PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Ron Paul sues for defamation


orange
01-29-2012, 06:01 PM
LOL - Huntsman supporters create anti-Huntsman ad and post it as Ron Paul supporters

Pretty slick idea, but a very dirty tactic.

Ron Paul vs. Jon Huntsman Attack Video: Is This the Future of Campaign Ads?
The Paul campaign has filed a federal lawsuit against an anonymous person who uploaded a hurtful video of rival Jon Huntsman.

12:40 AM PST 1/19/2012 by Eriq Gardner


The presidential campaign of Ron Paul has filed a federal lawsuit against anonymous individuals who uploaded a video to the Internet attacking former presidential contender Jon Huntsman. The video in question purported to come from New Hampshire supporters of Paul and suggested that Huntsman, a former U.S. ambassador to China, was a "Manchurian Candidate." Paul is suing for defamation, false advertising and false designation of origin in violation of the Lanham Act in what could be an interesting lawsuit to follow.

Last Week TV attack ads are not unusual in electorial politics. But the commercial (below) was particularly nasty, leading Huntsman to address the video on the New Hampshire stump last week. "If someone wants to poke fun at me, that's OK," he said. "What I object to is bringing forward pictures and videos of my adopted daughters and suggesting there's something sinister there."

Paul also came out against the ad and bristled at suggestions that anybody in his campaign was behind it.

Some have made the suggestion that the attack ad was a "false flag," put up by Huntsman's campaign itself in order to gather sympathy, a conspiracy theory that's gained steam upon word that the first referral to the video came from jon2012.com, the website of the Huntsman campaign.

No matter who was behind it, Paul has filed a suit that says, "This is a classic case of dirty politics resulting in the unlawful use in commerce of an underhanded and deceptive advertisement designed to tarnish Plaintiff's reputation, to interfere with its consulting and information dissemination services, and to hinder its efforts to raise funds for and promote Dr. Ron Paul's candidacy for President of the United States."

The lawsuit raises many curiosities. Here's our big questions and some insight from Rebecca Tushnet, a Georgetown University law professor who writes a blog about false advertising:

* Jurisdictional: Why has Paul, the libertarian candidate from Texas who wants to return power back to the states, chosen a federal court in San Francisco to pursue a video that purports to come from New Hampshire?
"Normally, defamation claims are usually brought in the state a plaintiff resides or has a valid interest," says Tushnet. "In theory, you can sue wherever you experience harm."

Tushnet speculates that Paul brought the lawsuit in San Francisco in the interest of serving a subpoena on Bay Area-based Google to identify who uploaded the video to YouTube.

* The Lanham Act: Do political candidates have the ability to exploit a provision of trademark law to shut down statements made by others that creates a false and misleading suggestion of an endorsement?
"The question (of using false advertising laws to shut down speech) is coming up again and again these days," says Tushnet. "Sometimes, you don't like the friends you have. Although trademark owners don't like that, I think in a free society, it's hard to argue that saying that you like me creates the appearance of a false endorsement from me."

Tushnet adds that Paul's complaint lacks a solid argument that there was commercial activity involved. Political campaigns aren't corporations and usually don't hold trademarks, after all.

"Perhaps if he's soliciting money for himself, then there's a reasonable case that he shouldn't be doing that," says Tushnet. "But if he's asking for money to be sent to Ron Paul, or not soliciting anything but the idea that you shouldn't vote for the other guy, that's not a commercial advertisement in the traditional sense."

* Defamation: In an era where nasty campaign advertisements fly, what's the liabilty for making false statements with malice? And if dirty tricks are involved, does misrepresenting the speaker of a statement constitute injury?
To the latter question, Tushnet says she isn't sure. (This is one of the reasons why this case is fascinating.)

But Tushnet does caution that in defamation cases, "the fact that it has not come up before is usually bad for plaintiffs as courts are usually leery about extending the law to unprecedented claims."

more: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/gop-ron-paul-jon-huntsman-internet-attack-283026

The complaint: http://www.mediafire.com/?7wsaaa1u4z770cw
Public Citizen amicus brief: http://www.citizen.org/documents/Ron-Paul-Presidential-Campaign-Committee-v-Does-Amicus.pdf

notes: (1) so NOW he cares about his views being misrepresented? LMAO
(2) life imitates art animosity - Paul's lawyers are ARENT FOX, LLP ROFL

http://images.art.com/images/products/regular/12444000/12444276.jpg

orange
01-29-2012, 06:03 PM
Sunday, January 29, 2012 11:27 EST 39

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Citizen and the American Civil Liberties Union have told a federal district court that the presidential campaign of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) should not be able to unmask an anonymous YouTube user who uploaded an offensive video attacking Jon Huntsman.

The amateur-looking video, titled “Jon Huntsman’s Values,” suggested the former candidate lacked American values based on his time spent abroad and the adoption of children from India and China. The video was uploaded by a user named “NHLiberty4Paul.” A corresponding Twitter account publicized the video on January 4, the day both accounts were created and the video was uploaded.

The video was reported by Breitbart.tv, RedState, Mediaite and several other media outlets, some of which implied it was an official video of Paul’s campaign. Soon afterward, Paul disavowed the video.


In a complaint filed January 13, Paul asserted that the use of his name infringed his trademark and defamed him by improperly implying that he was behind it. The campaign has moved to identify the anonymous YouTube user, and seeks to have the video removed from the web and for the user to be prohibited from ever using Paul’s name.

But Public Citizen, the EFF, and the ACLU said in an amicus brief (PDF) that the YouTube user has a First Amendment right to speak anonymously and cannot be subpoenaed unless the complaint produces evidence showing that there is a realistic chance that the lawsuit will be successful. The brief also argued that trademark law does not allow lawsuits over purely noncommercial political speech.

“I do not doubt that Paul has suffered abuse at the hands of his electoral adversaries over this video, condemning him for the actions of putative supporters, and perhaps he has concluded that the best way to show his disapproval of the video is to sue its makers,” said Paul Alan Levy, a Public Citizen attorney who specializes in Internet free speech.

“But if Paul sets a new standard, that the only way you can distance yourself from obnoxious statements by your putative supporters is to sue them on trademark and defamation grounds, on the theory that they have unlawfully associated you with their obnoxious views, Paul will have done serious damage to liberty.”

read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/29/ron-paul-seeks-to-unmask-youtube-user-who-uploaded-offensive-huntsman-ad/

Chocolate Hog
01-29-2012, 06:04 PM
Oh hey another bash Ron Paul thread. Cool.

Dave Lane
01-29-2012, 06:08 PM
Oh hey another bash Ron Paul thread. Cool.

Really what's the point? Talking about beating a dead horse.

Has RP1 quit yet?

orange
01-29-2012, 06:08 PM
Oh hey another bash Ron Paul thread. Cool.

Any more fundamental rights under assault by Ron Paul today? Or should we wait a couple days?

p.s. Very amusing that our Paul fans didn't post this story. Almost like they're hiding.

orange
01-29-2012, 06:10 PM
Really what's the point? Talking about beating a dead horse.

Another Ron Paulist defending liberty, I see.

The point is this goes way beyond Ron Paul. This would have implications on all political speech.

BucEyedPea
01-29-2012, 06:11 PM
Since when does free speech protect defamation? NEVER!

Hiding? Never even saw the story anywhere. LOL at the innuendo and accusations. Someone sounds more and more like the NeoCons these days.

orange
01-29-2012, 06:12 PM
Hiding? Never even saw the story anywhere. LOL at the innuendo and accusations. Someone sounds more and more like the NeoCons these days.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?352307-Paul-Campaign-Suing-Maker-of-Huntsman-False-Flag-Video!!/page43

429 posts and counting.

GOOGLE "ron paul defamation suit huntsman" http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=iw#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=webhp&source=hp&q=ron+paul+defamation+suit+huntsman&pbx=1&oq=ron+paul+defamation+suit+huntsman&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=129l330l0l2199l5l3l0l0l0l0l754l754l6-1l1l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=457fd372e817662b&biw=1264&bih=817

927,000 results

BucEyedPea
01-29-2012, 06:13 PM
So that means all Paul supporters saw it? If you really read what I said, I said "never saw it anywhere" for myself.

As to that link—YAWN! Why do you spend so much time there, orange? Are you a closet Paulie? Sounds it.

orange
01-29-2012, 06:21 PM
Since when does free speech protect defamation? NEVER!

Sue For Libel? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block124.html)
Walter Block on lewrockwell.com

"Given that I cannot sue for libel as a libertarian, is there anything else I can do to bring these harassers down a peg or two?"

Taco John
01-29-2012, 06:23 PM
Any more fundamental rights under assault by Ron Paul today? Or should we wait a couple days?

p.s. Very amusing that our Paul fans didn't post this story. Almost like they're hiding.


Hiding what? I think it's a great move that they've sued, and I'm looking forward to the revelation of who actually created the video.

orange
01-29-2012, 06:24 PM
Why do you spend so much time there, orange?

I have to go there since what's posted here is whitewashed by his three-monkeys CP fans.

orange
01-29-2012, 06:34 PM
Hiding what? I think it's a great move that they've sued, and I'm looking forward to the revelation of who actually created the video.

You're going to have to wait a while, it appears.

Judge: Ron Paul Can’t Force Twitter, YouTube To Identify ‘Impostors’

Submitted by The Daily Paul another Ron Paul fan site that's right on top of this unlike CP on Sat, 01/28/2012 - 08:10
in Ron Paul 2012

32 votes

Ron Paul’s campaign suffered a setback this week in its effort to identify who uploaded videos that appear to show the presidential candidate bashing a former rival’s ties to China.

A federal judge yesterday refused the campaign’s request for an order that would have forced YouTube (NSDQ: GOOG) and Twitter to disclose details about “NHLiberty4Paul.” That name is associated with a Twitter and YouTube handle, likely from New Hampshire, that issued messages suggesting former Republican candidate Jon Huntsman is a Chinese agent.

Continue reading... (http://paidcontent.org/article/419-judge-ron-paul-cant-force-twitter-youtube-to-identify-impostors/)

http://www.dailypaul.com/209124/judge-ron-paul-can-t-force-twitter-youtube-to-identify-impostors


p.s. You should tell Bo's Pelini and Dave Lane to get onboard; they think reporting this is detrimental to Ron Paul.

