The First Amendment lives
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
The First Amendment lives
Thoughts and prayers to Bob Murray.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... ohn-oliver
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... ohn-oliver
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: The First Amendment lives
John Oliver is for retards, he's not credible enough to be defamatory against anyone.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
Re: The First Amendment lives
What does this have to do with the first amendment?nolanvt wrote:Thoughts and prayers to Bob Murray.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... ohn-oliver
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If he had argued for the state to educate John Oliver's kids against his religious beliefs, then I'd say you you have a point....
-
- Posts: 1477
- Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm
Re: The First Amendment lives
Pay no attention to Nolan's thread title. I guess he doesn't understand what the 1st Amendment protects.
USN_Hokie wrote:What does this have to do with the first amendment?nolanvt wrote:Thoughts and prayers to Bob Murray.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... ohn-oliver
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If he had argued for the state to educate John Oliver's kids against his religious beliefs, then I'd say you you have a point....
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: The First Amendment lives
What does the lawsuit about Oliver’s public statements about a public figure in which John Oliver’s primary defense was freedom of speech, which was accepted by the court and stressed in their opinion, have to do with the first amendment? Is that your question?USN_Hokie wrote:What does this have to do with the first amendment?nolanvt wrote:Thoughts and prayers to Bob Murray.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... ohn-oliver
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If he had argued for the state to educate John Oliver's kids against his religious beliefs, then I'd say you you have a point....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
Re: The First Amendment lives
It was a defamation lawsuit. Your comments make no sense unless you disagree with the concept of defamation (against all reason and precedence) in the US.ip_law-hokie wrote:What does the lawsuit about Oliver’s public statements about a public figure in which John Oliver’s primary defense was freedom of speech, which was accepted by the court and stressed in their opinion, have to do with the first amendment? Is that your question?USN_Hokie wrote:What does this have to do with the first amendment?nolanvt wrote:Thoughts and prayers to Bob Murray.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... ohn-oliver
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If he had argued for the state to educate John Oliver's kids against his religious beliefs, then I'd say you you have a point....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: The First Amendment lives
Yes. First amendment law and defamation are closely intertwined, particularly when dealing with public statements made by the press about a public figure.USN_Hokie wrote:It was a defamation lawsuit. Your comments make no sense unless you disagree with the concept of defamation (against all reason and precedence) in the US.ip_law-hokie wrote:What does the lawsuit about Oliver’s public statements about a public figure in which John Oliver’s primary defense was freedom of speech, which was accepted by the court and stressed in their opinion, have to do with the first amendment? Is that your question?USN_Hokie wrote:What does this have to do with the first amendment?nolanvt wrote:Thoughts and prayers to Bob Murray.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... ohn-oliver
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If he had argued for the state to educate John Oliver's kids against his religious beliefs, then I'd say you you have a point....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
Re: The First Amendment lives
So you disagree (as do I) with Nolan's assertion that the first amendment would not "live" if defamation occurred?ip_law-hokie wrote:Yes. First amendment law and defamation are closely intertwined, particularly when dealing with public statements made by the press about a public figure.USN_Hokie wrote:It was a defamation lawsuit. Your comments make no sense unless you disagree with the concept of defamation (against all reason and precedence) in the US.ip_law-hokie wrote:What does the lawsuit about Oliver’s public statements about a public figure in which John Oliver’s primary defense was freedom of speech, which was accepted by the court and stressed in their opinion, have to do with the first amendment? Is that your question?USN_Hokie wrote:What does this have to do with the first amendment?nolanvt wrote:Thoughts and prayers to Bob Murray.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... ohn-oliver
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If he had argued for the state to educate John Oliver's kids against his religious beliefs, then I'd say you you have a point....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: The First Amendment lives
I think Nolan and I both appreciate the chilling effect that a contrary ruling by the court would have on our press and media. The legal precedent certainly does.USN_Hokie wrote:So you disagree (as do I) with Nolan's assertion that the first amendment would not "live" if defamation occurred?ip_law-hokie wrote:Yes. First amendment law and defamation are closely intertwined, particularly when dealing with public statements made by the press about a public figure.USN_Hokie wrote:It was a defamation lawsuit. Your comments make no sense unless you disagree with the concept of defamation (against all reason and precedence) in the US.ip_law-hokie wrote:What does the lawsuit about Oliver’s public statements about a public figure in which John Oliver’s primary defense was freedom of speech, which was accepted by the court and stressed in their opinion, have to do with the first amendment? Is that your question?USN_Hokie wrote:What does this have to do with the first amendment?nolanvt wrote:Thoughts and prayers to Bob Murray.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... ohn-oliver
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If he had argued for the state to educate John Oliver's kids against his religious beliefs, then I'd say you you have a point....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: The First Amendment lives
So you're for lying and calling them murderers without fear. Not shocked.ip_law-hokie wrote:I think Nolan and I both appreciate the chilling effect that a contrary ruling by the court would have on our press and media. The legal precedent certainly does.USN_Hokie wrote:So you disagree (as do I) with Nolan's assertion that the first amendment would not "live" if defamation occurred?ip_law-hokie wrote:Yes. First amendment law and defamation are closely intertwined, particularly when dealing with public statements made by the press about a public figure.USN_Hokie wrote:It was a defamation lawsuit. Your comments make no sense unless you disagree with the concept of defamation (against all reason and precedence) in the US.ip_law-hokie wrote:What does the lawsuit about Oliver’s public statements about a public figure in which John Oliver’s primary defense was freedom of speech, which was accepted by the court and stressed in their opinion, have to do with the first amendment? Is that your question?USN_Hokie wrote: What does this have to do with the first amendment?
