On what grounds, if I may RaleBulgarian? Procedural? Failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted?
EDIT: Cute sign by the way. As a resident of Nunes' district, I love it when anonymous authors apologize on behalf of other people with whom they do not share political opinions. :roll:
Could the defendants be held liable for libel?
According to First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams: The speech involved is protected for several reasons.
“Rep. Nunes seems to think the First Amendment exists to protect him from his critics when it’s actually meant to protect his critics from him,” said Abrams, calling the suit “bizarre” and “likely unconstitutional.”
As an initial matter, the First Amendment applies only to government conduct, and “Twitter is not the government,” Abrams said.
Libel is a technical term, legally. It’s a written defamatory statement. The landmark Supreme Court case, New York Times v. Sullivan, made clear that when the plaintiff is a public official (which Nunes is, as a U.S. congressman), to succeed in a libel case, he or she has to prove that the alleged defamatory statement was false and the publisher either knew it was untrue or had serious doubts about its veracity.
Years after that pivotal case, in a lawsuit very similar to Nunes’s, Jerry Falwell sued Hustler magazine for a satirical advertisement that portrayed him in an outhouse having sex with his mother. The court rejected Falwell’s claim that Hustler violated the First Amendment, ruling that although the ad was provocative and insulting, a public figure was not protected from “patently offensive speech.”
According to Abrams, courts also have a history of ruling that speech that is “most obviously hyperbole” or “fighting words” is protected.
Abrams said that the statements Nunes alleges are defamatory are “precisely what the First Amendment protects,” including insults, charges of misconduct and attacks on a sitting member of Congress. “The public is allowed to and is protected when it criticizes — even in the harshest terms — people serving in public office,” he added.
Is Twitter responsible for mean tweets posted on the platform?
In 1996, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act, providing broad protection for materials posted on the Internet, including social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook. Under Section 230 of the Act, these tech giants are viewed as distributors, not publishers, and are shielded from liability.
“Unless the platform is actually a co-creator of the content, it’s simply distributing,” Stuart Karle, former general counsel for the Wall Street Journal and the former chief operating officer of Reuters News, told The Post.
Generally, a site would not be responsible for a user who posts objectionable content; inviting and encouraging users to post is not usually viewed as contributing content. Courts look to whether the host has acted as a neutral middleman, or if it created or disseminated the information. If it turns out to be the latter, the court could hold the platform liable.
Nunes’ possible ulterior motive
What’s the end game?
Even if Nunes loses the lawsuit and appeal, Karle theorized, the congressman is creating an opening for the Supreme Court to reconsider defamation of public officials and overturn the statute passed by Congress.
As a lawmaker, Nunes is uniquely positioned to change the law by introducing legislation.
“For a congressman to complain that Twitter should be liable when that plainly isn’t the law . . . it looks like someone who wants to take this up for law reform,” Karle said. “He’s beginning the legal process to redo the jurisprudence.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...rical-cow-over-mean-tweets-does-he-have-case/
I wouldn’t put it past the butt snorkeler.
Nunes didn’t exactly get re-elected in a landslide, so it’s entirely reasonable to believe many in your district concur with the humorous pic I included in my last post.