AustinChief
01-29-2012, 06:48 PM
If this is 100% true and there isn't more than what appears on the surface... then Ron Paul is a giant hypocrite and a complete douchebag for this move.

I actually was planning on giving him my "protest vote" before this, now I hope he fucking falls and breaks a hip.

Completely indefensible that he signed off on this.

Chocolate Hog
01-29-2012, 06:49 PM
If this is 100% true and there isn't more than what appears on the surface... then Ron Paul is a giant hypocrite and a complete douchebag for this move.

I actually was planning on giving him my "protest vote" before this, now I hope he ****ing falls and breaks a hip.

Completely indefensible that he signed off on this.

How many times are you going to tell us you were about to vote for him only to tell us you aren't now?

Taco John
01-29-2012, 06:50 PM
If this is 100% true and there isn't more than what appears on the surface... then Ron Paul is a giant hypocrite and a complete douchebag for this move.

I actually was planning on giving him my "protest vote" before this, now I hope he ****ing falls and breaks a hip.

Completely indefensible that he signed off on this.

You're absolutely unhinged. It's pretty humorous that such insignificant things make you flip out so wildly.

For you to put any stock of your vote in this little side issue is pretty ridiculous.

Iowanian
01-29-2012, 06:53 PM
so ronpaul wants to infringe on the creators civil liberties and rights to say whatever they want?

He should practice being an isolationist since filing this suit is essentially him waging a war.

i am diss-a-point.

AustinChief
01-29-2012, 06:54 PM
You're absolutely unhinged. It's actually kind of humorous that such insignificant things make you flip out so wildly.

Insignificant? One of the largest things RP had going for him was a CONSISTENT libertarian message. This completely undermines that. This is an affront to the ideals he is supposed to represent.

I can't imagine how you can't see that?

unlike you, I am not "unhinged" I am just flexible enough to look at a new FACT and adjust my opinion based on it. As I stated, IF this is a FACT it completely changes my opinion of the man.

BucEyedPea
01-29-2012, 06:54 PM
I have to go there since what's posted here is whitewashed by his three-monkeys CP fans.

Deep hidden closet love for Paul supporters is close to the truth.

BucEyedPea
01-29-2012, 06:55 PM
Insignificant? One of the largest things RP had going for him was a CONSISTENT libertarian message. This completely undermines that. This is an affront to the ideals he is supposed to represent.

I can't imagine how you can't see that?

unlike you, I am not "unhinged" I am just flexible enough to look at a new FACT and adjust my opinion based on it. As I stated, IF this is a FACT it completely changes my opinion of the man.

What is hypocritical about libertarianism on this?

AustinChief
01-29-2012, 06:57 PM
How many times are you going to tell us you were about to vote for him only to tell us you aren't now?

I had settled down from before and was ok with separating his mouth breathing tinfoil wearing supporters from the actual man himself. I don't think I have ever said much in the way of complaints against HIM until now.

This is a pretty huge deal and if you won't admit it, then you are just as bad as the blind Obama supporters who make excuses for his abortion of a presidency.

I love that I am the outcast because I am willing to shift my support when new FACTS arise.

Taco John
01-29-2012, 06:57 PM
You're going to have to wait a while, it appears.

Judge: Ron Paul Can’t Force Twitter, YouTube To Identify ‘Impostors’

Submitted by The Daily Paul another Ron Paul fan site that's right on top of this unlike CP on Sat, 01/28/2012 - 08:10
in Ron Paul 2012

32 votes

Ron Paul’s campaign suffered a setback this week in its effort to identify who uploaded videos that appear to show the presidential candidate bashing a former rival’s ties to China.

A federal judge yesterday refused the campaign’s request for an order that would have forced YouTube (NSDQ: GOOG) and Twitter to disclose details about “NHLiberty4Paul.” That name is associated with a Twitter and YouTube handle, likely from New Hampshire, that issued messages suggesting former Republican candidate Jon Huntsman is a Chinese agent.

Continue reading... (http://paidcontent.org/article/419-judge-ron-paul-cant-force-twitter-youtube-to-identify-impostors/)

http://www.dailypaul.com/209124/judge-ron-paul-can-t-force-twitter-youtube-to-identify-impostors


p.s. You should tell Bo's Pelini and Dave Lane to get onboard; they think reporting this is detrimental to Ron Paul.

That's unfortunate. I hope they continue to pursue this thing.

The rest can take the lawsuit however they want. I fully support this effort. Why should people be able to post anonymous campaign videos that defame candidates? It's one thing for the Huntsman campaign to make this video and post it, but what happens when a real, moneyed organization does the same thing? I could easily see an organized Obama PAC or Gingrich PAC making anonymous support videos that defame the other and distorts the process.

I'm all for free speech, but I don't believe there's such a thing as freedom of defamation.

orange
01-29-2012, 06:58 PM
this little side issue

This is not a "little side issue." This could be the only thing of significance to come out of his campaign, which is just a lark otherwise.

I don't have an example of your own invective ready to hand, but let's take another poster for example.

Let's say the Catholic Church decides to sue ChiefsPlanet to retrieve identifying information about Dave Lane so they can sue him for his defamatory posts using a successful Ron Paul vs. NHLiberty4Paul as precedent - is this a good thing or a bad thing?

Taco John
01-29-2012, 06:58 PM
I love that I am the outcast because I am willing to shift my support when new FACTS arise.

What are you even talking about? :LOL:

BucEyedPea
01-29-2012, 07:00 PM
Sue For Libel? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block124.html)
Walter Block on lewrockwell.com

"Given that I cannot sue for libel as a libertarian, is there anything else I can do to bring these harassers down a peg or two?"

So. You think all libertarians agree on that? Remember many of them are anarchist—more so than Ron Paul. Lew doesn't even believe in national borders but Paul does. Yet Lew still supports Ron Paul. Lew and many of them who contribute to his site, don't believe in intellectual property protections because it's a monopoly to them. I don't know where Paul is on that but he does support the Constitution, which in his words is "fairly libertarian." Not fully libertarian.

Remember libertarianism is a big tent so long as they support the non-aggression doctrine. There's even left-libertarians who are really communitarians.

That wraps up my orientation on Libertarianisn. Next up: Libertarianism 101. C'ya then.

BucEyedPea
01-29-2012, 07:00 PM
This is not a "little side issue." This could be the only thing of significance to come out of his campaign, which is just a lark otherwise.



LOL:LOL:

Chocolate Hog
01-29-2012, 07:01 PM
I had settled down from before and was ok with separating his mouth breathing tinfoil wearing supporters from the actual man himself. I don't think I have ever said much in the way of complaints against HIM until now.

This is a pretty huge deal and if you won't admit it, then you are just as bad as the blind Obama supporters who make excuses for his abortion of a presidency.

I love that I am the outcast because I am willing to shift my support when new FACTS arise.

Whatever I call candidates out on their bullshit and have pointed out Ron Paul's flaws a number of times. I have no problem with this lawsuit.

BucEyedPea
01-29-2012, 07:03 PM
Meanwhile, liberal-left NBC is suing the Romney campaign for using Brokow's image.

AustinChief
01-29-2012, 07:06 PM
What is hypocritical about libertarianism on this?

Seriously? Why am I not surprised that you can't see it.

RP claims to be against the Federal govt bullying it's citizens and/or invading privacy... yet here he wants to use the Federal courts to essential WRITE NEW LAW that will violate the privacy of an individual who has committed NO CRIME. The guy may be a tool and it's sad that RP got associated with him.. but NOTHING he did was illegal.

The lawsuit is BEYOND ridiculous, and goes against everything a libertarian SHOULD stand for.

orange
01-29-2012, 07:07 PM
So. You think all libertarians agree on that?

Walter Block does. I think he carries a little more weight than BEP, or even the Ron Paul grassroots. Also, see below:


That wraps up my orientation on Libertarianisn. Next up: Libertarianism 101. C'ya then.

You can start with this: Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty, chapter 16 (http://mises.org/rothbard/Ethics/sixteen.asp)

I don't know where Paul is on that but he does support the Constitution ...

Well, not the First Amendment, apparently.

AustinChief
01-29-2012, 07:09 PM
That's unfortunate. I hope they continue to pursue this thing.

The rest can take the lawsuit however they want. I fully support this effort. Why should people be able to post anonymous campaign videos that defame candidates? It's one thing for the Huntsman campaign to make this video and post it, but what happens when a real, moneyed organization does the same thing? I could easily see an organized Obama PAC or Gingrich PAC making anonymous support videos that defame the other and distorts the process.

I'm all for free speech, but I don't believe there's such a thing as freedom of defamation.

HAHAHAHAHA you fucking idiot, you honestly still think that the Huntsman campaign did this?

btw.. if you want a law that makes this illegal, get the LEGISLATURE to write one. As of now this is NOT illegal and the Federal Courts are not there to write new laws.

Taco John
01-29-2012, 07:11 PM
This is not a "little side issue." This could be the only thing of significance to come out of his campaign, which is just a lark otherwise.

I don't have an example of your own invective ready to hand, but let's take another poster for example.

Let's say the Catholic Church decides to sue ChiefsPlanet to retrieve identifying information about Dave Lane so they can sue him for his defamatory posts using a successful Ron Paul vs. NHLiberty4Paul as precedent - is this a good thing or a bad thing?


Good thing or a bad thing is the question?

I guess that depends on how you define good and bad. If Dave Lane infringed on the character of a particular individual, is that good or bad? If Dave Lane was able to do damage to that particular individual without any recourse for that damage to be corrected, is that good or bad? What's the standard that you are using to define "good" and "bad" outcomes in this situation?

I've actually come across a similar situation with the Orange Mane. I was asked by police to hand over user IP and registration records. I said not without a court order. It wasn't important enough for the police department that wanted the information to pursue that court order. If they had, I think I would have complied with the order. The policeman involved had admitted to doing some pretty heinous stuff - stuff that certainly infringed on other people's liberty. I'm very curious about your ethics here. Which is the more ethical path - revealing the identity of the person who infringed on another, or protecting that individual for the sake of anonymity.

I wasn't going to hand over anything without a court order. But once that order was given, I'm having a hard time understanding why it would have been to the benefit to anyone to protect him. It certainly wouldn't have been to the benefit of his victims.

