if they can smother themselves with pillows, it would be impressive as hell
The way his mouth is moving around between words makes me think he is back on drugs.
What’s going to be wild is if a very large organized group of armed militias puts the US military in a position where they either have to decide if they want to 1) mow down their fellow Americans, 2) not shoot and let them take over their objective, or 3) actively join them.
I’m not convinced they’ll shoot. Nobody joins the military to slaughter their neighbors. If Trump somehow did stage a coup and I’m in the military, hell yeah I’m joining the rebels if I think they have a fighting chance. Plenty of nutjobs literally think that’s what happened - but the other way. If the rank and file won’t obey commands, it doesn’t matter what side the generals are on.
Imagine a chaotic scenario where a bunch of cops and military join the militias. Some of the military fight the militias, the rest run away. Now you’re going to ask drone pilots and real pilots to take out not only the militias, but a bunch of their fellow soldiers.
The whole time the militias are pleading - please, we don’t want to fight, we’re on your side. We just want the legitimate government to take it’s place.
It’s like some weird hybrid of the Revolutionary War, Civil War and Star Wars.
Cruz and Hawley are also pre-justifying it by basically saying if enough people believe something, that makes it legitimate. So they can just say welp, I guess this is the will of the people (that we jackhammered into their brains). Who are we to stand in their way?
Crazy shit man.
Watch party tomorrow?
-
I’m pretty sure yes. IIRC there is a doctrine about republishing false statements and think that applies to if you give someone a platform to make their false claims.
-
Individual employees typically have liability for their own actions (other than some protections for public servants like cops). However, you usually sue the company because they have more money, but you can also sue both (just look at the Smartmatic lawsuit against FoxNews which also names a few of its anchors as defendants).
Often, high level employees are usually indemnified by the company and covered by the company’s insurance. These provisions typically have exclusions for things like crimes, intentional acts, etc. However, in my experience, so long as a civil lawsuit is settled, the employees will be covered (as there is no actual finding that they did anything wrong).
Jesus Christ I know I’m preaching to the choir but
its not possible that a “3 hour movie” can prove anything. Its a movie, its video, its not actual filed evidence of paper/text documents. I mean someone must of told him that. Or, for my coding buddys:
lol !documents
This’ll be out on the Criterion Channel, right?
Beat me to it.
Edit: But I mean we know what it’s going to be. It’s going to be three hours of random disconnected “weird facts”, some of which will be factual and some won’t, with ominous music playing over it. None of it will add up to anything cohesive, but the usual array of morons will be like OMG SO MUCH EVIDENCE, how can you not see it’s rigged. Conservative media will probably ignore it. The sole reason to order popcorn here is to see whether or not it’s actually defamatory. It might be too incoherent.
OK, then why isn’t Dominion filing a suit against Twitter? Or maybe they did and I just didn’t realize it.
Section 230 protects social media companies (bu not news organizations).
That’s what the Section 230 thing is Trump kept whining about, it works differently for social media platforms than it does for traditional publishers.
Would newsmax be OK if they reported Lindell’s statements on their website. I’m assuming they have one.
Also part of the context for this in case you aren’t aware is that just before Christmas both Fox and NewsMax got very scared about their legal liability and issued sweeping retractions ‘clarifications’ about all the nonsense voter fraud claims:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2020/12/21/newsmax-clarification-smartmatic/
So it’s not surprising that the anchors are well aware that they can’t allow Lindell to say all this stupid shit about Dominion voting machines. The funniest part is that they ever expected him to say anything else.
Not necessarily. Same legal analysis applies for written and oral statements.
Newsmax would likely have protection is they had a message board and Lindell posted it there himself.
edit: there is some protection for “neutral reporting” - i.e. if you just run a story saying Lindell is making these claims. However, I don’t think it applies if you know those claims are false.
Thanks.
So, just to be clear, let’s say Trump himself has a press conference where he says Dominion machines were compromised. If Newsmax reports on that or airs it, then they’re liable?
Yeah, I was aware of that. However, I thought that the problem was that the Newsmax “journalists” themselves were making the false claims about Dominion.
No, because Trump making that claim is news in itself. This would also cover a Giulliani press conference. Almost certainly wouldn’t protect them if they just showed some random guy on the street making claims. Lindell would be a closer call, since he’s semi-famous.
For having Lindell on the air, if they were to push back, they would likely be fine. If they adopt or support his statements they are clearly in trouble. When they just let him talk, it’s a closer call (however, here since they were on notice the claims were false, just letting him make them is probably enough for liability).
Don’t overthink a 
show.
Thanks. That makes sense.