Paul Campaign Suing Maker of Huntsman False-Flag Video!!

[sailingaway]

I know they're just trying to get the IP to expose the creator.

But I don't really like that he's using the arm of the state to do this when the video, while vile, is free speech. No Ron Paul trademarks are used, and the ad only says to vote for Ron Paul, not that he had any part in creating it.

That isn't true. They use his campaign logo at the end, where it usually would say "I'm Ron Paul and I approve this message" Regardless, many, and I am one of them, consider their reputations their property and willful damage by fraud to someone's reputation to be actionable.

 

[sailingaway]

No it isn't. Calling myself or my Dad a Manchurian Candidate is opinion, and free speech. That's also speculatory.

the faking it as coming from someone else and playing that up in the media is the fraud part.

 

[tremendoustie]

Huntsman never said that Paul's people created it, just that it was stupid and offensive. The supposed source was in the premise of the question from the journalists. He has no affirmative duty to correct their question.

If I hand you a cold drink laced with poison, I'm liable for the damage, even though I never told you it wasn't poison -- you just assumed it. There is a context to actions and words. If Huntsman or his daughters created that ad, their behavior was absolutely fraudulent, and clearly intended to deceive.

 

[sailingaway]

Huntsman never said that Paul's people created it, just that it was stupid and offensive. The supposed source was in the premise of the question from the journalists. He has no affirmative duty to correct their question.

He very clearly implied it was a Paul supporter and went along with the implication by others. A reasonable person would say he intended that message be sent.

 

[kylejack]

That isn't true. They use his campaign logo at the end, where it usually would say "I'm Ron Paul and I approve this message" Regardless, many, and I am one of them, consider their reputations their property and willful damage by fraud to someone's reputation to be actionable.

No, there is no Ron Paul logo. There is a quick flash of Huntsman standing at a podium with his daughter next to him.

 

[sailingaway]

No, there is no Ron Paul logo. There is a quick flash of Huntsman standing at a podium with his daughter next to him.

the version I saw the first day had Ron's logo at the end. Now I'm going to have to go back and look, though. Even without it the 'forPaul' part of the name clearly was an attempt to pin it on Paul and the media all said it was a Paul supporter and Huntsman, knowing that, played to it.

 

[kylejack]

If I hand you a cold drink laced with poison, I'm liable for the damage, even though I never told you it wasn't poison -- you just assumed it. There is a context to actions and words. If Huntsman or his daughters created that ad, their behavior was absolutely fraudulent, and clearly intended to deceive.

If the video was created by someone else, they're now forced to respond to the lawsuit or face possible penalties from the government, when what they did, vile as it was, was an exercise of free speech.

 

[sailingaway]

If the video was created by someone else, they're now forced to respond to the lawsuit or face possible penalties from the government, when what they did, vile as it was, was an exercise of free speech.

slandering someone isn't free speech, in my book. And the implication it was a Paul supporter to associate it with people to hurt them, where no association actually existed, was fraud. You may disagree, but I bet a court won't. And discovery of the creator comes before a court has to rule, in any event.

 

[thoughtomator]

with liberty comes the responsibility to respect the liberty of others

A breach of another's liberty is most definitely an actionable tort... libertarianism is not lawlessness, it's a minimalist framework for resolving disputes without violence.

 

[TheTexan]

The campaign probably knows somehow that Huntsman's camp was behind it. Otherwise I don't think they'd bother with a lawsuit.

 

[TheViper]

If the video was created by someone else, they're now forced to respond to the lawsuit or face possible penalties from the government, when what they did, vile as it was, was an exercise of free speech.

No, it was fraud. The intent of the video was to harm the Ron Paul campaign. The medium used is irrelevant. Speech, written, video, music, doesn't matter how it was portrayed. Fact of the matter is that someone did X for the purpose of harming the campaign under a false premise.

 

[sailingaway]

with liberty comes the responsibility to respect the liberty of others

A breach of another's liberty is most definitely an actionable tort... libertarianism is not lawlessness, it's a minimalist framework for resolving disputes without violence.

I'll go further and say if it is a requirement to be libertarian that you have to let other people maliciously trash your reputation fraudulently, I have no interest in being libertarian. In any event, I fully support the law suit.

 

[AngelClark]

http://exm.nr/wmT6CW - here's my copy of the same story. Remember how Huntsman complained that everyone was just too mean to each other? Won't it be great if this lawsuit forces out the truth?

Wanted to get the word out before I go onto my SOPA blackout.

 

[kylejack]

slandering someone isn't free speech, in my book.

It's all hedged in opinion anyway. There may be people out there legitimately uncomfortable with Huntsman's connection to China.

And the implication it was a Paul supporter to associate it with people to hurt them, where no association actually existed, was fraud.

You don't know if the creator is a Paul supporter, and it isn't right to initiate force against someone who is engaging in free speech. Furthermore, "Paul supporter" is not an identifiable person who has been slandered. The ad doesn't claim to speak for all Ron Paul supporters, only for this particular one.

 

[TheViper]

Malicious intent under false premise = fraud.

I'll keep posting this if I have to.

 

[TheTexan]

Coulda been the Newter behind it also for all we know.

 

[kylejack]

No, it was fraud. The intent of the video was to harm the Ron Paul campaign.

Harming the Ron Paul campaign by exercising free speech (even with misguided opinions) isn't a crime. If it was we could put a lot of people in jail.

The medium used is irrelevant. Speech, written, video, music, doesn't matter how it was portrayed. Fact of the matter is that someone did X for the purpose of harming the campaign under a false premise.

Remembering that we were talking about if the video was created by someone else other than Huntsman etc., I think you're going to have a hard time proving the false premise, that the person doesn't support Ron Paul. They can claim they support whatever is convenient for the suit.

 

[RockEnds]

The maker of the video was free to speak. The campaign is free to sue. The court is free to make a decision.

 

[sailingaway]

Coulda been the Newter behind it also for all we know.

I'm not interested in speculating who it was, I just know it wasn't us, and I am glad the campaign is moving to reveal the real culprit.

 

[kylejack]

I'll go further and say if it is a requirement to be libertarian that you have to let other people maliciously trash your reputation fraudulently, I have no interest in being libertarian.

You don't have to let it go unanswered (we're all entitled to use free speech), but you can't initiate force.