Should Everyone Be Held Accountable for Libel Laws?

[garrow]

Trump's INSANE lawsuit against 60 Minutes for....doing something every news broadcast does with every taped interview? Oh, that ain't libel.

Maybe Trump, the next time he gasses protestors can walk over their prone bodies like Darth Vader and hoist up a big 'ol libel.

 

[dixiehack]

What Trump and his alternate facts pals don't realize is that making libel/slander lawsuits easier to pursue is going to hit their own right-wing shriek machine friends just as hard, if not harder.

If the courts were on the level, sure.

 

[Deskgrunt50]

The previous administration created the "Disinformation Governance Board" and only disbanded it when its existence came to light and enough people were upset about it. It also used NGOs to serve as middlemen to directly influence social media companies about what content to allow or throttle back on its website.
I don't agree with everything the Trump administration is doing in this area. Its stance toward the AP, for example, seems stupid, petty and near-sighted, to put it mildly. But I also know what was done and attempted the past few years and find that just as frightening, if not moreso, because those plans were actually put into action.

Ifs, Buts and Whatabouts.

A bad idea, the disinformation board, and it was rightly abandoned. And I'd like to see some work shown on the NGO thing. It sounds a whole lot like right-wing conspiracy stuff. Maybe not. But neither of those examples come close to the stated goals on the current administration.

 

[Batman]

Ifs, Buts and Whatabouts.

A bad idea was on the disinformation board was rightly abandoned. And I'd like to see some work shown on the NGO thing. It sounds a whole lot like right-wing conspiracy stuff. Maybe not. But neither of those examples come close to the stated goals on the current administration.

The NGO thing was from the Murthy v. Missouri case that went to the Supreme Court, and that Zuckerberg and others testified to Congress about.
Essentially, the government was paying NGOs to flag content that went against its messaging, then saying the NGOs were independent groups that were fact-checking the same content. In some cases the NGOs paid other NGOs to add a layer or two of plausible deniability for the Biden administration.
The Supreme Court made a terrible ruling in favor of the government on a legal standing issue. But the facts of the case that came out through discovery and depositions were not in dispute.

 

[Deskgrunt50]

The NGO thing was from the Murthy v. Missouri case that went to the Supreme Court, and that Zuckerberg and others testified to Congress about.
Essentially, the government was paying NGOs to flag content that went against its messaging, then saying the NGOs were independent groups that were fact-checking the same content. In some cases the NGOs paid other NGOs to add a layer or two of plausible deniability for the Biden administration.
The Supreme Court made a terrible ruling in favor of the government on a legal standing issue. But the facts of the case that came out through discovery and depositions were not in dispute.

Man, after looking through that, it is not the frightening boogeyman you make it out to be. Especially when it comes to this Supreme Court.

Terrible ruling? That's your opinion. The plaintiffs lacked standing. And it's a too broad and likely inaccurate statement to say "the facts of the case that came out through discovery and depositions were not in dispute." I'm willing to bet a whole bunch of that would be in dispute.

The Big Tech companies are now more than happy to spread the trump administration's lies and bullshirt. Are you concerned about why they came around so fast? Is the coercion you seem to find so worrisome in the Murthy vs. Missouri case?

 

[Batman]

Man, after looking through that, it is not the frightening boogeyman you make it out to be. Especially when it comes to this Supreme Court.

Terrible ruling? That's your opinion. The plaintiffs lacked standing. And it's a widely broad and likely inaccurate statement to say "the facts of the case that came out through discovery and depositions were not in dispute." I'm willing to bet a whole bunch of that would be in dispute.

The Big Tech companies are now more than happy to spread the trump administration's lies and bullshirt. Are you concerned about why they came around so fast? Is the coercion you seem to find so worrisome in the Murthy vs. Missouri case?

The Supreme Court punted in a most cowardly way on that case. Based on the facts — and there were lots of them — this was about as textbook an example of government censorship as you'll ever find. Reading Fauci's deposition alone should make you furious. The merits of the case were not argued at the Supreme Court level, nor were they what the Court based its ruling on.
BTW, the Twitter Files that were dismissed in a lot of circles as a nothingburger also laid this out in detail. Those got the ball rolling, and the legal process in Murthy v. Missouri confirmed all of it.

The standing issue was a technicality that allowed the Court to back away from making a decision.
Basically, because the government used those NGOs and social media platforms to do their dirty work, they said the government hadn't actually infringed upon free speech. The Court said it was the NGOs and social media platforms doing it. Therefore, the plaintiffs (who included more than 20 states attorneys general, IIRC) had no standing to sue the government because there was no one in the government making the final decision.
It was absurd logic based on the facts of the case.

