech as a common carrier because BigTech isn't the same thing as Telecom.' Even though common carrier comes straight from maritime law and BigTech is more like Telecom than Telecom is maritime.
In the case of public function and state actors elections are the quenticencial example from Smith v. Allwright 1944.
"You are always free to criticize an election. What you cannot do is, with actual malice (per NYT v. Sullivan) state deliberate false facts about someone or some company that is designed to harm their reputation. That's wholly different from "criticizing an election.""
Does this apply to secretary of states and their offices. Why hasn't any secretary of state or their office sued for libel? Oh that's right you and I both know such a suit would be tossed for a 1st Amendment Violation and SLAPP violation.
In the case of the public function of the election Dominion is acting as the secretary of state (in most states). It has to be treated like the Secretary of State and enjoy no protections beyond that. If we dont the government will contract out any time it doesn't want to be limited by Constitutional constraints.
You are admitting its a loop-hole. Thank you for playing!
"However, if we're going on about claims that a gov't official cannot sue for libel, does that mean you agree that Devin Nunes' various lawsuits are not allowed?"
Weren't you cheering when most of his cases were tossed in part for that reason?
Why don't you ask me if I support the government outsourcing torture to private military contractors? No I don't think Nunes has a leg to stand on for any criticism of his office.
" How dare those assholes make me side with Dominion."
Perhaps you should stand on principle and realize that elections are basic public function and anyone carrying out a public function has zero right to sue for libel. As it relates to the election Dominion is no different than the government and a libel suit is a 1st Amendment violation.
So you are free to criticize an election if the government does it, even to the point of conspiracy theories, but if the government uses a private contractor you loose that right.
Seems like a loophole to me. Why wouldn't the government contract out such public functions if doing so allows the the usurpation of basic rights because the public function now enjoys private protections such as libel?
I don't really care if Newsmax and OAN are right or wrong. Elections are a basic public function. Dominion has zero right to file libel suits related to criticism of how it carried out a public function. It doesn't matter if that criticism is right or wrong. In carrying out a public function Dominion is acting as the government should have zero private protection.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not e
"Yes, Hunter was—at least at one point—addicted to crack cocaine. However, by all accounts, he appears to have been staying clean for quite some time. Drug addicts can overcome their addiction, and it’s been long enough since the last known instance of him having used the stuff that his past addiction is no longer all that convincing."
By who's accounts? His own book? You statement is a lie. By the account of the manager of at a DC strip-club he was smoking crack in lat 2018. That is just a few months before he dropped is laptop off.
Tucker Carlson runs a political opinion show. The doesn't call his show the FactCheck.Tucker.
When you call yourself a fact checking organization a reasonable person would take your statements as fact and not "opinion" or "rhetorical hyperbole."
Even the judge is all over the place.
"it contracted with Facebook to supply fact-checking services"
He then goes on to call statements of false and hoax not fact but "opinion" and "rhetorical hyperbole."
Of course this is what the judge had to do if he wanted to dismiss the case. So in decaling jurisdiction he states as a matter of fact that the defendant "contracted with Facebook to supply fact-checking services" and then goes on to define that fact-checking as opinion and rhetorical hyperbole.
Now I have long said that "fact-checking" despite its name is nothing more than opinion journalism. I am usually attacked by the left for saying as much. At least this judge admits it.
No the problem on appeal is that even though as a matter of fact "fact-checking" is just opinion journalism because of the use of the misleading term "fact-checking" and "fact-checkers" a reasonable person would interpret "fact-checks" as statements of fact, not opinion or hyperbole.
I look forward to seeing how this square peg trying to be pounded into a round hole stands up on appeal because even in his own ruling the judge who is supposed to be beyond a reasonable person has a hard time differentiating.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not e
"Even if that is plausible, that in no way explains how or why he and his laptop would end up all the way across the country from his home and workplace to where the computer repair shop is."
Again you are intentionally omitting information because you are fundamentally dishonest. This wasn't some random town across the country. Its his home town of Wilmington Delaware. He left his laptop in his hometown obviously when he was there. He also knocked up a stripper in DC. Your whole distance argument is nonsensical.
So you can call yourself a fact checker. You can market your services to third parties as a fact checker. But when you are sued for defamation your fact checks are "opinion" and "rhetorical hyperbole."
