Nunes sues Twitter, some users, seeks over $250M

And I'm sorry, as I assume this is a reasonably serious situation, but is there anything funnier than THIS in a legal document??

 

And the only way it won't happen is if the judge considers the lawsuit frivolous... there's no chance in hell any judge, even progressive one will... the burden of proof may be very hard for the plaintiff to meet but a frivolous lawsuit it is not. Not even close.

This case is going to discovery, depositions and trial by jury. No ifs or buts.

 

The shoe is already on the foot. Trump did not win his election by pursuing a traditional candidate's campaign and his supporters actively (and almost solely) relied on a manipulation of social media algorithms and pairings to embrace and spread his ideologies.

The single largest community of trump supporters on Reddit is, or was at the time, called r/TheDonald. They undeniably relied on bots to manipulate all sorts of digital polling and news thread algorithms to spread whatever was trumps latest lie.

And therein lies another problem in the expansion of libel laws. Trump is a perfect example of someone who lies and slanders people on a nearly daily basis. And there are current and previous lawsuits for libel/slander against him (ah, who am I kidding, it is just slander because trump does not read or write anything), but they would - under this new legal theory - expand tremendously.

But there are two real world considerations. 1) he is old and would die before the supreme court standard changes or before it would have any meaningful affect on him through lawsuits and 2) he is supposedly worth billions and could easily afford to legally obfuscate nearly everyone who tried to hold him accountable for his statements.

 

Setting aside that a finding of being frivolous is not the standard for dismissal...

I do not understand why you believe the lawsuit is not frivolous. Feel free to explain. Or dont.

 

This may be a stretch, but under the (eventual) landmark case "Devin Nunes vs Devin Nunes' Cow", couldn't Robert Mueller sue Trump for claiming Mueller pursued an illegal investigation looking for "a woman thought to have magic powers, especially evil ones, popularly depicted as wearing a black cloak and pointed hat and flying on a broomstick"?

 

I think there is a specific standard in question here, malicious intent. Defamation isn't just disagreeing. Folks have to remember, once in a while, that they can't just scorch the earth around them on line. Folks forget, and when they do, if they've crossed the line of malicious intent, they are subject to the law.

 

The lawsuit is filed for a valid reason - defamation of character, libel etc, it has legal merit, it has a distinct chance of winning... there is no way in hell this lawsuit is not going to court.

 

Sadly, it appears Nunes and/or his lawyers made blatantly untrue statements in the complaint submission... I fear that will have a negative impact on the suit proceeding...

 

The difference now is that there have been whistleblowers from the inside telling what has been going on in these platforms.

 

Exactly right.

 

That's a poor explanation.

 

Some of the accusations have already been uncovered and even agreed to by the platforms. The platforms are not publications and are in essence a public utility since they have the majority of communication.

 

What an idiot. The rightwing war against freedom of speech and private property continues. Can't wait to see this one laughed out of court.

 

LOL.... and your terse 4 word rely isn't? Why not actually spend the time laying out why you believe in the idea that folks shouldn't be able to have their case heard in court....

 

Post 15 is a partial explanation.

 

Which accusations from Devin Nunes have been agreed to by the platforms?

 

Which is entirely inadequate, so why, again, do you suppose that folks shouldn't be able to have their case heard?

 

That they shadowban.

 

Truly, we have seen the effects of the intentional rigging of commenting and content manipulation from several of the platforms, FB, Insta, Twitter. And we have seen active measures used against conservative content executed by these platforms. We've also seen remarkable tolerance from the same platforms for malicious content posted by folks who are ostensibly liberal, or socialist, or leftist.

Clearly, there is an imbalance and an inequality in experience, some of which rises to the level of libel which platforms, like twitter seem intent of fomenting and supporting as long as the viewpoint matches their own. This doesn't have a precedent from which the legal community can draw from. Twitter, FB, et al aren't traditional media or "news" and frankly, their diversion from those traditional platforms is the focus of this litigation.

I suspect that the case will actually produce an entirely new precedent that will effectively govern the content providers and their tolerance for malicious comments and statements and find that there is ample evidence that those platforms are promoting this content for their financial benefit.

