Davin News Server

From: NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.trump,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics
Subject: Re: Trump Sues Newspaper Over Election Interference
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 07:22:29 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider

On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 08:34:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 12/19/2024 4:19 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:33:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 12/17/2024 11:30 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>> On 12/17/2024 10:48 AM, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is
>>>>> the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your
>>>>> candidate is too
>>>>> far behind to win.
>>>>
>>>> This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
>>>
>>> Interestingly, I hadn't considered the possibility that even if the poll
>>> was falsified, it is protected speech under the First Amendment. But
>>> Eugene Volokh did.
>>>
>>> https://reason.com/volokh/2024/12/18/trump-v-selzer-likely-going-nowhere/
>>>
>> 
>> Of course you didn't consider that.
>> 
>> <eyeroll>
>> 
>> Even freedom of speech of the press is limited when it comes to
>> publishing malicious intent and full knowlege that the information is
>> wrong.  Just ask ABC and Boy George.  This is not to say I agree that
>> Trump should win but to debunk the idea that you can publish anything
>> you want whenever you want.
>
>Of course fraud and intentional lying is not protected (Volokh did not 
>say otherwise). But the poll is protected if Selzer believes the numbers 
>are real, even if the numbers are a lie. That is, Trump will have to 
>prove Selzer knew she was lying. No way (*). The lawsuit is frivolous. 
>Trump is a sore-winner, cry-baby, bully.

And if she knew they were a lie?

>
>(*) As I explained in my other reply, she honestly believed in her 
>methodology and her numbers.

Laughter.  I'm sure.  Wouldn't a responsible pollster go back and
examine what went wrong and publish those results?  She quit instead.
That says plenty.