On the post: Devin Nunes' Deposition Goes Off The Rails, As He Keeps Suing (And Actually Gets A Minor Victory In One Suit)
Re: You are Just and Ignroant Wall
"Just so you know, I don’t support gerrymandering even when it benefits the Democrats. All district maps should be drawn using non-partisan factors—and that doesn’t include “communities”.
You don't even understand what the hell I'm talking about. Within every city there are communities. Different cities call them different things. In some places they are called communities, in some places they are called subdivisions, some places they are called districts. But they are all the same thing. They are a division smaller than a city. They have defined boundaries and legal weight. Many of them are former villages, towns, etc. that were absorbed by the larger city as it grew. I've been using Chicago as an example. Hyde Park is one of the 77 community areas of Chicago . It was once Hyde Park Township.
This isn't an abstraction. You only think its an abstraction because you don't know what you are talking about.
On the post: Dominion Sues Newsmax, OAN, And The Head Of Overstock.Com For Election-Related Defamation
Re: Re: Re: Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
That's a big problem on a site called "TechDirt" because common carrier is maritime law. Google it genius.
Maritime law as applied to telecom. Now people like Mike who work in social media don't want the same law applied to them so they argue that social media isn't' enough like telecom to warrant it. But social media is far closer to telecom than telecom is to maritime.
On the post: Devin Nunes' Deposition Goes Off The Rails, As He Keeps Suing (And Actually Gets A Minor Victory In One Suit)
Re:
"But Democrats aren’t nearly as bad about it as the GOP—because the Dems would have control of more state legislatures and far more seats in the House of Representatives if they were."
That isnt proof. Blue states are heavily gerrymandered with districts that look far worse than anything North Carolina did. Democrats control larger states which gives them greater opportunity to gerrymander. There isn't really that much of an opportunity to gerrymander when you are splitting all of Iowa's 4 electoral votes.
"This does. Now explain why these maps, and not non-partisan factors such as county lines, should determine whether one party has a distinct (and often insurmountable) advantage over the other."
Jesus its like talking to a wall. Plat maps are non-partisan. Many of those communities are hundreds of years old. You started thinking these communities are arbitrary, they are not. The legal address of your parents house, the basement which you live in, is most likely Community, Block #, Lot #. That you don't know any of this just proves you have no life.
"Land doesn’t vote; people do. I’m all for giving those in suburbs and rural areas a voice and a vote, don’t get me wrong—I’d just like to know the reason why their concerns should get to at least nullify those of the people living in the areas where the most people live."
People within land vote. We don't have a direct democracy. We have an representative republic. Our communities vote for who we want to represent us in government. Currently with the size of the House that's 711,000 people voting for a representative. The suburbs aren't canceling out the vote of the urban.
Your entire frame of reference comes from political parties. We don't vote for political parties we vote for people. Okay district A's candidate won with 95% of the vote. Distinct B won with 55% of the vote. Now the people who live in district A want 44% of district As population wants to vote in district B's election instead. This is democrat gerrymandering. You flat out steal community representative by zoning your community into theirs because you have spare votes. Again Chicago has the population for 4 districts. But the city is zoned into 9, more than double the representation its population entitles it to.
"Let’s assume that in a given district, more people live in the combined suburbs and rural areas than live in the “urban center” of the district—and that same combined populace makes the district effectively lean Republican. Would that be fair to you because such an imbalance would cancel out the Democrats of the “urban center”?"
Again they shouldn't be zoned together in the first place.
"Then why do the Republicans, to a greater degree than Democrats, try to pick and choose which communities they get to serve by gerrymandering districts in ways that make them look completely illogical? Seriously, what makes Republican gerrymandering more acceptable to you?"
You keep assuming facts not in evidence. Just because republicans control more state governments does not mean they have more gerrymandered districts. Its very hard to do much gerrymandering in Iowa, Montana, West Virginia etc.
"Oh, and if you use “man-child” one more time, I’m going to report you to the Feds for spreading NAMBLA propaganda."
You don't even know what plat maps are. That means you have never owned your own property. You are a man-child!
On the post: Devin Nunes' Deposition Goes Off The Rails, As He Keeps Suing (And Actually Gets A Minor Victory In One Suit)
Re:
"Please provide proof that Democrats gerrymander to a worse degree than Republicans. A court case saying an explicitly Democratic gerrymander was done for nakedly partisan powergrabbing would be an ideal start"
Benisek v. Lamone, Maryland is one of the worst gerrymandered states in the country. Nothing North Carolina did comes anywhere close to Maryland ridiculous districts.