BucEyedPea
01-29-2012, 07:14 PM
Walter Block does. I think he carries a little more weight than BEP, or even the Ron Paul grassroots. Also, see below:




You can start with this: Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty, chapter 16 (http://mises.org/rothbard/Ethics/sixteen.asp)



Well, not the First Amendment, apparently.

Thank you for proving my point. Rothbard is a perfect example of what I posted—not posted because it's just my opinion, but because I know Rothbard turned to anarchy instead of mini-anarchy, eventually. It doesn't matter if you think "I" just think it. I've seen Lew post such things on borders and copyright. I've heard Paul say he supports the border.

EPIC FAIL

Taco John
01-29-2012, 07:14 PM
HAHAHAHAHA you ****ing idiot, you honestly still think that the Huntsman campaign did this?

btw.. if you want a law that makes this illegal, get the LEGISLATURE to write one. As of now this is NOT illegal and the Federal Courts are not there to write new laws.

*shrug* Yes, I do think it was someone connected to the Huntsman campaign. They're the ones that benefited the most from the video, I'm not sure why it's such a laughable stretch. It's politics, some people play dirty. No skin off my back that you believe otherwise. I'm a libertarian. I'm well equipped to accept that other people believe differently than I do. I don't need to melt into hysterics when other people don't believe exactly as I wish they would.

I don't think inventing new laws is necessary to handle this situation. I think the courts are well equipped for this one. It's a simple matter of determining whether there was an infringement, and then determining who did the infringing. Why should the legislature get involved?

orange
01-29-2012, 07:15 PM
The policeman involved had admitted to doing some pretty heinous stuff - stuff that certainly infringed on other people's liberty.

"pretty heinous stuff" = "publishing something that reflects poorly on a political candidate"?

I think it's very, very easy to differentiate between (beating a suspect or planting a gun on him et al) on the one hand and (publishing something a candidate doesn't like) on the other.

HonestChieffan
01-29-2012, 07:15 PM
Good lord

AustinChief
01-29-2012, 07:16 PM
Whatever I call candidates out on their bullshit and have pointed out Ron Paul's flaws a number of times. I have no problem with this lawsuit.

Good for you on pointing out RPs flaws... but you should be ASHAMED of supporting this lawsuit.

Let's say you run a Catholic organisation and you support Obama and make some ads and flyers and hold some events... Let's say Obama is extremely anti-Catholic... should he then be able to SUE you for supporting him? Of course not, it's ridiculous.

I know what TJ will claim... he will claim that the person isn't being sued for supporting Ron Paul.. he is being sued because it was a conspiracy meant to make Ron Paul look bad... even though there is ZERO evidence of that. ZERO. Of course maybe I am not wearing my tinfoil hat correctly and the alien Illuminati have erased the super secret facts from my head that now only TJ has access to.

AustinChief
01-29-2012, 07:17 PM
This is not a "little side issue." This could be the only thing of significance to come out of his campaign, which is just a lark otherwise.

I don't have an example of your own invective ready to hand, but let's take another poster for example.

Let's say the Catholic Church decides to sue ChiefsPlanet to retrieve identifying information about Dave Lane so they can sue him for his defamatory posts using a successful Ron Paul vs. NHLiberty4Paul as precedent - is this a good thing or a bad thing?

HA, just saw this.. I used a similar analogy.

Taco John
01-29-2012, 07:23 PM
"pretty heinous stuff" = "publishing something that reflects poorly on a political candidate"?

I think it's very, very easy to differentiate between (beating a suspect or planting a gun on him et al) on the one hand and (publishing something a candidate doesn't like) on the other.

I don't follow. Your telling me there's a degree in which anonymous infringement of someone else's life, liberty, or property is acceptable? I'm ok to defame people anonymously so long as I don't draw blood?

AustinChief
01-29-2012, 07:24 PM
I don't think inventing new laws is necessary to handle this situation. I think the courts are well equipped for this one. It's a simple matter of determining whether there was an infringement, and then determining who did the infringing. Why should the legislature get involved?

Then you are woefully ignorant of the law in this case.

Taco John
01-29-2012, 07:28 PM
Good for you on pointing out RPs flaws... but you should be ASHAMED of supporting this lawsuit.

Let's say you run a Catholic organisation and you support Obama and make some ads and flyers and hold some events... Let's say Obama is extremely anti-Catholic... should he then be able to SUE you for supporting him? Of course not, it's ridiculous.

I know what TJ will claim... he will claim that the person isn't being sued for supporting Ron Paul.. he is being sued because it was a conspiracy meant to make Ron Paul look bad... even though there is ZERO evidence of that. ZERO. Of course maybe I am not wearing my tinfoil hat correctly and the alien Illuminati have erased the super secret facts from my head that now only TJ has access to.

You've never answered who did it. You've never bothered to even try. Ron Paul supporters don't anonymously support Ron Paul. They boldly do it. No one came out and admitted it. Given the stats trail and given the fact that it most benefitted the Huntsman campaign, I think you'd have to be naive to think it came from anywhere else. Given those facts and given that nobody knows where that video came from, I'm kind of surprised that you're so hysterical about anyone suggesting that where there is smoke there is fire.

But whatever. Like I say, I'm equipped to accept that other people can reasonably believe differently than I do. I have no reason to melt into hysterical hyperbole over it.

AustinChief
01-29-2012, 07:29 PM
I don't follow. Your telling me there's a degree in which anonymous infringement of someone else's life, liberty, or property is acceptable? I'm ok to defame people anonymously so long as I don't draw blood?

Where does he DEFAME Ron Paul (which btw is not at all enough to make this a Federal case)? All that the video says is "vote for Ron Paul". That is it. You will be hard pressed to find a "guilt by association" precedent for you spurious defamation claim.

Taco John
01-29-2012, 07:29 PM
Let's say you run a Catholic organisation and you support Obama and make some ads and flyers and hold some events... Let's say Obama is extremely anti-Catholic... should he then be able to SUE you for supporting him? Of course not, it's ridiculous.




This is not at all what is happening here.

orange
01-29-2012, 07:33 PM
I don't follow. Your telling me there's a degree in which anonymous infringement of someone else's life, liberty, or property is acceptable? I'm ok to defame people anonymously so long as I don't draw blood?

First, Paul's "life, liberty, or property" has barely been infringed; in fact, according to Block, Rothbard et al., it hasn't been infringed at all.

Publishing a poster's identity is certainly an infringement - then add in the huge financial penalties Ron Paul is seeking in this case.

Furthermore, political speech has always been a protected class in America; this case seeks to turn that on its head, not by extending the extra protection to other speech but by removing it from political speech. Talk about the world turned upsidedown!

AustinChief
01-29-2012, 07:35 PM
You've never answered who did it. You've never bothered to even try. Ron Paul supporters don't anonymously support Ron Paul. They boldly do it. No one came out and admitted it. Given the stats trail and given the fact that it most benefitted the Huntsman campaign, I think you'd have to be naive to think it came from anywhere else. Given those facts and given that nobody knows where that video came from, I'm kind of surprised that you're so hysterical about anyone suggesting that where there is smoke there is fire.

But whatever. Like I say, I'm equipped to accept that other people can reasonably believe differently than I do. I have no reason to melt into hysterical hyperbole over it.
My God what is wrong with you. "given those facts"? WHAT FACTS? The complete LACK of facts? Using your 3rd grade "logic" I can make up any crazy claim and say that you don't have FACTS saying otherwise so I must be right!

Here is your logic. Killing JFK was good for LBJ. There is ZERO proof that LBJ had JFK killed... but because I WANT to believe he did and YOU can't prove he didn't, he probably did.

orange
01-29-2012, 07:35 PM
No one came out and admitted it.

No one admitted it because it blew up in his face. And the fact that it was clumsy and counterproductive is no clue whatsoever to whodunnit.

AustinChief
01-29-2012, 07:40 PM
This is not at all what is happening here.

It is EXACTLY what is happening. Some person claims to support Ron Paul and made a video expressing his opinion and support. Ron Paul doesn't like the video and sues because he doesn't want to be associated with it. Boo fucking hoo. Your "right" to not be associated with dipshits does NOT trump the dipshits' rights to privacy.

Psyko Tek
01-29-2012, 07:49 PM
wait
this is ron paul filing a suit attaching huntsman?


I am drunk and stupid right now
but a guy fighting against his own PAC
OUTSTANDING

BucEyedPea
01-29-2012, 07:50 PM
"pretty heinous stuff" = "publishing something that reflects poorly on a political candidate"?

I think it's very, very easy to differentiate between (beating a suspect or planting a gun on him et al) on the one hand and (publishing something a candidate doesn't like) on the other.

That's not what it was. It also smacks of impersonation and fraud. Besides, it's his campaign committee is suing. They must have wanted to find who the creator was. BFD!


The complaint for false designation, false advertising and defamation seeks unspecified punitive damages and a court order barring use of Paul’s name and trademarks and requiring the video to be taken down and destroyed.

The case is Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee Inc. v. John Does, 12-cv-00240, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-19/ron-paul-presidential-campaign-sues-anti-huntsman-video-s-makers.html

15 U.S.C. § 1125 : US Code - Section 1125: False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/15/22/III/1125

(a) Civil action
(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or
services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word,
term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any
false designation of origin, false or misleading description of
fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which -
(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to
deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such
person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or
approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities
by another person, or
(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the
nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his
or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial
activities,
shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that
he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.


Looks like the dude BROKE a LAW to me!

Johnny Vegas
01-29-2012, 07:53 PM
there are plenty of defamation suits involving nobodies to politicians. why is this such a big deal that its Paul? who gives a fuck. thats a statement not a question.

Psyko Tek
01-29-2012, 07:58 PM
Seriously? Why am I not surprised that you can't see it.

RP claims to be against the Federal govt bullying it's citizens and/or invading privacy... yet here he wants to use the Federal courts to essential WRITE NEW LAW that will violate the privacy of an individual who has committed NO CRIME. The guy may be a tool and it's sad that RP got associated with him.. but NOTHING he did was illegal.

