Paul loses expedited discovery motion against NH4Liberty - Huntsman false flag video

[slacker921]

Ron Paul Campaign Gets a Lesson on Civil Liberties

Ron Paul's presidential campaign has been having a rough go of it: He has yet to win a Republican state primary or caucus. But now his campaign's also-ran streak extends into the courtroom too, in a victory for the right to anonymous free speech.

A California federal magistrate denied the Paul campaign's effort to unmask "NHLiberty4Paul," the anonymous poster of a YouTube video that purported to be a pro-Paul advertisement but, according to the Paul campaign, was actually an effort to smear him. In a somewhat narrower ruling than free speech advocates would desire, Chief Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that the Paul campaign had failed to establish a valid complaint under the Lanham Act, as it had been attempting, and thus was ineligible for the expedited discovery it sought to determine NHLiberty4Paul's identity.

read more..

 

[kathy88]

Bet Huntsman's daughters are breathing a sigh of relief.

 

[Tyler_Durden]

Interesting. I wonder how much the Huntsmans paid the Judge.....jussayin..

 

[opinionatedfool]

Bet Huntsman's daughters are breathing a sigh of relief.

I'm sure that's why he dropped out.

 

[coffeewithchess]

Perhaps we can get lucky, and WikiLeaks will have stumbled upon some files for us...that get released one day.

 

[Diashi]

Bummer. The truth is that the video itself wasn't a big deal until the media blew it up out of proportion. And there's enough evidence out there to heavily suggest it was a Huntsman supporter or even someone in his own family.

I would have liked to see a section of Anonymous take this on when it was relevant back then. Time to let this this whole thing pass.

 

[coffeewithchess]

Bummer. The truth is that the video itself wasn't a big deal until the media blew it up out of proportion.

That alone is all the proof I need. Out of the MILLIONS of YouTube videos, and the THOUSANDS of political videos uploaded every single week...that ONE video somehow made news, and made LOTS of news?
That ONE video made news after Huntsman promised a surprise was coming for RP, yet his daughters/campaign didn't "officially" release another video after he made that statement against RP?
The first fingerprints linking back to that video were from the very same Twitter accounts, and Huntsman site, that were "pro-Huntsman"?

I wish a Google employee would just leak it for us.

 

[Pisces]

Does the fact that the campaign wasn't granted expedited discovery really mean they lost the case? Or does it just mean that they won't be able to find out who made the video as quickly as they would like? I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure what this means.

 

[Capp]

This is a huge positive for the Huntsman campaign! If it got out, man oh man would his chances of winning fall to almost nothing.

In other words...what is the point at this stage? It is not even worth the court filing fee against Ron Paul's tightening budget. Even if the courts ruled in his favor, which they couldn't...sorry this was the correct ruling....and it WAS Huntsman's daughters, it wouldn't get Ron Paul even one more vote.

 

[gerryb]

In other words...what is the point at this stage? It is not even worth the court filing fee against Ron Paul's tightening budget. .

To prevent Huntsman from entering politics against a liberty candidate in the future.

 

[MRoCkEd]

Great news. Glad liberty prevailed in the rare case where Paul was on the wrong side of a dispute.

 

[Barrex]

Hm.... I am from Croatia and I dont agree....
Your freedom of speech doesnt mean freedom to lie and smear me..... Like I said I am from Croatia and we got different wievs on this than people in US.

 

[slacker921]

In other words...what is the point at this stage?

To show that the media lied to the American people yet again.

To show that the Huntsman girls did it.

To let the people of New Hampshire know that they were duped.

To force the Huntsman girls to apologize on national tv or go through an expensive lawsuit.

To get media attention since Paul is only getting 4%.

To give Paul supporters some tiny amount of justice for being painted as a bunch of racists by the media.



--- This wasn't the action of an anonymous individual on the Internet who should be protected. This was the action of one political campaign against another and we will see more of it in the near future now that it's clear that there is no punishment for this type of attack.

 

[digitaldean]

This video was made by Huntsman in response to Ron Paul's tweet about him.

 

[musicmax]

Does the fact that the campaign wasn't granted expedited discovery really mean they lost the case? Or does it just mean that they won't be able to find out who made the video as quickly as they would like? I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure what this means.

I believe the latter, although a previous motion for expedited discovery was also denied so it would be odd if this ruling was simply a restatement of the previous denial.

 

[sailingaway]

Great news. Glad liberty prevailed in the rare case where Paul was on the wrong side of a dispute.

this was about slander and libel, you shouldn't be able to pretend to be associated with someone for character assassination and hide behind anonymity.

 

[coffeewithchess]

To show that the media lied to the American people yet again.

To show that the Huntsman girls did it.

To let the people of New Hampshire know that they were duped.

To force the Huntsman girls to apologize on national tv or go through an expensive lawsuit.

To get media attention since Paul is only getting 4%.

To give Paul supporters some tiny amount of justice for being painted as a bunch of racists by the media.



--- This wasn't the action of an anonymous individual on the Internet who should be protected. This was the action of one political campaign against another and we will see more of it in the near future now that it's clear that there is no punishment for this type of attack.

Yup...not that the media lying to the publics' faces will actually mean/do anything. If you can show the people, repeated lies/mistakes/misrepresentations, and THEY still think Fox News, talk radio, and other stations are A-okay...there's a serious problem with the PEOPLE, as well as the media.

 

[sailingaway]

Hm.... I am from Croatia and I dont agree....
Your freedom of speech doesnt mean freedom to lie and smear me..... Like I said I am from Croatia and we got different wievs on this than people in US.

no, you are absolutely correct. Slander and libel are not protected speech, or we couldn't have slander and libel lawsuits.

 

[coffeewithchess]

no, you are absolutely correct. Slander and libel are not protected speech, or we couldn't have slander and libel lawsuits.

Do you know how few slander/libel cases there are, and how few of the ones that do get a trial, are successful? Not many at all. It is very tough to prove slander/libel before a court/judge.

 

[sailingaway]

Do you know how few slander/libel cases there are, and how few of the ones that do get a trial, are successful? Not many at all. It is very tough to prove slander/libel before a court/judge.

that is besides the point. YOu have to prove the elements of the case, which are knowing falsity, in this case that the person was NOT associated with RP and was pretending to be. The speech is still not protected.