Alito wrote in his dissent that the decision "permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think."
So if Trump does indeed try to squash free speech, maybe you can thank Joe Biden for providing the road map on how to do it.

And, yes, any time any administration goes down this road it's worrisome, even if you've voted for the side doing it.

 

[Deskgrunt50]

The Supreme Court punted in a most cowardly way on that case. Based on the facts — and there were lots of them — this was about as textbook an example of government censorship as you'll ever find. Reading Fauci's deposition alone should make you furious. The merits of the case were not argued at the Supreme Court level, nor were they what the Court based its ruling on.
BTW, the Twitter Files that were dismissed in a lot of circles as a nothingburger also laid this out in detail. Those got the ball rolling, and the legal process in Murthy v. Missouri confirmed all of it.

The standing issue was a technicality that allowed the Court to back away from making a decision.
Basically, because the government used those NGOs and social media platforms to do their dirty work, they said the government hadn't actually infringed upon free speech. The Court said it was the NGOs and social media platforms doing it. Therefore, the plaintiffs (who included more than 20 states attorneys general, IIRC) had no standing to sue the government because there was no one in the government making the final decision.
It was absurd logic based on the facts of the case.

Alito wrote in his dissent that the decision "permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think."
So if Trump does indeed try to squash free speech, maybe you can thank Joe Biden for providing the road map on how to do it.

And, yes, any time any administration goes down this road it's worrisome, even if you've voted for the side doing it.

Good lord that's all speculative hot garbage you've dressed up as some sort of fact. The case wasn't argued. You have no clue how it would've turned out. This feels like it was cribbed from Breitbart or some other looney right site.

And full stop, no sale at "Twitter Files." That was cherry picked Elon Musk fantasy propaganda.

You may believe the stuff you wrote, but that in no way makes it true.

Feel free to have the last word on this. But that is some tin foil hat shirt.

 

[dixiehack]

Standing is not "a technicality." It is a well-established precedent that keeps the courts out of wading into every single dispute. (I know that doesn't seem like the case recently but you'd be amazed how much stuff gets winnowed out by it.)

It's OK to have a concern about something and then modify your position when you learn more. It really is.

 

[Azrael]

ok

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5195881-trump-media-illegal/amp/

 

[Smallpotatoes]

The previous administration created the "Disinformation Governance Board" and only disbanded it when its existence came to light and enough people were upset about it. It also used NGOs to serve as middlemen to directly influence social media companies about what content to allow or throttle back on its website.
I don't agree with everything the Trump administration is doing in this area. Its stance toward the AP, for example, seems stupid, petty and near-sighted, to put it mildly. But I also know what was done and attempted the past few years and find that just as frightening, if not moreso, because those plans were actually put into action.

What do you propose we do about disinformation? It can get people killed. Look at what's happening with the measles vaccine.
We can't just put both sides out there when peace too stupid to tell the difference between the truth and conspiracy theory.

 

[Smallpotatoes]

The Supreme Court punted in a most cowardly way on that case. Based on the facts — and there were lots of them — this was about as textbook an example of government censorship as you'll ever find. Reading Fauci's deposition alone should make you furious. The merits of the case were not argued at the Supreme Court level, nor were they what the Court based its ruling on.
BTW, the Twitter Files that were dismissed in a lot of circles as a nothingburger also laid this out in detail. Those got the ball rolling, and the legal process in Murthy v. Missouri confirmed all of it.

The standing issue was a technicality that allowed the Court to back away from making a decision.
Basically, because the government used those NGOs and social media platforms to do their dirty work, they said the government hadn't actually infringed upon free speech. The Court said it was the NGOs and social media platforms doing it. Therefore, the plaintiffs (who included more than 20 states attorneys general, IIRC) had no standing to sue the government because there was no one in the government making the final decision.
It was absurd logic based on the facts of the case.

Alito wrote in his dissent that the decision "permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think."
So if Trump does indeed try to squash free speech, maybe you can thank Joe Biden for providing the road map on how to do it.

And, yes, any time any administration goes down this road it's worrisome, even if you've voted for the side doing it.

If a case was dismissed on standing it wasn't going to win on the merits anyway.

 

[Deskgrunt50]

A small bit of good news. SCOTUS passes on hearing the NYT v Sullivan case.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-turns-away-casino-mogul-wynns-bid-challenge-ny-times-v-sullivan-2025-03-24/