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

[NYgs23]

I agree with the blogger. Ron Paul and his campaign should be expected to respect the right to privacy under any circumstance and the worst thing would be for supporters to Ron Paul to water down the principles of liberty in exchange for political expediency, a pitfall that has killed many an ideological movement.

 

[sailingaway]

there is not right to privacy for trashing someone else falsely. If that is shown, you SHOULD lose your privacy from doing it anonymously. Liberty means responsibility, as well.

 

[coffeewithchess]

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.

Which is more interesting in this case...IF it was a Paul supporter, a REAL Paul supporter, I would think they would have actually come forward by now right?
Can't the media actually do some investigative work on that front? Oh nevermind, the fingerprints all lead back to Huntsman's campaign...

 

[sailingaway]

Which is more interesting in this case...IF it was a Paul supporter, a REAL Paul supporter, I would think they would have actually come forward by now right?
Can't the media actually do some investigative work on that front? Oh nevermind, the fingerprints all lead back to Huntsman's campaign...

Huckabee just two days ago ran it as an example of a bad ad by Ron's PAC (absolute tripe!)

 

[coffeewithchess]

Huckabee just two days ago ran it as an example of a bad ad by Ron's PAC (absolute tripe!)

Oh I know, I was in that thread the instant it was posted...Huckabee is lazy, and outright lies about RP:


But it's okay, he would never lie to my face...and use politics/religion for personal gain.

 

[NYgs23]

there is not right to privacy for trashing someone else falsely. If that is shown, you SHOULD lose your privacy from doing it anonymously. Liberty means responsibility, as well.

As Walter Block points out in Defending the Undefendable, a person does not own his reputation. Therefore, slander cannot be considered an act of aggression. Furthermore, the video in question did not even slander Ron Paul. Technically, it only criticized Huntsman. The fact that the video maker claimed to be a Ron Paul supporter does not equate to slander of Ron Paul.

 

[Schiff_FTW]

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

The plutocracy appreciates your acquiescence.

 

[sailingaway]

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.

It happened after Huntsman's nasty conspiracy ads against Ron made HIS favorables drop and Ron's were going up. this fake video and Huntsmans all over tv crying about it and raising victimization and innuendo to an art form sent Huntsman up and Ron down and there was talk Ron would come in THIRD after this in NH when before he was starting to soar towards Romney's numbers.

It isn't 'no big deal' at all.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

As Walter Block points out in Defending the Undefendable, a person does not own his reputation. Therefore, slander cannot be considered an act of aggression. Furthermore, the video in question did not even slander Ron Paul. Technically, it only criticized Huntsman. The fact that the video maker claimed to be a Ron Paul supporter does not equate to slander of Ron Paul.

This. Saying you own your reputation is to say that you can control the thoughts of others, since your reputation only exists in the minds of other people.

This lawsuit was bad, and I'm glad it was defeated.

 

[sailingaway]

As Walter Block points out in Defending the Undefendable, a person does not own his reputation. Therefore, slander cannot be considered an act of aggression. Furthermore, the video in question did not even slander Ron Paul. Technically, it only criticized Huntsman. The fact that the video maker claimed to be a Ron Paul supporter does not equate to slander of Ron Paul.

'point out' implies it is a fact instead of an opinion I happen to disagree with violently. People such as Ron Paul -- people who actually have integrity, spend their LIVES building their reputation. That has long been recognized, in fact under British common law truth wasn't even a defense to libel.

And the facts demonstrate pretty clearly by the fact that it was a 'blatent' attempt to claim Ron Paul supporter status through the brand new youtube account and Paul related user name, the fact that it was first ever sent to the Huntsmans and the fact that it was first time ever viewed by the Huntsman's web page link, that it was someone PRETENDING to be a Ron Paul supporter in order to smear Ron Paul. There is no other rational explanation. That is intentional defamation by association.

And what is more IT WORKED if you looked at their respective polls leading up to and after this event.

 

[TheGrinch]

user deleted. I'll stop pretending to act like a lawyer now

 

[specsaregood]

They didn't lose the case, they lost the request for "expedited discovery".
Also, worth noting is the footnote:

5 Although the Court does not analyze Plaintiff’s claim for libel and defamation, the claim
appears on its face to be plausible and well pled. Plaintiff’s decision to not pursue this claim in state
court and instead assert novel trademark claims that appear to have never previously been addressed
by the federal courts requires this Court to first be satisfied that they are viable claims before
permitting expedited discovery.

the only reason it was denied was this was a first attempt at this type of case and their arguments weren't solid enough to expedite it.

 

[sailingaway]

They didn't lose the case, they lost the request for "expedited discovery".
Also, worth noting is the footnote:


the only reason it was denied was this was a first attempt at this type of case and their arguments weren't solid enough to expedite it.

Good.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

there is not right to privacy for trashing someone else falsely. If that is shown, you SHOULD lose your privacy from doing it anonymously. Liberty means responsibility, as well.

So the ruling basically allows "EVERYONE" to impersonate or anonymously slander and sabotage any person's campaign and career.

Yeah, it's Liberty and Justice for the connected and establishment criminals... yet I'm sure there have been 1000's of accounts turned over IMMEDIATELY to Federal and State authorities to reveal all their information and hunt the perp(s) down.

THERE IS NO RULE OF JUSTICE

 

[affa]

thread title is incorrect, needs editing.

 

[musicmax]

thread title is incorrect, needs editing.

Yup, both "loses case" and "NH4Liberty" are errors.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I agree with the blogger. Ron Paul and his campaign should be expected to respect the right to privacy under any circumstance and the worst thing would be for supporters to Ron Paul to water down the principles of liberty in exchange for political expediency, a pitfall that has killed many an ideological movement.

Uh-huh, except we're NOT watering down any principles.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

As Walter Block points out in Defending the Undefendable, a person does not own his reputation. Therefore, slander cannot be considered an act of aggression. Furthermore, the video in question did not even slander Ron Paul. Technically, it only criticized Huntsman. The fact that the video maker claimed to be a Ron Paul supporter does not equate to slander of Ron Paul.

Walter Block is using faulty logic by falsely attaching slander to the third person concept of a "reputation." This may be intended to hurt Paul's reputation, but that is beside the point. The reputation is not what is being aggressed against. Paul's CHARACTER is what is being aggressed against. False attacks on your character are not protected speech. Also, the campaign is suing, not prosecuting. The state is not acting as arbiter of morality. It does not determine whether someone's actions are right or wrong and does not judge the person based on their actions. It is only there to act as a moderator between a civil dispute to help the parties involved find a suitable compromise.

Also, all they have to do in this case is prove malicious intent, which, considering the evidence, shouldn't be too hard to do. It doesn't have to specifically be an attack on Paul in order to be an attack on Paul's character.

 

[bobburn]

The idea that one's reputation isn't property is absolute tripe. There would be no chose of action (think claim) if this was true. If one harms, or damages your reputation, they harm something that belongs to you. That is why you can get damages for it--they've damaged your property. Literally centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence back this up.

/lawyer