House Impeachment Threatens Freedom of Speech

See post 265. You're wrong.

 

See post 265. You're wrong.

 

Ill bet you $1000 that Trump and Gulliani loose, which will prove this wrong. These are not statements of political origin, they are know lies based on the fact that they had no evidence to make them with.

 

No. It won't. Because nothing in post 265 deals with libel or slander or defamation.
-You- state that the 1st amendment does not protect lying. Period. Full stop.
Post 265 proves you wrong.

 

Post 265 proves you wrong.

 

well, not all lies have consequences which a court would construe as actionable.

Someone can tell a fib that winds up hurting your feelings, but good luck winning a lawsuit over something like that. But, if it rises to 'slander' then you'd have a cause of action, but the harm better be substantially more than hurt feelings.


It's all about consequences, eh? What good is a law if there are no consequences for defying it?

If a lie doesn't harm, then that lie is protected. Atmospheric damage is not enough (such as it hurt my friend's feelings).

How many ads tell the truth? are they not protected by the 1st Amendment. Most are.

How many times has a judge ruled on someone suing for false advertising, but when the rubber hits the road, the judge says, nah, this really isn't false advertising, it's 'sales talk' ( new and improved, better than all the others, etc. Lies? Perhaps, but 1a protected ) .

Where you can sue for false advertising is for a specific but failed claim. such as, This Widget Doll is supposed say 'wodget' when you pull the string, but when you pull the string, it belches instead. But this isn't 1a defense, this is false advertising, a tort.

Ianal, but that's what makes sense to me.

 

If the lying resulted in substantial financial damage, lost contracts, the cost of repairing a damaged reputation, THAT is actionable.
That is slander. Slander is NOT protected by 1a, but you have to convince a jury of the complaint. If there is no real damage, other than some hurt feelings, then it IS protected by 1a, as it doesn't rise to a cause of action.

As I understand the lawsuit, Dominion and Smartmatic, indeed, have a legit cause of action. We shall see.

Caveat: Ianal.

 

No it doesn’t. Your getting ridiculous

265 proves that the right to say it is protected, Not that the lie is protected

 

I agree with a lot of what you say here. My only point is that if one lie does not cause harm, yet another does, and one of them is actionable, neither are protected. One of them just isn't acted upon.

 

I accept your surrender.