You are trying to make a you did it too argument because you aren't a smart person. You you are just linking to a single court decision thinking that this is the only such case ever. It isn't and its not even the most recent.
"Please define “local community boundaries”
You are clearly a man-child. You have no experience in the real world what so ever. Somewhere on your city and state websites there are these things called plat maps. I suggest you look at one. You counties, cities, and communities actually exist, are named and have defined boundaries. People who have actual lives have looked at these at some point in their life.
"I mean, it’s like you said: “If we proportioned districts by local community boundaries republicans wound never lose the House.”
Because that is just the way it is. You choose to be the urban party. That doesn't mean the urban centers get more representation. It is not fair when 2.7M person Chicago has 9 representatives representing the city in the House of Representatives when its population entitles it to 4.
"By this logic, the suburban soccer mom can’t represent the artist in the city. Your plan for “community boundaries” districting would likely give her that power anyway. Hell, that’s exactly how gerrymandering works."
She doesn't live in the city and the artist doesn't' live in the suburbs that is the point. They should not be zoned together because too many democrats live in the city. Its not the House of the Parties. Its the House of Representatives they represent their local community. Those communities with boundaries found on any city and state plat map that you had no idea existed because you are a man-child.
On the post: Devin Nunes' Deposition Goes Off The Rails, As He Keeps Suing (And Actually Gets A Minor Victory In One Suit)
Re:
"That's kind of the thing with gerrymandering. Everyone thinks the other side is doing it."
"The problem for you is, we know Republicans are doing it—and they’re not shy about that fact, either."
Thank you for proving my point.
"Yeah, no, Republicans view districts as partisan power grabs; read the story I linked above."
I didn't say republicans don't also gerrymander. They dont do it nearly as bad as the democrats do and they don't really have to. If we proportioned districts by local community boundaries republicans wound never lose the House. Like I said above proportioned by community lines Chicago would get only 4 districts, not 9.
This is true over most of the country. Democrats self select. They prefer to live in ideologically homogeneous communities.
If you apportioned as intended you would have a minority of extremely far left representatives representing a minority of extremely far left communities.
We don't have proportional representation. Parties don't run for election in our country, people do. If your community is ideologically homogeneous and extremely left-wing you get an extremely left-wing representative. You dont get two. You dont get to divide your community that has the population to get 1 representative into two districts to spread your vote around.
That disfranchises whatever 2 districts your district was cut into to spread your vote around.
The guy who lives in the city art district cant represent the suburban soccer mom. But this is how democrats zone their districts. Large portions of the suburban community are disenfranchised.
On the post: Devin Nunes' Deposition Goes Off The Rails, As He Keeps Suing (And Actually Gets A Minor Victory In One Suit)
Re: Re: Re: That's Kind of the Thing with Gerrymandering
That's kind of the thing with gerrymandering. Everyone thinks the other side is doing it. Democrats believe that districts should be proportional to the vote. So they like to cut their districts like a pie. With the city being at the center of the pie cut and widening out to the suburban and rural. This spreads their heavily democrat urban vote around many districts when the actual urban city would have far fewer districts.
Illinois does this. By population the city of Chicago would be included in 4 districts. Instead because of pie cutting the city is part of 9 of the states 18 congressional districts. Some of these districts look ridiculous with a narrow bands going through the suburbs and then expanding like tumor in the city.
Democrats consider this "fair". They dont think its gerrymandering.
Republicans on the other hand view congressional districts as geographic communities representing the communities interest not parties. They prefer to see districts drawn around community boundaries. Democrats think that his is gerrymandering because their vote is largely centered in urban communities.
Now I got with the republican view. We don't have proportional representation in our system. If you want proportional representation you are welcome to amend the constitution but manipulating districting to create proportional representation is an unconstitutional end around something that should only be done by constitutional amendment.
On the post: Dominion Sues Newsmax, OAN, And The Head Of Overstock.Com For Election-Related Defamation
Re: Re: Keep it coming
Sometimes stupid people are needed to advance the law on principle such as the Nazi's right to march through Skokie.
Just because someone is a nutjob doesn't give anyone any right to deny them their rights.
You are missing the point entirely. It has nothing to do with the truth of the claims. Under contract Dominion is assuming a public function of the Secretary of State. As such they have no right to sue anyone for libel for any reason related to that function. They cannot enjoy anymore legal privilege than the Secretary of State.