The lawsuit is BEYOND ridiculous, and goes against everything a libertarian SHOULD stand for.

sir, I disagree
his name has been used in attacking someone else
either he sues or calls a duel
and you cannot duel with a PAC


Andy Jackson says we need more duels

I am an asshole an I approve of this message
Psyko
Tek

AustinChief
01-29-2012, 08:05 PM
sir, I disagree
his name has been used in attacking someone else
either he sues or calls a duel
and you cannot duel with a PAC


Andy Jackson says we need more duels

I am an asshole an I approve of this message
Psyko
Tek

HA. except this wasn't a PAC. We have no clue who it was that posted it. AND It doesn't claim to be an official Ron Paul supported video. The ONLY mention of Ron Paul at all is at the very end there is one line that says "Vote for Ron Paul"

You may as well sue the KKK for endorsing a candidate or the Black Panthers or ANY group that you find offensive to you.

orange
01-29-2012, 08:05 PM
there are plenty of defamation suits involving nobodies to politicians.

Examples?


why is this such a big deal that its Paul?

Ron Paul, January 18, 2012

"My campaign, and the entire freedom movement, would not be as strong as they are today without a free Internet, and that's just one of the reasons why the establishment hopes to censor it with SOPA and PIPA. I'm proud to see so many taking a stand today. Contact your representative and senators and tell them to oppose these disastrous bills."

http://www.facebook.com/ronpaul/posts/10150524635006686

AustinChief
01-29-2012, 08:06 PM
there are plenty of defamation suits involving nobodies to politicians. why is this such a big deal that its Paul? who gives a fuck. thats a statement not a question.

I only care because it is a completely hypocritical stance for Ron Paul to take.

BucEyedPea
01-29-2012, 08:09 PM
Examples?




Ron Paul, January 18, 2012

"My campaign, and the entire freedom movement, would not be as strong as they are today without a free Internet, and that's just one of the reasons why the establishment hopes to censor it with SOPA and PIPA. I'm proud to see so many taking a stand today. Contact your representative and senators and tell them to oppose these disastrous bills."

http://www.facebook.com/ronpaul/posts/10150524635006686

Apples and Oranges. That's copyright infringement which already has laws on the books and cases on the internet that are being nabbed for illegal infringement—just like it did in the old days.

The disagreement over SOPA and PIPA is that the law is too draconian as it punishes any owner of a site for another's infringement forcing them to be policemen on the internet. Goes TOO FAR in that it curbs the freedom of site owners. Your free until you infringe on another's rights. I don't see the Paul campaign suing You Tube over this. Nice try though.

Another strawman by orange.

BucEyedPea
01-29-2012, 08:12 PM
I only care because it is a completely hypocritical stance for Ron Paul to take.

Nope

Have you ever heard Paul say committing fraudulent acts such a false designation as something that people should be free to committ? I haven't. I think you may need to see what Paul's stand is on such matters before you say he's being a hypocrite. There are libertarians who have already said they don't feel Paul is libertarian enough. He's moderately libertarian. He's not like Cato or Reason though.

AustinChief
01-29-2012, 08:26 PM
Nope

Have you ever heard Paul say committing fraudulent acts such a false designation as something that people should be free to committ? I haven't. I think you may need to see what Paul's stand is on such matters before you say he's being a hypocrite. There are libertarians who have already said they don't feel Paul is libertarian enough. He's moderately libertarian. He's not like Cato or Reason though.

This is NOT false designation. WHERE in the video does it say it is endorsed or produced by Ron Paul. This is quite simply an abuse of Federal Court power to try to bully Google and Twitter into giving up the identity info they have(which is probably nothing more then an email address and ip) of who created the video.

It's crap and if you were even remotely intellectually honest, you'd admit it.

Taco John
01-29-2012, 08:27 PM
I only care because it is a completely hypocritical stance for Ron Paul to take.

How so?

AustinChief
01-29-2012, 08:29 PM
How so?

because he want to violate a person's privacy rights without justification... something he is supposed to be against.

Taco John
01-29-2012, 08:30 PM
I can't really understand all the gnashing of teeth here over this. Someone posts a video that defames Huntsman, and by proxy, Paul. The Paul campaign sues in order to clear the air - mostly because they believe the evidence points to a Huntsman surrogate creating the video in a political ploy to garner sympathy votes for Huntsman's desperate campaign. Now which part is the hypocritical part that has sent Orange and AustinChief into hysterics? I don't get it.

Taco John
01-29-2012, 08:31 PM
because he want to violate a person's privacy rights without justification... something he is supposed to be against.

Without justification? Why would they do this if they didn't believe there was justification? People who sue believe that they are due justice - hence the entire reason they are suing. Whether the court agrees with them or not is another matter, but the idea that they aren't due a fair hearing because you don't believe they have any justification isn't much of an idea at all.

AustinChief
01-29-2012, 08:35 PM
Without justification? Why would they do this if they didn't believe there was justification? People who sue believe that they are due justice - hence the entire reason they are suing. Whether the court agrees with them or not is another matter, but the idea that they aren't due a fair hearing because you don't believe they have any justification isn't much of an idea at all.

Me, legal precedent and the ACTUAL LAW all say he has no grounds or justification. His attorneys are trying to shoehorn this in under the Lanham Act, and they will fail unless the court decides to rewrite the meaning of the law. Isn't Ron Paul the one who believes if you are going to violate someone's individual rights, you better have damn good reason to? Maybe I misunderstood him, but that seems to be a pretty significant stance of his. THIS crap, goes against that.

Taco John
01-29-2012, 08:37 PM
Kyle, let me ask you this.

If I went to a Chiefs game carrying a sign that says "Chiefs Planet hates NI66ERS! - www.ChiefsPlanet.com" and I wore a guy fawkes mask, how would you react? Is my right to privacy protected by the medium I've chosen to relay my message? Are people free to do this without any action on your behalf?

I can tell you what I'd do. I'd file suit for defamation and do everything in my power to reveal just who that "supporter" of my site was.

Taco John
01-29-2012, 08:38 PM
Me, legal precedent and the ACTUAL LAW all say he has no grounds or justification. His attorneys are trying to shoehorn this in under the Lanham Act, and they will fail unless the court decides to rewrite the meaning of the law. Isn't Ron Paul the one who believes if you are going to violate someone's individual rights, you better have damn good reason to? Maybe I misunderstood him, but that seems to be a pretty significant stance of his. THIS crap, goes against that.


I think the Paul campaign has very good reason to sue for defamation, as illustrated by my previous post. I see zero hypocrisy in this, and fully support the effort. I'm having a hard time understanding why there is any right to privacy in a situation where you put out a public message that reflects on someone else - especially in a presidential campaign.

Am I to believe that you support the right for PACs to be anonymous?

JohnnyV13
01-29-2012, 08:38 PM
That's not what it was. It also smacks of impersonation and fraud. Besides, it's his campaign committee is suing. They must have wanted to find who the creator was. BFD!




15 U.S.C. § 1125 : US Code - Section 1125: False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/15/22/III/1125

(a) Civil action
(1) Any person who, on or in connection with[ any goods or
services, or any container for goods, uses in commerceany word,
term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any
false designation of origin, false or misleading description of
fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which -
(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to
deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such
person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or
approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities
by another person, or
(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the
nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his
or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial
activities,
shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that
he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.


Looks like the dude BROKE a LAW to me!

That's why you're not a lawyer.

Go look at the FIRST paragraph:

What "good or service" is connected to a political ad? What "commerce" is Ron Paul participating in?

Unless, of course, you want to admit that Ron Paul is bought and is selling his political services to the highest bidder.

The closest "service" involved is perhaps pretending to be part of Ron Paul's campaign committee or a PAC supporting Ron Paul. Of course, that's a bit of a stretch because its pretty clear the intent of the statute is that the ad or the words used are fof the purpose of SELLING a good or service.

In this case the ad itself is the good or service and its not intended to be purchased by anyone who hears it. What is deceptive is the identity of the person supplying the service which created an expression of 1st amendment free speech.


To break this down into "elements", to be liable a person must be:

1) A legal person
2) acting in or on connection with:
a) a good
b) a service
c) a container for goods or services3) must USE IN COMMERCE

(A whole bunch of different kinds of deception I won't bother to break down)

Paul's action has real problems with 3.

AustinChief
01-29-2012, 08:44 PM
Kyle, let me ask you this.

If I went to a Chiefs game carrying a sign that says "Chiefs Planet hates NI66ERS! - www.ChiefsPlanet.com" and I wore a guy fawkes mask, how would you react? Is my right to privacy protected by the medium I've chosen to relay my message? Are people free to do this without any action on your behalf?

I can tell you what I'd do. I'd file suit for defamation and do everything in my power to reveal just who that "supporter" of my site was.

And once again you try to shape the argument into something it is not. There was no link or claim about Ron Paul's belief.

Here is a more accurate example...

If you carried a sign that said "I hate colored folk" while at a Chiefs game and you wore a ChiefsPlanet hat and a Chiefs jersey. It is definitely implied that you are a ChiefsPlanet member and a Chiefs fan and that would make me angry and upset but I certainly wouldn't sue you nor should the Chiefs sue you.

IF the YouTube video had a link to an official site AND a claim to what RON PAUL believes OR a claim to be endorsed by Ron Paul, then you'd have an argument. But this guilt by association nonsense is insane.

Let's go with yet another example... Let's say you wear a shirt that says Vote for Trump 2012 over your robes when you go to a KKK rally that gets televised on CNN. Should Donald Trump be able to sue you?

AustinChief
01-29-2012, 08:50 PM
I think the Paul campaign has very good reason to sue for defamation, as illustrated by my previous post. I see zero hypocrisy in this, and fully support the effort. I'm having a hard time understanding why there is any right to privacy in a situation where you put out a public message that reflects on someone else - especially in a presidential campaign.

Am I to believe that you support the right for PACs to be anonymous?

Gotcha. So the right to privacy isn't a real right when it gets in your way.

Ok so for ONE SECOND take off the tin foil and imagine the following scenario.

Some random crazy person who genuinely supports Ron Paul makes an offensive video that he delusionaly thinks will help Ron Paul. He posts that video and causes a stir that backfires so he goes into hiding. You think it is ok for this person to be stripped of his right to privacy based on what grounds? It sure sounds like the "grounds" you are pointing to are "well, my pet candidate got butt hurt so fuck privacy rights!"

