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: Wed, 25 Dec 2024 10:20:28 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 07:20:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On 12/24/2024 4:05 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> 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?
>
>Well?
Well what? Any poll that is way out whack with other polls should be
closely examined to verify its methodology before going to
publication.
Clear enough?
>
>>> 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.
>
>We already agreed on that.
Glad to hear we agree!