The issue has nothing to do with elections or dominion but entirely with our function of government. We have Homeland Security currently looking to contract with private firms to perform surveillance because there are too many Constitutional constraints if they did it themselves.
This issue came up in the 00s with Blackwater. Blackwater sued for libel and it was tossed because they are a government contractor. If people can make libelous statements about the military in the execution of the public function they can make libelous statements about the military contractor in the execution of the same public function.
This site has a lot of people who claim to care about 1st Amendment issues then throw them out the door when the 1st Amendment becomes a problem.
Fundamentally we cannot allow government contractors to sue for libel related to the contract.
Contracting cannot be a Constitutional loophole.
On the post: Devin Nunes' Deposition Goes Off The Rails, As He Keeps Suing (And Actually Gets A Minor Victory In One Suit)
Interesting Argument from the Judge
It's an interesting argument. If conflicting statements from the same news organization is evidence of actual malice then a lot of news organizations are in serious trouble.
On the post: Dominion Sues Newsmax, OAN, And The Head Of Overstock.Com For Election-Related Defamation
Re: Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
No the case would just be thrown out like Blackwatter's case was back during the Iraq war. Blackwatter endured much more libel from much more mainstream sources back in the 00s. Than Dominion is today. But when they tried to sue of the libel they didn't even gat passed the 4th circuit.
Government contracts are big guaranteed money, the government is never going to file a chapter 11 and leave the contractor up @%% creek. Plenty of contractors will be and are willing to take the negatives that come with those contracts.
The Dominion case is a very good case for the SCOTUS to finally lay down the law on contractors carrying out public functions. Not just for dominion but because we also have HSS openly discussing using contractors to carry out surveillance for the explication purpose to avoid constitutional constraint. The "contractor" issue needs to be put to rest by the SCOTUS.
On the post: Dominion Sues Newsmax, OAN, And The Head Of Overstock.Com For Election-Related Defamation
Re: Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
Like a Secretary of State who in most states handles elections? How much libel did Katherine Harris endure. I don't think it ever crossed her mind to sue for libel. In contracting with the state to tabulate votes they are assuming a public function, a public function generally and traditionally performed by the Secretary of State and the office. A contractor should have no more legal recourse than the Secretary of State. If the private contractor enjoys greater legal privilege than the Secretary of State when engaging in a function of the Secretary of State then the contract is infringing on the rights of the people.
I believe there was a case in the mid 2000s when Blackwater tried to sue for libel. The 4th circuit quickly thru the case out because the alleged libel was related to the execution of a government contract for a basic public function, in that case military.
On the post: Dominion Sues Newsmax, OAN, And The Head Of Overstock.Com For Election-Related Defamation
Re: Re: Re: Show Some Integrity Maybe
So this would also apply to military contractors like Halliburton. Now granted there is not much case law on this. Most military contractors like Haliburton know full well that any libel suit isn't getting past motion for dismal.
There was a libel suit filed by Blackwater that was thrown out under SLAPP.
I hope this case gets to the SCOTUS because this is an issue that needs to be hashed out.
We have the Biden administration looking into partnering with private contractors to evade constructional constraints on surveillance. This use of contactors is relatively new and murky having largely grown out of the war on terror. The courts have to step in.
On the post: Dominion Sues Newsmax, OAN, And The Head Of Overstock.Com For Election-Related Defamation
Re: Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
Mike, you have repeatedly buried you head in the sand when it comes to public function and other basic legal precidence basic state actor law. Your go to argument has always been 'that isn't 100%' the same. Its your stock in trade argument you might say.
You make ridiculous arguments like 'You cant treat BigTech as a common carrier because BigTech isn't the same thing as Telecom.' Even though common carrier comes straight from maritime law and BigTech is more like Telecom than Telecom is maritime.
In the case of public function and state actors elections are the quenticencial example from Smith v. Allwright 1944.
"You are always free to criticize an election. What you cannot do is, with actual malice (per NYT v. Sullivan) state deliberate false facts about someone or some company that is designed to harm their reputation. That's wholly different from "criticizing an election.""
Does this apply to secretary of states and their offices. Why hasn't any secretary of state or their office sued for libel? Oh that's right you and I both know such a suit would be tossed for a 1st Amendment Violation and SLAPP violation.
In the case of the public function of the election Dominion is acting as the secretary of state (in most states). It has to be treated like the Secretary of State and enjoy no protections beyond that. If we dont the government will contract out any time it doesn't want to be limited by Constitutional constraints.