And truth be told, it's not the random moron, it's Google and Twitter who Ron Paul is going up against. Good luck with that.

Taco John
01-29-2012, 09:07 PM
And once again you try to shape the argument into something it is not.


Not at all. Please answer the question. My scenario provides a pretty good metaphor for how the Paul campaign sees this.

Taco John
01-29-2012, 09:09 PM
Gotcha. So the right to privacy isn't a real right when it gets in your way.


I'd like to understand where you are coming from on this. Which part of the bill of rights are you saying protects the right to privacy when making public political statements that reflects on others (and not yourself)?

AustinChief
01-29-2012, 09:12 PM
Not at all. Please answer the question. My scenario provides a pretty good metaphor for how the Paul campaign sees this.

No it doesn't. In your example, you explicitly STATE something that is false about ChiefsPlanet. BUT to answer your question anyway... no I wouldn't sue. I would publicly state that the person does NOT represent the site and that the site condemns his statements. I'd then leave it at that. IF the person continued to falsely portray the site by making FALSE CLAIMS like "Chiefsplanet says/believes/is... this or that" Then I might look into legal action. This person did NOT make a claim as to what Ron Paul believes. It was CLEAR that the video was his opinion on Huntsman and that he (as an individual) supports Ron Paul instead. No links or claims otherwise.

NOW, why don't you address the two examples I gave. The two scenarios that are MUCH closer to what actually happened.

Dave Lane
01-29-2012, 09:13 PM
This is not a "little side issue." This could be the only thing of significance to come out of his campaign, which is just a lark otherwise.

I don't have an example of your own invective ready to hand, but let's take another poster for example.

Let's say the Catholic Church decides to sue ChiefsPlanet to retrieve identifying information about Dave Lane so they can sue him for his defamatory posts using a successful Ron Paul vs. NHLiberty4Paul as precedent - is this a good thing or a bad thing?

Hey now!!!

Taco John
01-29-2012, 09:14 PM
Ok so for ONE SECOND take off the tin foil and imagine the following scenario.

Some random crazy person who genuinely supports Ron Paul makes an offensive video that he delusionaly thinks will help Ron Paul. He posts that video and causes a stir that backfires so he goes into hiding. You think it is ok for this person to be stripped of his right to privacy based on what grounds? It sure sounds like the "grounds" you are pointing to are "well, my pet candidate got butt hurt so **** privacy rights!"

This scenario talks past the point the Paul campaign is trying to make. The reason the Paul campaign is suing is because they believe the video was posted by someone associated with the Huntsman campaign, not because they believe one of their own supporters did this.

But even still - pretending that Paul is suing one of his own supporters (something he wouldn't do, but let's pretend that's what is happening here), I'd like to understand where the right to privacy is where you publicly post videos and are guaranteed that nobody will find out where they are coming from. I can only assume that you support the right for PACs to be anonymous. And if not, I can't understand the philosophy of why it's ok for individuals to post anonymous political videos, but not PACs.

Taco John
01-29-2012, 09:17 PM
No it doesn't. In your example, you explicitly STATE something that is false about ChiefsPlanet. BUT to answer your question anyway... no I wouldn't sue. I would publicly state that the person does NOT represent the site and that the site condemns his statements. I'd then leave it at that. IF the person continued to falsely portray the site by making FALSE CLAIMS like "Chiefsplanet says/believes/is... this or that" Then I might look into legal action. This person did NOT make a claim as to what Ron Paul believes. It was CLEAR that the video was his opinion on Huntsman and that he (as an individual) supports Ron Paul instead. No links or claims otherwise.

NOW, why don't you address the two examples I gave. The two scenarios that are MUCH closer to what actually happened.



We can't really have a conversation about this because you don't acknowledge the motives behind the Paul campaign taking action: the belief that this video was actually created by a Huntsman surrogate for the purposes of defaming the Paul campaign (mission accomplished) while creating sympathy for the Huntsman campaign (mission also accomplished).

If you're going to refuse to acknowledge the Paul campaign's motive for filing this law suit, then there's really no point in having the discussion because we're just talking past eachother.

AustinChief
01-29-2012, 09:18 PM
I'd like to understand where you are coming from on this. Which part of the bill of rights are you saying protects the right to privacy when making public political statements that reflects on others (and not yourself)?

It only "reflects" on Ron Paul because at the end he states "vote for Ron Paul".. at NO POINT did his video claim to be from the Ron Paul campaign or an official statement of views.

Your problem is that you think the burden is on ME, the burden is on YOU to prove that there is just cause to violate his rights. Last I checked, that isn't the way the system is SUPPOSED to work.

The Bill of Rights DOES protect my right to privacy when making a political statement. I can not attribute my statement to someone else, but that did NOT happen.

If I make a video that says Democrats are devil worshipers so VOTE REPUBLICAN .. and the Republican party doesn't like it, can they sue me? Under the logic you are using.. they can.

AustinChief
01-29-2012, 09:20 PM
And if not, I can't understand the philosophy of why it's ok for individuals to post anonymous political videos, but not PACs.
PACS fall under different rules because of funding issues and there are specific laws governing behavior. It has ZERO to do with this argument.

Taco John
01-29-2012, 09:20 PM
Your problem is that you think the burden is on ME, the burden is on YOU to prove that there is just cause to violate his rights. Last I checked, that isn't the way the system is SUPPOSED to work.



Actually, as far as I'm concerned, the burden is on you to prove that this right you are alluding to even exists. I can't even discuss the point without knowing that.

AustinChief
01-29-2012, 09:27 PM
We can't really have a conversation about this because you don't acknowledge the motives behind the Paul campaign taking action: the belief that this video was actually created by a Huntsman surrogate for the purposes of defaming the Paul campaign (mission accomplished) while creating sympathy for the Huntsman campaign (mission also accomplished).

If you're going to refuse to acknowledge the Paul campaign's motive for filing this law suit, then there's really no point in having the discussion because we're just talking past eachother.

I could give two shits about their motives. Their motives make NO difference. The lawsuit is wrong regardless. UNLESS they have some "proof" that there was a violation of the laws regarding specific political behaviors by candidates, PACS, parties, etc etc. Which is NOT what they are claiming in the lawsuit.

The law does not and SHOULD not be a vehicle to prove your crazy tin foil conspiracy theories when you have ZERO proof other than who you think it benefited.

Your logic here is astonishingly poor.

You are trying to justify violating an individual's rights based on the concept that it might prove that it was worth suing over. You see the problem there chief?

Taco John
01-29-2012, 09:33 PM
I could give two shits about their motives.

Clearly.

AustinChief
01-29-2012, 09:34 PM
Actually, as far as I'm concerned, the burden is on you to prove that this right you are alluding to even exists. I can't even discuss the point without knowing that.

My right to privacy in regard to political speech doesn't exist?

Check Talley v California

There can be no doubt that such an identification requirement would tend to restrict freedom to distribute information and thereby freedom of expression. "Liberty of circulating is as essential to that freedom as liberty of publishing; indeed, without the circulation, the publication would be of little value

or

Lowell v Griffin

I can provide more if you need them...

You really don't know the law on this very well if you don't know that it is WELL ESTABLISHED that anonymous political speech is clearly protected.

AustinChief
01-29-2012, 09:35 PM
Clearly.

I answered your questions... yet you have yet to respond to the much more accurate examples I laid out for you.

For someone who claims to support the Constitution, you certainly are ready to throw it aside when it gets in your way.

Taco John
01-29-2012, 09:35 PM
You are trying to justify violating an individual's rights based on the concept that it might prove that it was worth suing over. You see the problem there chief?

Which specific right are you citing?

Taco John
01-29-2012, 09:37 PM
For someone who claims to support the Constitution, you certainly are ready to throw it aside when it gets in your way.


I'm actually asking you to source your constitutional basis and elevate the discussion from hyperbole to actual "rights". You've made no constitutional case so far as I know. You've cited some vague "right to privacy," but given no reference for where we can find the right as you are using it to protect the creators of this video.

AustinChief
01-29-2012, 09:39 PM
Here is that crazy ol Supreme Court again.. saying stupid things like...

Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
1995 McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission

AustinChief
01-29-2012, 09:41 PM
I'm actually asking you to source your constitutional basis and elevate the discussion from hyperbole to actual "rights". You've made no constitutional case so far as I know. You've cited some vague "right to privacy," but given no citation for where we can find the right as you are using it to protect the creators of this video.

I just gave you 3 Supreme Court cases that laid out the right. It's an extension of the 1st (and somewhat the 4th) Amendment. How fucking hard is this to understand? The Supreme Court has made it VERY clear.

Taco John
01-29-2012, 09:42 PM
You're citing cases, not the Constitution. These cases only tangetally correspond with the Paul case.

Taco John
01-29-2012, 09:45 PM
Here is that crazy ol Supreme Court again.. saying stupid things like...


1995 McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission

I agree with this ruling, but I fail to see how it applies in the Paul case where the ruling states "dissention."

Taco John
01-29-2012, 09:46 PM
The Supreme Court has made it VERY clear.

The Supreme court has not made it clear at all that you can anonymously defame a candidate without recompense. Perhaps they will when it's all said and done, though.

AustinChief
01-29-2012, 09:47 PM
You're citing cases, not the Constitution. These cases only tangetally correspond with the Paul case.

Fuck off. Now you are just being stupid.

HOW ABOUT THIS. THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

Ron Paul is suing to take away this person's first amendment right (which the Supreme Court has DEFINED as including his right to ANONYMOUS political speech)

IF this was a big conspiracy then yes the person doesn't have that "right" but you have to VIOLATE his rights to find that out. Do you not see the problem there?

AustinChief
01-29-2012, 09:51 PM
The Supreme court has not made it clear at all that you can anonymously defame a candidate without recompense. Perhaps they will when it's all said and done, though.

Ok it is pointless arguing Constitutional law with you. You are woefully ignorant on the subject. It is clear as a bell what the Supreme Court has ruled. They didn't say "political speech is protected UNLESS you say mean things about somebody.. OR unless you say vote for xxx and xxx doesn't actually want your support."

If you can't see that then you are either a) stupid (which I don't believe) or b)purposely being obtuse on the matter because the truth doesn't fit your agenda.

