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

Legality. Aren't you supposed to be MrTLegal and you don't know this?

 

I think there should be some allowance for denigrating a public figure, but malice is too low of a bar. I also don't think NYTimes v. Sullivan is a good comparison; different issues were involved with that.

Nunes has a very long shot. One of his big problems -- valid with much web stuff -- is that Twitter is not the source of libel, they are just a conduit. It is like suing the delivery truck driver instead of the newspaper.

 

Yet they are more like a untility and they are actively shutting down valid conversations based on political ideology and by doing this they may also be violating campaign contribution laws (maybe a stretch). There is enough from whistleblowers that prove this.

 

I can understand that a private forum entity can 'shadow ban' someone, or ban them altogether. Every publication and/or website I know of reserves the right to BAN people if they want to. I do get that.

But what I'm trying to focus on is whether or not comments posted or written in publications or websites (like Twitter) are actionable as libel and slander, per se -- if they are targeted against what NYT versus Sullivan holds are "public figures"!

Here on this forum I might say that some private American citizen -- who I name and identify specifically -- is a horrible person, and I write this list of things I hate about him, and then charge him with doing all sorts of terrible things. YES, I understand that if I do that to some totally private person, I can be sued for libel (if it is written), or slander (if it is spoken)... and possibly 'defamation'. But what if I hurl all those things against a PUBLIC FIGURE? Then, according to NYT versus Sullivan, it's different. Why would it NOT be different if the text in question is written in Twitter or Facebook instead of the New York Times. Yes, it IS complicated... which is why I'm asking the 'legal-eagles' here at the forum to help explain this. It could potentially affect us all, on every forum everywhere in the United States.

 

When the platform actively shuts down commentary based on political ideology, in essence, the ability to reply and correct the record, then that platform supports this kind of slander.

 

If Nunes has a case, then Hillary should OWN Twitter.

 

Except that Twitter does not shadow ban the left like it does the right.

 

It wasn't the libs that shot up a pizzeria looking for child sex slaves.

 

Good point. The delivery truck driver is not an innocent bystander if he decides to not drop off the papers because he doesn't approve of the editorials.

 

Now I'm even more confused. You say that a phone company can "cancel your phone based on your political ideology"?! I thought the exact opposite was true! I thought that public UTILITIES had to offer service to anyone who pays his bills on time....

. "Yeah I know you don't like me, but cash my check and get off my ass or I'll sue you!"

 

Nunes is just a pusssy. And you guys call us snowflakes.

 

People are allowed to hold whatever opinions they want about anyone, and they are allowed to present those opinions to anyone. Simple fact.

If you dont like it, to bad. As we are often told when it comes to guns, this is the price for freedom. Deal with it.

 

What he is arguing is that a private business should not be allowed to control it's own content. Do we force Fox News to give equal time to AOC on every story? Does Beetlebart.com have to give equal page space to anti-Nazi groups?

Nunes should be embarrassed by this suit. The judge will hopefully toss it as soon as it hits his/her desk.

 

Nunes is a MORON.

This case will be laughed out of court.

The RW is funny like that.

 

Right? #FakeNews is not a partisan issue it should be a bipartisan issue.

It wasn't conservatives who paid a foreign agent for a Russian dossier used by the Obama administration as an excuse to spy on the opposition party candidate Donald Trump.

 

What in that is defamatory? Nunes is an investor in his long time friend's winery. There was a lawsuit by a winery employee who was asked to be a waitress on a cruise that turned out to be a hookers and blow party for 25 of the winery's investors that was settled out of court.

It was reported in several newspapers including the Sacramento Bee.

 

Slander and libel are illegal and there should be no public person exemptions.

 

Do you have any proof? I know you referenced whistleblowers, but I have not seen any news on that topic.

 

This just in... User "Andrew Jackson" added to lawsuit...

 

I am already being sized for the jumpsuit I will be wearing on the Lethal Injection Gurney.

Trufax. No Foolin'.

Serious Bidness!

 

Lame.

 

But opinions are not. And I am legally allowed and express ANY OPINION I WANT.

For example. If I were to express the OPINION that I think Trump is indeed a sexual predator, who has raped women and children. ( which I do ) There is nothing illegal about that. And there is absolutely nothing legal you can do about it.

If however, I said that I know for a fact that Trump is a sexual predator who has molested women and fondled children. That might be something he could come after me for. But I can express any negative OPINION that I want about ANYTHING, or ANYONE. Regardless of what that opinion is.

If you are a regular Faux Spews watcher, I should think you would know this. But I tend to give Faux viewers more credit than I should in regards to personal intelligence.

Deal with it Buttercup.

 

You think that is funny? Really? I don't. I don't know if it will win a lawsuit, but I certainly don't think it is funny. (Would you think it was funny if it was written about you?) Welcome to the social media age, I suppose. Where civility is about as common as personal responsibility, and liberals think it is "funny".

 

I guess you didn't read the article. It's not about opinions, it's about slander and libel.

 

perceived libel and slander.

I mean, why not just sue Saturday Night Live for Trump impressions while your at it?

Its perfectly allowed to make fun of public figures. Even if you do hero worship them and other peoples words cause butthurt reactions.