"230 going away doesn’t mean Mike will shutter BestNetTech in its entirety. "
Without section 230 to defend no BigTech patrons will give Mike a fucking dime. Writing bullshit pieces to keep BigTech out of regulation is the only reason they pay his dumb ass.
"But Roberts has been a consistent vote in favor of corporations’ free speech rights, which means either at least one of the liberals or all of the other conservatives would have to side with Thomas and Alito."
Roberts cant let BigTech section 230 their way out of a an-antiterrorism statutes. That was the trap you fucking moron. The federalist wing of the court has to side against BigTech.
No they cant. You are a fucking moron if you think only less than 10 defamation cases in the last 6 decades against media had merit.
Your assertion is false on its face.
Orwell's writing exist pre Solzhenitsyn and must be taken as such. People like Orwell had no idea what had been done under Lenin and believed a false narrative that it was all Stalin's fault.
If motion to dismiss occurs before discover how is any plaintiff supposed to prove "actual malice." It sounds nice as a legal theory but in practice it has been a miscarriage of justice. You can count on two hands the number of relevant cases that have moved to discovery since Sullivan 1964.
"You do realize, of course, that the right wing media space as it is couldn’t exist without these protections, right? "
Media didn't exist prior to 1964? Media doesn't exist in other countries that don't have Sullivan 1964?
The entire common wealth which has very strong libel laws doesn't have media?
Why do you hate the first Amendment so much?
"petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
That is where the right to sue comes from you moron. If the courts de facto grant media a blanket immunity the peoples first amendment right to a redress of grievances has been violated.
De facto or de jure
De jure you have to show actual malice.
De facto its nearly impossible to show actual malice because the motion to dismiss occurs before discovery. You have a substantially high evidentiary bar and are never allowed to gather evidence.
"foolishly documented it in an email chain prior to the broadcast?"
Not even that. Sullivan is so absolute that motion to dismiss occurs before discovery. There can be oodles and oodles of evidence that they knew it was false but a judge wont let you see that evidence.
You can count on two hands the number of cases that have passed the motion to dismiss and moved onto discovery since 1964.
It's simply too high of a bar and it denies the plaintiff's first amendment rights.
I would support a change to the legal procedure that a Sullivan motion can only be requested after discovery.
Google etc. "donating" to the COPIA institute is what pays for BestNetTech. Without section 230 to defend Mike is fucking broke.
"230 going away doesn’t mean Mike will shutter BestNetTech in its entirety. " Without section 230 to defend no BigTech patrons will give Mike a fucking dime. Writing bullshit pieces to keep BigTech out of regulation is the only reason they pay his dumb ass.
Christ you are stupid. We are at the SCOTUS because the 9th circuit allowed them to section 230 their way out of the statute you fucking moron!
lol if section 230 goes Mike is unemployed sucking dick in a train station bathroom and he knows it.
"But Roberts has been a consistent vote in favor of corporations’ free speech rights, which means either at least one of the liberals or all of the other conservatives would have to side with Thomas and Alito." Roberts cant let BigTech section 230 their way out of a an-antiterrorism statutes. That was the trap you fucking moron. The federalist wing of the court has to side against BigTech.
California duh
No they cant. You are a fucking moron if you think only less than 10 defamation cases in the last 6 decades against media had merit. Your assertion is false on its face.
"2) I’m not a journalist" Under the 1st Amendment yes he is a blog is Press as much as the NYT is.
"We have high standards for defamation cases precisely " No the media enjoys high standard is defamation cases, no one else.
A civil right is whatever the state says it is.
You are too stupid to understand Solzhenitsyn.
Orwell's writing exist pre Solzhenitsyn and must be taken as such. People like Orwell had no idea what had been done under Lenin and believed a false narrative that it was all Stalin's fault.
And what do you think Orwell would have said if he lived long enough to read Solzhenitsyn?
You do realize that the right to sue for libel and anything else is also a First Amendment right you fucking moron.
If motion to dismiss occurs before discover how is any plaintiff supposed to prove "actual malice." It sounds nice as a legal theory but in practice it has been a miscarriage of justice. You can count on two hands the number of relevant cases that have moved to discovery since Sullivan 1964.
"You do realize, of course, that the right wing media space as it is couldn’t exist without these protections, right? " Media didn't exist prior to 1964? Media doesn't exist in other countries that don't have Sullivan 1964? The entire common wealth which has very strong libel laws doesn't have media?
Why do you hate the first Amendment so much? "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" That is where the right to sue comes from you moron. If the courts de facto grant media a blanket immunity the peoples first amendment right to a redress of grievances has been violated.
De facto or de jure De jure you have to show actual malice. De facto its nearly impossible to show actual malice because the motion to dismiss occurs before discovery. You have a substantially high evidentiary bar and are never allowed to gather evidence.
"foolishly documented it in an email chain prior to the broadcast?" Not even that. Sullivan is so absolute that motion to dismiss occurs before discovery. There can be oodles and oodles of evidence that they knew it was false but a judge wont let you see that evidence. You can count on two hands the number of cases that have passed the motion to dismiss and moved onto discovery since 1964. It's simply too high of a bar and it denies the plaintiff's first amendment rights. I would support a change to the legal procedure that a Sullivan motion can only be requested after discovery.
I dont run a site called TechLawDirt you douchebag. Mike represents himself as an expert when he is not.