AustinChief
01-29-2012, 09:53 PM
Want to make a bet on the outcome of the lawsuit?

Taco John
01-29-2012, 09:53 PM
**** off. Now you are just being stupid.

HOW ABOUT THIS. THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

I fail to see how the first amendment protects defamation. I don't believe it does. Clearly, neither does the Paul campaign.

Taco John
01-29-2012, 09:55 PM
Want to make a bet on the outcome of the lawsuit?

No, I'm happy to let the process take it's course without turning it into a sporting event.

I respect that you would allow people to defame your organization without taking action against them, but I wouldn't handle the situation in the same way. I don't think anybody has any right to defame another, and don't see it as protected speech, political or otherwise. I'm content to let this thing work its way through the system and get its due hearing.

AustinChief
01-29-2012, 09:59 PM
I fail to see how the first amendment protects defamation. I don't believe it does. Clearly, neither does the Paul campaign.

...because your libel argument hinges on WHO made the video, if this was a genuine Ron Paul guy who was trying to support his candidate then there was no libel because there was no malice. So you are trying to justify the suspension of a right to prove that you were right to suspend that right.

NOW do you see how your argument falls apart on legal and moral grounds?

AustinChief
01-29-2012, 10:03 PM
No, I'm happy to let the process take it's course without turning it into a sporting event.

I respect that you would allow people to defame your organization without taking action against them, but I wouldn't handle the situation in the same way. I don't think anybody has any right to defame another, and don't see it as protected speech, political or otherwise. I'm content to let this thing work its way through the system and get its due hearing.

I am fairly comfortable with the libel laws in America... you may want to brush up on them.

Here is what is required to prove libel...

#1 prove that the statement was false
#2 prove that the statement caused harm
#3 prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement.
#4 (in the case of a public official) prove the statement was made with the intent to do harm

banyon
01-29-2012, 10:15 PM
So, what's Paul's standing to bring suit?

That seems like a big hurdle to me...

AustinChief
01-29-2012, 10:29 PM
So, what's Paul's standing to bring suit?

That seems like a big hurdle to me...

He has standing, that isn't the issue.. well it sort of is on a Federal level which is why they are trying to stretch and misconstrue the Lanham Act.

banyon
01-29-2012, 10:38 PM
He has standing, that isn't the issue.. well it sort of is on a Federal level which is why they are trying to stretch and misconstrue the Lanham Act.

Ok, what is it?

AustinChief
01-29-2012, 10:45 PM
Ok, what is it?

What is what? His standing? He claims his "brand" has been hurt by falsely being associated with the "ad" that attacked Huntsman.

orange
01-29-2012, 10:46 PM
Ok, what is it?

From the complaint pdf, I'd say it's trademark infringement. Apparently he's tmed "Ron Paul."

banyon
01-29-2012, 10:48 PM
What is what? His standing? He claims his "brand" has been hurt by falsely being associated with the "ad" that attacked Huntsman.

Ok, that makes sense.

Good luck with the discovery process though. Ick.

AustinChief
01-29-2012, 10:49 PM
From the complaint pdf, I'd say it's trademark infringement. Apparently he's tmed "Ron Paul."

yeah, that is how he is sneaking it into Federal court under the Lanham Act. Although I think his claim is actually "false advertising." That the ad was purposely attributed to his campaign when it was in fact meant to harm him.

Taco John
01-30-2012, 11:35 AM
...because your libel argument hinges on WHO made the video, if this was a genuine Ron Paul guy who was trying to support his candidate then there was no libel because there was no malice. So you are trying to justify the suspension of a right to prove that you were right to suspend that right.

NOW do you see how your argument falls apart on legal and moral grounds?

I understand all of that, and so does the court. The court is asking the Paul campaign to submit more evidence that favor their claims. No problem - there is plenty of it...

I found this link to be particularly interesting - it shows a lot of what the Paul campaign will presumably be submitting:
http://www.theendrun.com/breaking-twitter-trail-confirms-china-jon-video-as-false-flag-points-to-huntsman-campaign

orange
01-30-2012, 12:41 PM
Ron Paul Should Know Better Than to Sue Anonymous Speakers for Political Speech
by Paul Alan Levy
Thursday, January 19, 2012

In a remarkably dishonest filing yesterday in support of a new lawsuit, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has asked the federal district court in San Francisco to order expedited discovery to identify an anonymous videographer who advocated his election through a video pillorying opposing candidate Jon Huntsman for his connections to China.

In a complaint filed a few days ago, Paul alleged that the video both infringed his trademark and defamed him by improperly implying that he was behind the campaign video. The complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief, not just compelling removal of the video, but preventing the defendants from ever using Paul’s name in any material in the future, regardless of whether the use implies Paul’s endorsement (relief paragraph 6). This complaint is utter nonsense, in several respects.


The Spurious Legal Claims

The complaint is subject to dismissal on its face because alleges a trademark claim over an entirely noncommercial video despite the express holding in Bosley Medical v. Kremer forbidding trademark claims against Internet communications that do not sell or advertise goods or services. Bosley is a Ninth Circuit decision and hence binding in Northern California, and several other courts around the country have said the same thing. The trademark claims are also factually nonsensical because nothing in the video suggests that Ron Paul sponsors the video. To be sure, the video advocates Paul’s election, but it is well known that candidates often have supporters whose campaign activities are entirely independent of candidates themselves. By the same token, the complaint asserts that the use of the pseudonym NHLiberty4Paul implies that he sponsors the video, but again that is silly. The pseudonym suggests only that the makers support Paul’s candidacy, and like any other candidate Paul has no right to control who supports him and what they say in expressing that support. Paul’s campaign itself understood this fact because its immediate reaction to the video was to note that every campaign has supporters who do obnoxious things.

The video is surely offensive: it attacks Hunstman, among other things, over his fluency in Mandarin and his having Chinese daughters, and even questions whether he really adopted them. Paul is right to have been sickened by the fact that the video makers were taking on Huntsman's family in this way. Paul alleges that, by falsely implying that he sponsors the video, the video defames him.

Of course, if the trademark claim is found wanting, the defamation claim fails on the merits for the same reason, but it also fails because there is no basis for federal court jurisdiction in the case. After all, defamation is a state law claim and Doe defendants cannot be sued in diversity because their citizenship is unknown. Sadly, district judges in Northern California seem particularly prone to miss this point in granting ex parte motions, as we learned in Bank Julius Baer v. Wikileaks and Rocky Mountain Bank v. Google.


The Duty to Make a Showing of Merit Before Breaching the Right to Speak Anonymously

Bosley is not the only relevant case that Paul’s motion for the motion for expedited discovery fails to call to the court’s attention. As we have often discussed on this blog, the First Amendment protects the right to speak anonymously, and the national consensus rule, often known as the Dendrite rule after Dendrite International v. Doe, the first appellate case to enunciate the principle, erected a multi-step test that requires the plaintiff to provide notice to the Doe defendants so that they can defend their right to speak anonymously, and to make a factual and legal showing that the case has merit. In several separate cases over the past few years, including Highfields Capital Management v. Does and Art of Living Foundation v. Does, this very federal district court has endorsed the Dendrite standard for the identification of anonymous Internet speakers who are alleged to have defamed the plaintiff or violated its trademark through impersonation, the very sort of claim that Paul advances in this case. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit implied acceptance of such a requirement in cases of non-commercial speech in another case, In re Anonymous Online Speakers.

But Paul’s campaign has done nothing to meet this test, and its motion papers seem to me to go out of their way to hide the existence of the requirement from the court. Indeed, as has become typical in motions filed by some dishonest lawyers in such cases, the motion for early discovery cites general authority for early discovery without deigning to mention a single one of the many cases, including cases from the federal courts in California, that requires a preliminary showing that the lawsuit has merit. The motion for early discovery cites the Federal Rule 26 “good cause” standard as being all that stands in the way of discovery, citing a series of reported decisions allowing discovery where no speech is at issue, and then a series of unreported decisions in mass downloading cases that approved motions for expedited discovery. Because these decisions are unreported, the motion actually has to attach them so that the judge can see them. But it completely ignores the reported decisions in the very jurisdiction that invoke the Dendrite line of authority. When lawyers are appearing before a judge ex parte, they have an especial ethical obligation to call contrary authority to the court’s attention. It is certainly disappointing that Paul’s lawyers with the firm of Arent Fox have failed to even mention Bosley, Art of Living, Highfields and other cases that might lead the court to deny expedited discovery.

Because Paul has brought an ex parte motion, there is nobody to call this authority to the court’s attention. Consequently, we are considering whether to file an amicus brief doing just that. We may well suggest to the judge in the case that she reprimand Paul’s lawyers for filing an ex parte brief that withholds relevant authority. In Career Agents Network v. careeragentsnetwork.biz, the withholding of relevant Sixth Circuit authority protecting the gripe site owner from the ex parte motion for early discovery was part of the reason why the Court awarded attorney fees after the trademark suit was dismissed.

...

We can hope that Paul suffers in the political arena for this lawsuit, as well as facing a California anti-SLAPP motion over the defamation claims in his suit. If the federal anti-SLAPP stattute is adopted, the trademark claims too would be subject to early dismissal as a SLAPP.

read more: http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2012/01/ron-paul-should-know-better-than-to-sue-anonymous-speakers-for-political-speech.html

Dave Lane
01-30-2012, 04:21 PM
Ouch...

vailpass
01-30-2012, 04:27 PM
I don't know the merits of this case but I definetely find myself among those who are sick and tired of campaign talk being about nothing but negative comments about opponents.
I can't tell what anyone's platform is, the only plank I see is the one with which they are trying to bludgeon each other.
What can be done?

BucEyedPea
01-30-2012, 04:43 PM
So orange cuts and paste someone else's opinion including that it's just a matter of political free speech.
Kinda like the chief law enforcement officer lying under oath in a sexual harrassment hearing just being about a blow job.
Uh huh!

orange
01-30-2012, 05:22 PM
So orange cuts and paste someone else's opinion

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

As more fully set forth in the motion for leave to file as amici curiae, Public Citizen is a consumer advocacy organization, the Digital Media Law Project is an organization dedicated to providing education and legal resources for online speakers, and the ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation are civil liberties organizations. Amici work on a range of issues, including the right of Internet users to speak anonymously so long as they have done no wrong. Since the turn of the century, amici have sought to encourage the development of First Amendment precedent requiring courts to cast a skeptical eye on subpoenas that seek to compel the identification of anonymous Internet speakers, and they have been involved in many of the major cases in which the standard for deciding whether to allow or to enforce such subpoenas has been established. Amici have also been involved in many cases in which Internet critics have been improperly sued for trademark violations simply because they used the names of companies about which they wanted to express their views.