 

The complaint also named specific Twitter accounts that spread defamatory material about Nunes. One defendant, identified as "Liz" Mair, purportedly published tweets that "Nunes colluded with prostitutes and cocaine addicts, that Nunes does cocaine, and that Nunes was involved in a 'Russian money laundering front.'"

The complaint quoted a June 22, 2018 tweet from Mair that implied Nunes invested in a winery that "used underage hookers to solicit investment."


BrandValue$4B

✔@LizMair
To be fair, I think the @fresnobee writing up your investment in a winery that allegedly used underage hookers to solicit investment-- an allegation you've known about for years, during which you've stayed invested in it, I might add-- did surprise you. https://twitter.com/DevinNunes/status/1010331787124465665 …

Devin Nunes

✔@DevinNunes

Nothing surprises me any more... https://twitter.com/byronyork/status/1010200083722317827 …

8:10 PM - Jun 22, 2018

Nunes alleges that Mair is working "with" these fake-name attack accounts.

Mair's LinkedIn profile even says she's paid to "anonymously smear people on the Internet."

 

I appreciate you attempting to argue the legalities here.... Me? I'm just laughing at some of the content submitted in the complaint...

I don't know who either Devin Nunes' Mom or Devin Nunes' Cow is, but it's mostly funny stuff...

God, I love the fact that you have to submit this stuff in a lawsuit!

SNIP
- falsely stated that Nunes would probably join the “Proud Boys”, “if it weren’t for that unfortunate ‘nomasturbating’ rule”
- disparagingly called him a “presidential fluffer and swamp rat”
- falsely accused Nunes of being a “lying piece of ****” (Not sure how Nunes will prove otherwise)
- falsely stated that Nunes was unfit to run the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (ooooo.... burn!)
- “Devin might be a unscrupulous, craven, back-stabbing, charlatan and traitor, but he’s no Ted Cruz” (Ted!! Get your lawyers on the phone!!)
- falsely stated that “Alpha Omega wines taste like treason” (I hope they taste his wine as part of discovery)
- falsely stated that “@Devin Nunes is DEFINITELY a feckless ****” (You can probably guess where that one comes from)
- falsely stated that Nunes has “herp-face”
ENDSNIP

 

As I understand "New York Times versus Sullivan (1964)", it applies to anything construed as "libel" or "slander" (including defamation). Ostensibly, it has been held that when anything that one utters or writes, no matter whether it's in a "self proclaimed publisher" or not is made public, it is potentially actionable. But criticism of "public figures" is generally allowed!

Courts have held that such speeches or writings must be those that qualify as damaging another person (or organization?) in his "trade, calling, or profession". Sometimes, but not always, ACTUAL damage-awards and PUNITIVE damage-awards are demanded of a defendant if the court rules that the 'wronged' person has been so harmed, even if in THEORY. Yes, it is very confusing. But, the courts allow even fairly harsh criticism of "public figures"!

That's why I'm asking the legal 'minds' here in this forum for their opinions. We have a handful of posters here who appear to be very conversant with the law, but I am not really one of them except in a very few, select areas, like "media law and ethics". But does some private 'website' like Twitter or Facebook come under the purview of NYT v Sullivan? I do believe that they do! The New York Times was (and is) a privately-owned newspaper, after all....

Yes, I'm a 'right-wing' kind of guy -- but that means I support the Constitution, including the Right of Free Speech. On the other hand, I do not approve of character-assassination, libel, slander, and deliberate attempts to destroy someone with lies, distortions, and manipulation of facts.

You can't yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater unless there really is a fire. But, what if you think the whole damned country is 'burning down' because of the crap that goes on these days because of what some people do and say, and although you are sincere, LEGALLY, it's only YOUR opinion?! Very complicated....

 

NYT vs Sullivan qualify falls under the freedom of the press and these platforms are not publishers but communication utilities. For instance, under their aegis Ma Bell could cancel your phone based on your political ideology.

 

His accusation is that they shadowbanned him. That is not something that they have admitted.

 

I do not understand the distinction you are trying to make. What's the difference between a "publisher" and a "communication utility?"