If he had argued for the state to educate John Oliver's kids against his religious beliefs, then I'd say you you have a point....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: The First Amendment lives
Correct.awesome guy wrote:So you're for lying and calling them murderers without fear. Not shocked.ip_law-hokie wrote:I think Nolan and I both appreciate the chilling effect that a contrary ruling by the court would have on our press and media. The legal precedent certainly does.USN_Hokie wrote:So you disagree (as do I) with Nolan's assertion that the first amendment would not "live" if defamation occurred?ip_law-hokie wrote:Yes. First amendment law and defamation are closely intertwined, particularly when dealing with public statements made by the press about a public figure.USN_Hokie wrote:It was a defamation lawsuit. Your comments make no sense unless you disagree with the concept of defamation (against all reason and precedence) in the US.ip_law-hokie wrote: What does the lawsuit about Oliver’s public statements about a public figure in which John Oliver’s primary defense was freedom of speech, which was accepted by the court and stressed in their opinion, have to do with the first amendment? Is that your question?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: The First Amendment lives
Pigip_law-hokie wrote:Correct.awesome guy wrote:So you're for lying and calling them murderers without fear. Not shocked.ip_law-hokie wrote:I think Nolan and I both appreciate the chilling effect that a contrary ruling by the court would have on our press and media. The legal precedent certainly does.USN_Hokie wrote:So you disagree (as do I) with Nolan's assertion that the first amendment would not "live" if defamation occurred?ip_law-hokie wrote:Yes. First amendment law and defamation are closely intertwined, particularly when dealing with public statements made by the press about a public figure.USN_Hokie wrote: It was a defamation lawsuit. Your comments make no sense unless you disagree with the concept of defamation (against all reason and precedence) in the US.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
-
- Posts: 18547
- Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm
Re: The First Amendment lives
ip_law-hokie wrote:Correct.awesome guy wrote:So you're for lying and calling them murderers without fear. Not shocked.ip_law-hokie wrote:I think Nolan and I both appreciate the chilling effect that a contrary ruling by the court would have on our press and media. The legal precedent certainly does.USN_Hokie wrote:So you disagree (as do I) with Nolan's assertion that the first amendment would not "live" if defamation occurred?ip_law-hokie wrote:
Yes. First amendment law and defamation are closely intertwined, particularly when dealing with public statements made by the press about a public figure.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The amicus brief filed by the ACLU opposing Murray is pretty funny. It really wasn't much of a fight, Murray's lawyers are horrible.
But, the brief had some good section titles, like:
II. B. The Ridiculous Case at Hand
III. Anyone Can Legally say, "Eat excrement, Bob!"
III.1. ll of John Oliver’s Speech Was Protected by the First Amendment. You Can’t Sue People for Being Mean to You, Bob.
And this opening paragraph summarizing the case:
"II.
A Brief History of Plaintiffs’ Attempts to Chill Speech by Abusing the Legal System. This case is about Plaintiff Robert E. (“Bob”) Murray not liking a television program and somehow believing that is a legally actionable offense. On June 18, 2017, Defendant Home Box Office, Inc. aired an episode of “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver,” a satirical news program about current events. The main topic discussed in the episode was coal. Apparently because Plaintiffs’ delicate sensibilities were offended, they clutched their pearls and filed this suit. "
https://static.reuters.com/resources/me ... ubrief.pdf
- RiverguyVT
- Posts: 30268
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:30 pm
Re: The First Amendment lives
I thought this thread was going to be about the much more important Janus case.
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
-
- Posts: 18547
- Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm
Re: The First Amendment lives
That ruling is BS. Discuss.RiverguyVT wrote:I thought this thread was going to be about the much more important Janus case.