This experience makes amici uniquely well equipped to explain why and how this Court should clarify the standards for unmasking anonymous online critics of public figures and why this particular motion for early discovery was properly denied.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/Ron-Paul-Presidential-Campaign-Committee-v-Does-Amicus.pdf

BucEyedPea
01-30-2012, 05:26 PM
So

orange
01-30-2012, 05:29 PM
So

So they are obviously far, far more qualified to render an opinion worth considering than BEP or TJ, the only people defending this nonsense.

Their parting shot:

Particularly given the striking weakness of the ex parte motion filed in this case, and indeed the fact that this lawsuit is utterly devoid of merit, amici urge the Court to address this issue in a clarified ruling on the motion for early discovery. The Court should remind lawyers that in filing such ex parte motions, they must acknowledge cases from the Ninth Circuit and Northern District on the subject, so that the judge receiving the ex parte papers can fairly decide whether to apply that case law, and, if so, whether the standards of those cases have been met.

BucEyedPea
01-30-2012, 05:30 PM
That's your opinion, including that this is only about political free speech. Or that privacy is being violated without probable cause and by a citizen versus a citizen as opposed to the govt spying on individuals randomly. More mixing of categories of things up.

AustinChief
01-30-2012, 05:53 PM
That's your opinion, including that this is only about political free speech. Or that privacy is being violated without probable cause and by a citizen versus a citizen as opposed to the govt spying on individuals randomly. More mixing of categories of things up.

I don't get why anyone even bothers with you after nonsense like this post. You're fucking delusional. Combine that with a MASSIVE dose of complete ignorance of the law and you are a disaster.

You really should stop having an opinion on topics where you are so far out of your depth that you sound like a petulant 10 year old.

AustinChief
01-30-2012, 06:09 PM
Here is my favorite line from Levy regarding this nonsense.

Another problem is that the assault on the Does’ First Amendment rights would not end with enforcement of the subpoena. Although Paul Committee’s initial reaction to the video was to bemoan what some of Paul’s supporters were saying without his authority, and outside his control, more recent statements have asserted that the video must have been put out by the Huntsman campaign itself, or by some other candidate jealous of Mr. Paul’s degree of support among students and conservatives. (There are some claims among conspiracy theorists, for example, here, that evidence suggests that this is what happened). To prove this kind of theory, of course, it will not be enough to know which individuals put out the video. Paul Committee will have to interrogate the defendants about their other political activities, about their campaign contributions, and about their communications with the various supporters of other candidates. This sort of inquisition is not the price that individual Americans should have to pay when they want to express their opinions about candidates for President. And it isn’t what you would expect from a libertarian.

THIS is why the lawsuit makes Ron Paul a complete hypocrite. It also makes BEP and TJ hypocrites for their blind sheep-like following of Paul off the violating-free-speech-is-ok-as-long-as-it-is-someone-I-don't-like cliff. Unless of course their version of libertarianism is ok with abusing the Federal Courts to violate free speech whenever it suits someone.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-30-2012, 06:21 PM
I have to say I agree this is really stupid, RP needs to drop this yesterday.

BucEyedPea
01-30-2012, 06:45 PM
It has nothing to do with free speech for me that's why. It's more than a free speech issue.
Since all you can do is attack and insult those that disagree you Austin—you probably got nothin'.
I actually don't care one way or another if Paul's campaign committee went after this. I mean wtf ?

AustinChief
01-30-2012, 06:54 PM
It has nothing to do with free speech for me that's why. It's more than a free speech issue.
Since all you can do is attack and insult those that disagree you Austin—you probably got nothin'.
I actually don't care one way or another if Paul's campaign committee went after this.

No, it is a free speech issue. PERIOD. It has nothing to do with your opinion. This is a LEGAL FACT. I can do more than attack, but with you and TJ being completely delusional.. it is difficult to have a genuine conversation.

So here, try this on for size... How exactly is it NOT a free speech issue?

#1 It has been established that we have a RIGHT under the 1st Amendment to ANONYMOUS POLITICAL SPEECH

#2 Ron Paul is seeking to violate that right to prove that the person's speech was in fact not protected because it was some conspiracy (which makes him not just a hypocrite but as big a whackadoodle as you and TJ)

So ask yourself this... What if Ron Paul got his way and the person's identity was revealed by YouTube and THEN he was able to drag that person into court. THEN in court he made public that person's political affiliations and contributions, etc etc in an effort to prove his libel case... ONLY TO FIND OUT that the person acted alone and was a genuine Ron Paul supporter. Do you think this lawsuit would have merit then? Do you NOT SEE how that would be a complete violation of that person's rights AND have a chilling effect on future political speech?

Taco John
01-30-2012, 07:06 PM
No, it is a free speech issue. PERIOD. It has nothing to do with your opinion. This is a LEGAL FACT. I can do more than attack, but with you and TJ being completely delusional.. it is difficult to have a genuine conversation.

So here, try this on for size... How exactly is it NOT a free speech issue?

#1 It has been established that we have a RIGHT under the 1st Amendment to ANONYMOUS POLITICAL SPEECH

#2 Ron Paul is seeking to violate that right to prove that the person's speech was in fact not protected because it was some conspiracy (which makes him not just a hypocrite but as big a whackadoodle as you and TJ)

So ask yourself this... What if Ron Paul got his way and the person's identity was revealed by YouTube and THEN he was able to drag that person into court. THEN in court he made public that person's political affiliations and contributions, etc etc in an effort to prove his libel case... ONLY TO FIND OUT that the person acted alone and was a genuine Ron Paul supporter. Do you think this lawsuit would have merit then? Do you NOT SEE how that would be a complete violation of that person's rights AND have a chilling effect on future political speech?

You're not following this case very closely if you think there is any danger of any of that happening. You're entire case is built on an outdated premise. The court is doing fact-finding right now with the Paul campaign to avoid exactly the scenario you are describing.

I love how quick you are to jump to ad hominem attacks against me. I've treated you with nothing but respect during the entire discussion (anyone can go back and read it) and you've been - pretty much a jerk. But I digress. I'm content to let the court do its job. I see no reason why I should consider the Paul campaign hypocritical for pursuing this lawsuit given the facts (http://www.theendrun.com/breaking-twitter-trail-confirms-china-jon-video-as-false-flag-points-to-huntsman-campaign).

Taco John
01-30-2012, 07:18 PM
That link shows the information that the Paul campaign is going to submit to the judge. I don't know how the judge is going to rule, but I do know that he's going to be presented with a lot of facts that point to a surrogate of the Huntsman campaign as the creator of that video (http://www.theendrun.com/breaking-twitter-trail-confirms-china-jon-video-as-false-flag-points-to-huntsman-campaign).

orange
01-30-2012, 07:22 PM
given the facts phony-baloney conspiracy theory

I hope they make that case just to see it exploded. Unfortunately, I doubt they will because it's so foolish, which means you'll never let it go.

"They just decided their slam-dunk case would do more harm than good. That's Ron Paul - always a Man Of Principle."

AustinChief
01-30-2012, 07:25 PM
You're not following this case very closely if you think there is any danger of any of that happening. You're entire case is built on an outdated premise. The court is doing fact-finding right now with the Paul campaign to avoid exactly the scenario you are describing.

I love how quick you are to jump to ad hominem attacks against me. I've treated you with nothing but respect during the entire discussion (anyone can go back and read it) and you've been - pretty much a jerk. But I digress. I'm content to let the court do its job. I see no reason why I should consider the Paul campaign hypocritical for pursuing this lawsuit given the facts (http://www.theendrun.com/breaking-twitter-trail-confirms-china-jon-video-as-false-flag-points-to-huntsman-campaign).

OK, #1 quit posting that useless conspiracy crap. That link is just god awful. It's entire premise is based on the same crap logic you tried to spew earlier. Things like this... The tweets had links to Ron Paul because they were trying to frame him. The tweet had links to Huntsman because it was obviously made by Huntsman! Do you not see how ridiculous that is?

#2 They are not doing "fact finding" ... you either don't understand the process or you have decided that it's better to just make shit up at this point. Ron Paul asked for expedited discovery to get YouTube and Twitter to reveal the identity of the source. (AND they did so in what appears to be a completely unethical and shady way by failing to mention all the relevant case law which is what you should do in an ex parte case) The court came back and said fat chance, your motion for expedited discovery has NO MERIT and is dismissed.

So basically what you are saying is that it's ok for Ron Paul to ask the court to violate someone's rights because the court came back and told him that he was wrong to do so.

Nice, So according to your abortion of a logical construct... it's ok for me to sue you right now for any ridiculous reason because the court will likely throw it out.

It's funny that I am apparently basing everything on an outdated premise when Paul Alan Levy (a Constitutional lawyer who has argued before the Supreme Court) has said almost exactly the same things I have said. Although of course he says them in a much much clearer and correct way.

Did you even BOTHER reading what a well respected scholar wrote on this very subject?

The Dangerous Implications of Paul’s Lawsuit

In addition to explaining in considerable more detail why the trademark and defamation claims in the lawsuit are frivolous, we point out the dangers posed for the future by this lawsuit. For example – if Paul were to win the lawsuit (or if he were able to use the suit to force the posters to crawl and apologize to avoid the cost of hiring lawyers to defend themselves), the effect would be to encourage future suits like it. After all, candidates often have the problem of having to distance themselves from statements and endorsements from otherwise unpopular supporters. If Paul establishes the proposition that lawsuits like this are permissible, then it won’t be enough for future candidates facing such problems to renounce support – they’ll have file a lawsuit or they won’t “really” be expressing enough disapproval. And that will just insert the courts more deeply into regulating campaign content.

