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: Tue, 24 Dec 2024 07:05:38 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 08:19:48 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On 12/23/2024 3:59 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 07:44:55 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/22/2024 6:43 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 08:02:30 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/21/2024 6:56 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>
>>>>> But assuming for the sake of argument she is negligent, the First
>>>>> Amendment protects her because negligence does not establish fraud.
>>>>
>>>> Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
>>>> methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
>>>> it's fraud. That's what discovery is for.
>>>
>>> Again, she was right in 2016 and 2020. There was no reason for her to
>>> believe her methodology was wrong.
>>
>> When the result was completely out of bed, that's a clear indicator
>> her methodology was wrong. A responsible pollster would have avoided
>> publishing the poll without understanding the problem.
>
>In 2016 and 2020 she was an outlier (different than the other polls).
>Was that a clear indicator she was wrong? Should she have avoided
>publishing without understanding the problem?
>
>But, let's assume for the sake of argument you are right and she should
>have understood there was a problem and not published. Because she did
>not believe there was a problem, she is only negligent, not fraudulent.
>Under those circumstances, her decision to publish is protected by the
>First Amendment.
I guess this will be the third time I have to say this. If she knew
the methodology was flawed, then it's not protected. This is what
discovery is for.