United We Stand - uwsboard.com

Thoughts and prayers to Bob Murray.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... ohn-oliver


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

John Oliver is for retards, he's not credible enough to be defamatory against anyone.

nolanvt wrote:Thoughts and prayers to Bob Murray.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... ohn-oliver


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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....

Pay no attention to Nolan's thread title. I guess he doesn't understand what the 1st Amendment protects.

USN_Hokie wrote:

nolanvt wrote:Thoughts and prayers to Bob Murray.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... ohn-oliver


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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....

USN_Hokie wrote:

nolanvt wrote:Thoughts and prayers to Bob Murray.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... ohn-oliver


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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....

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

ip_law-hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

nolanvt wrote:Thoughts and prayers to Bob Murray.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... ohn-oliver


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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....

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

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.

USN_Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

nolanvt wrote:Thoughts and prayers to Bob Murray.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... ohn-oliver


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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....

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

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.

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

ip_law-hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

nolanvt wrote:Thoughts and prayers to Bob Murray.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... ohn-oliver


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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....

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

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.

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

So you disagree (as do I) with Nolan's assertion that the first amendment would not "live" if defamation occurred?

USN_Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

nolanvt wrote:Thoughts and prayers to Bob Murray.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... ohn-oliver


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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....

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

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.

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

So you disagree (as do I) with Nolan's assertion that the first amendment would not "live" if defamation occurred?

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.

ip_law-hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

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....

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

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.

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

So you disagree (as do I) with Nolan's assertion that the first amendment would not "live" if defamation occurred?

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.

So you're for lying and calling them murderers without fear. Not shocked.

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

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

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.

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

So you disagree (as do I) with Nolan's assertion that the first amendment would not "live" if defamation occurred?

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.

So you're for lying and calling them murderers without fear. Not shocked.

Correct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

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.

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

So you disagree (as do I) with Nolan's assertion that the first amendment would not "live" if defamation occurred?

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.

So you're for lying and calling them murderers without fear. Not shocked.

Correct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pig

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

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

So you disagree (as do I) with Nolan's assertion that the first amendment would not "live" if defamation occurred?

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.

So you're for lying and calling them murderers without fear. Not shocked.

Correct.


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

I thought this thread was going to be about the much more important Janus case.

RiverguyVT wrote:I thought this thread was going to be about the much more important Janus case.

That ruling is BS. Discuss.