Another problem is that the assault on the Does’ First Amendment rights would not end with enforcement of the subpoena. Although Paul Committee’s initial reaction to the video was to bemoan what some of Paul’s supporters were saying without his authority, and outside his control, more recent statements have asserted that the video must have been put out by the Huntsman campaign itself, or by some other candidate jealous of Mr. Paul’s degree of support among students and conservatives. (There are some claims among conspiracy theorists, for example, here, that evidence suggests that this is what happened). To prove this kind of theory, of course, it will not be enough to know which individuals put out the video. Paul Committee will have to interrogate the defendants about their other political activities, about their campaign contributions, and about their communications with the various supporters of other candidates. This sort of inquisition is not the price that individual Americans should have to pay when they want to express their opinions about candidates for President. And it isn’t what you would expect from a libertarian.

This is exactly what I have been saying all along. Please explain to me how Mr Levy is wrong and you know so much better?

Taco John
01-30-2012, 07:26 PM
I hope they make that case just to see it exploded. Unfortunately, I doubt they will because it's so foolish, which means you'll never let it go.

"They just decided their slam-dunk case would do more harm than good. That's Ron Paul - always a Man Of Principle."

Of course you would say that. You're not going to look at this case with any amount of balance. I certainly don't expect you to consider any of the facts that the Paul campaign is going to present. You're in this discussion for the partisan reasons. You're here to tangle with Buc - and go for it. I know Austin to have a lot more balance in his considerations than I know you to be. I believe he'll actually have the integrity to consider the actual facts.

Taco John
01-30-2012, 07:27 PM
Or maybe I'm wrong. He's apparently just waving off the facts of the case as "conspiracy crap."

It's not the first time I've been disappointed by overestimating someone.

The facts remain. The court has asked Paul to make a case, and he's making it. I accept that, and am content to let the process take its course.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-30-2012, 07:27 PM
This really means very little one way or the other, it was one guy and it doesn't really matter which side he was on. This would have blown over so quick compared to the dirt on every other candidate, the campaign is giving very poor advice to continue to pursue this.

AustinChief
01-30-2012, 07:36 PM
That link shows the information that the Paul campaign is going to submit to the judge. I don't know how the judge is going to rule, but I do know that he's going to be presented with a lot of facts that point to a surrogate of the Huntsman campaign as the creator of that video (http://www.theendrun.com/breaking-twitter-trail-confirms-china-jon-video-as-false-flag-points-to-huntsman-campaign).

So, you continue on this crap even after I PROVED TO YOU the first link was absolute garbage... The "smoking gun" showing that it had to be Huntsman because it was linked to from his site! (which ANYONE could see is true of ANY tweet that has Huntsman mentioned in it.. if that person took the time to look instead of wasting their time making foil hats)

So here is what your new "proof" is all about...

Tweet #1 NHLiberty4Paul NH Liberty 4 Paul
What are @jonhuntsman's true values? bit.ly/wpc4yY #fitn #gop2012 #ronpaul #campusreform #revpac #endorseliberty #jon2012girls

According to your new theory... this tweet had to be from Huntsman because it mentions #fitn and Huntsman's campaign mentioned #fitn!!! Of course so did EVERY OTHER CAMPAIGN INCLUDING RON PAUL'S. And the other tags that reference Ron Paul were more false flags! OH NOES!!!

The next 2 or 3 tweets mention political pundits, most whom were pro-Huntsman and anti-Paul (according to your link) and OF COURSE it couldn't be that the pro-Paul anti-Huntsman guy was sending them tweets to lash out at their candidate.. NO WAY! It had to be another conspiracy to send out notifications to his allies!!!

It's beyond ridiculous, and if Paul's attorney';s send that garbage to the court, they deserved to be laughed out of the California Bar Association.

AustinChief
01-30-2012, 07:41 PM
Or maybe I'm wrong. He's apparently just waving off the facts of the case as "conspiracy crap."

It's not the first time I've been disappointed by overestimating someone.

The facts remain. The court has asked Paul to make a case, and he's making it. I accept that, and am content to let the process take its course.

No, I am looking at the FACTS. There are ZERO facts to support the notion that this was some giant conspiracy. I will freely admit that there are ZERO facts to support that it wasn't. BUT you can't go around abusing the law and violating people's rights because of half-baked THEORY.

AustinChief
01-30-2012, 07:49 PM
This really means very little one way or the other, it was one guy and it doesn't really matter which side he was on. This would have blown over so quick compared to the dirt on every other candidate, the campaign is giving very poor advice to continue to pursue this.

BEYOND poor advice. If Ron Paul signed off on this, he's a hypocrite. If he didn't, then he seriously needs to reign in the people he has working for him.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-30-2012, 07:51 PM
BEYOND poor advice. If Ron Paul signed off on this, he's a hypocrite. If he didn't, then he seriously needs to reign in the people he has working for him.

Even if proven true there is nothing to be gained.

Psyko Tek
01-30-2012, 07:54 PM
HA. except this wasn't a PAC. We have no clue who it was that posted it. AND It doesn't claim to be an official Ron Paul supported video. The ONLY mention of Ron Paul at all is at the very end there is one line that says "Vote for Ron Paul"

You may as well sue the KKK for endorsing a candidate or the Black Panthers or ANY group that you find offensive to you.

true

BucEyedPea
01-30-2012, 08:00 PM
This really means very little one way or the other, it was one guy and it doesn't really matter which side he was on. This would have blown over so quick compared to the dirt on every other candidate, the campaign is giving very poor advice to continue to pursue this.

Isn't a Bushie on that team? :p

KILLER_CLOWN
01-30-2012, 08:03 PM
Isn't a Bushie on that team? :p

True, it's probably sabotage.

"The per capita income gap between the developed and the developing countries is increasing, in large part the result of higher birth rates in the poorer countries.... Famine in India, unwanted babies in the United States, poverty that seemed to form an unbreakable chain for millions of people--how should we tackle these problems?.... It is quite clear that one of the major challenges of the 1970s ... will be to curb the world's fertility." -- George H. W. Bush

Taco John
01-30-2012, 09:19 PM
So, you continue on this crap even after I PROVED TO YOU the first link was absolute garbage...


You didn't say anything that changed my mind about this thing being put together by a Huntsman surrogate. Your one little long shot scenario doesn't really weigh up to the amount of evidence that someone connected with the Huntsman campaign was behind it. It doesn't bother me that you refuse to consider the preponderance of evidence. Your opinion on this is quite irrelevant, as is mine. There are judges and lawyers who will hash this one out, taking things such as "motive" into account - something you've already admitted you don't care about. I see no reason to suspend consideration for "motive" when examining the evidence. I'm content to let the process work.

AustinChief
01-30-2012, 09:31 PM
You didn't say anything that changed my mind about this thing being put together by a Huntsman surrogate. Your one little long shot scenario doesn't really weigh up to the amount of evidence that someone connected with the Huntsman campaign was behind it. It doesn't bother me that you refuse to consider the preponderance of evidence. Your opinion on this is quite irrelevant, as is mine. There are judges and lawyers who will hash this one out, and I'm content to let the process work.

This is what bothers me. My scenario wasn't a LONG SHOT. It was EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED in regard to the technical aspects of things. I showed a timeline and origin and even recreated the events. ( if you want, I can pull up the old posts and go through it step by fucking step AGAIN if you need me to hold your hand on the tech of it and how I showed EXACTLY what went down and connected EVERY single dot) Why you refuse to accept that is beyond me. Now, I have no "evidence" as to who the person was or what their motivations were... but neither do you. Your ENTIRE argument is based on ONE THING. "It helped Huntsman the most so it must have been he who did it"... which would lead us to all believe that LBJ killed JFK.

There is NO PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE.. there is just your nutty belief that there is. The judge ALREADY ruled on this and said it had NO MERIT. Do you think Ron Paul is going to pursue this further? If so, based on WHAT? Because so far you have shown NOTHING that would ever be considered by anyone but the looniest of nutters.

Maybe Ron Paul has some super secret info that I have yet to see, and I'm dead wrong... but based on EVERYTHING presented so far... your proof is about as legit as claims that we staged the moon landings.

If you are so confident in your "evidence" why haven't you refuted ANYTHING I have done to show it to be hogwash? Maybe because you aren't thinking clearly and logically but instead you are blinded to the reality of the situation by your preconceived ideas.

Taco John
01-30-2012, 09:43 PM
This is what bothers me. My scenario wasn't a LONG SHOT. It was EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED in regard to the technical aspects of things.

Oh, I understand that you made a case with regard to the technical aspects of things, and have acknowledged as much. Unfortunately, none of it considered motive. Meanwhile, there is a clear trail that shows the motive of the entire thing was to slander the Paul campaign while building sympathy for the Huntsman campaign. Yes, there is a preponderance of evidence for this motive. When that evidence is examine fairly with motive in question, it's difficult to find a different motive than the one the Paul campaign is mentioning. I'm not talking about speculation, but actual cause and effect of the actions in question and the motive behind those causes and effects.

But I'm happy to hear your counter case. Look at the twitter trail and tell me what motive you believe the perpetrator of this video had given the fact trail they've left behind. Or don't. It doesn't really matter to me. I've examined the stuff, and have made up my mind based on the evidence. It would take counter-evidence to make me repeal my conclusion about motive.

Saul Good
01-30-2012, 11:15 PM
I just checked the polls, and Santorum actually has a better chance of winning this lawsuit than Paul. Seems odd...

BucEyedPea
01-30-2012, 11:40 PM
Oh, I understand that you made a case with regard to the technical aspects of things, and have acknowledged as much. Unfortunately, none of it considered motive. Meanwhile, there is a clear trail that shows the motive of the entire thing was to slander the Paul campaign while building sympathy for the Huntsman campaign. Yes, there is a preponderance of evidence for this motive. When that evidence is examine fairly with motive in question, it's difficult to find a different motive than the one the Paul campaign is mentioning. I'm not talking about speculation, but actual cause and effect of the actions in question and the motive behind those causes and effects.

But I'm happy to hear your counter case. Look at the twitter trail and tell me what motive you believe the perpetrator of this video had given the fact trail they've left behind. Or don't. It doesn't really matter to me. I've examined the stuff, and have made up my mind based on the evidence. It would take counter-evidence to make me repeal my conclusion about motive.

Well, if it turns out to be a plant it won't be the first time in politics. It's pretty routine that things like this happen in elections to campaigns.