You are admitting its a loop-hole. Thank you for playing!
"However, if we're going on about claims that a gov't official cannot sue for libel, does that mean you agree that Devin Nunes' various lawsuits are not allowed?"
Weren't you cheering when most of his cases were tossed in part for that reason?
Why don't you ask me if I support the government outsourcing torture to private military contractors? No I don't think Nunes has a leg to stand on for any criticism of his office.
Thank you for playing.
On the post: Dominion Sues Newsmax, OAN, And The Head Of Overstock.Com For Election-Related Defamation
Re: Show Some Integrity Maybe
" How dare those assholes make me side with Dominion."
Perhaps you should stand on principle and realize that elections are basic public function and anyone carrying out a public function has zero right to sue for libel. As it relates to the election Dominion is no different than the government and a libel suit is a 1st Amendment violation.
On the post: Dominion Sues Newsmax, OAN, And The Head Of Overstock.Com For Election-Related Defamation
1st Amendment Loop Hole
So you are free to criticize an election if the government does it, even to the point of conspiracy theories, but if the government uses a private contractor you loose that right.
Seems like a loophole to me. Why wouldn't the government contract out such public functions if doing so allows the the usurpation of basic rights because the public function now enjoys private protections such as libel?
I don't really care if Newsmax and OAN are right or wrong. Elections are a basic public function. Dominion has zero right to file libel suits related to criticism of how it carried out a public function. It doesn't matter if that criticism is right or wrong. In carrying out a public function Dominion is acting as the government should have zero private protection.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Plausible
Plausible? I known crackhead being high on crack isn't an plausible explanation?
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not e
"Yes, Hunter was—at least at one point—addicted to crack cocaine. However, by all accounts, he appears to have been staying clean for quite some time. Drug addicts can overcome their addiction, and it’s been long enough since the last known instance of him having used the stuff that his past addiction is no longer all that convincing."
By who's accounts? His own book? You statement is a lie. By the account of the manager of at a DC strip-club he was smoking crack in lat 2018. That is just a few months before he dropped is laptop off.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/08/will-hunter-biden-jeopardize-his-fathers-campaign
Sto p lying!
On the post: Judge Tosses Candace Owens's Litigious Attempt To Turn Facebook Fact-Checking Into Defamation
Re: Re: Fact Check?
Tucker Carlson runs a political opinion show. The doesn't call his show the FactCheck.Tucker.
When you call yourself a fact checking organization a reasonable person would take your statements as fact and not "opinion" or "rhetorical hyperbole."
Even the judge is all over the place.
"it contracted with Facebook to supply fact-checking services"
He then goes on to call statements of false and hoax not fact but "opinion" and "rhetorical hyperbole."
Of course this is what the judge had to do if he wanted to dismiss the case. So in decaling jurisdiction he states as a matter of fact that the defendant "contracted with Facebook to supply fact-checking services" and then goes on to define that fact-checking as opinion and rhetorical hyperbole.
Now I have long said that "fact-checking" despite its name is nothing more than opinion journalism. I am usually attacked by the left for saying as much. At least this judge admits it.
No the problem on appeal is that even though as a matter of fact "fact-checking" is just opinion journalism because of the use of the misleading term "fact-checking" and "fact-checkers" a reasonable person would interpret "fact-checks" as statements of fact, not opinion or hyperbole.
I look forward to seeing how this square peg trying to be pounded into a round hole stands up on appeal because even in his own ruling the judge who is supposed to be beyond a reasonable person has a hard time differentiating.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not e
"Even if that is plausible, that in no way explains how or why he and his laptop would end up all the way across the country from his home and workplace to where the computer repair shop is."
Again you are intentionally omitting information because you are fundamentally dishonest. This wasn't some random town across the country. Its his home town of Wilmington Delaware. He left his laptop in his hometown obviously when he was there. He also knocked up a stripper in DC. Your whole distance argument is nonsensical.
On the post: Judge Tosses Candace Owens's Litigious Attempt To Turn Facebook Fact-Checking Into Defamation
Fact Check?
So you can call yourself a fact checker. You can market your services to third parties as a fact checker. But when you are sued for defamation your fact checks are "opinion" and "rhetorical hyperbole."
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically lega
lol
You guys are hilarious.
'Yes we have all seen him smoking crack but you have no proof he was high then'
Just shut up. You don't deserve a response.
Next >>