From: Josh Rosenbluth <noway@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 08:11:02 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 12/20/2024 4:22 AM, NoBody wrote:
> 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?
She is not protected by the First Amendment.
>> (*) 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 did as I detailed in my other reply.