Dominion and Smartmatic have a defamation claim.

Giuliani and Powell can also be sued for defamation if their lies caused a particular person damages. (Jean Carroll is suing Trump for defamation.)

The damages to Dominion and Smartmatic are substantial.
The elements of defamation claim:
🔹 a false statement purporting to be fact
🔹publication or communication of that statement to a third person
🔹fault amounting to at least negligence
🔹damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement
I don't see why. The heightened standard in New York Times v. Sullivan doesn't apply.

News stations get no special treatment unless they're talking about public figures.


#lawtwitter may be misunderstanding the First Amendment.
The right-wing has the deluded idea that the First Amendment means they have the right to say whatever they please.

Wrong 🛎️🛎️

The 1st Amendment is a protection against government action. That's why it says: CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW . . .

(includes state governments)
There are lots of things you are not allowed to say. I can think of a bunch.

🔹You can't yell "fire" in a crowded building.
🔹You can't walk up to a bank teller and say, "Give me all your money."
🔹You can't tell deliberately tell lies about someone that cause her to get fired.
For that matter, you can't tell deliberate lies about people (but you have to show damages or it's not worth the trouble to bring the case.)

When these right-wing newscasters started telling those lies about Dominion, it was clear they were ruining that company.
If this is true that they published lies without evidence, they are in deep trouble.

Alex Jones had to pay damages to the Sandy Hook families after saying that they faked the massacre.

Well, you can if there is actually a fire 🤣
This is not legal advice. However, if there is not a fire, I strongly urge people not to yell "fire" in a crowded building.

If you do, and someone gets hurt, call a lawyer.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Teri Kanefield

Teri Kanefield Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Teri_Kanefield

23 Dec
How strong is the defamation case against the Trump Campaign and pals? Shall we do the analysis?

Take out your notebooks. It's time for Twitter Law 101: Fun With IRAC.

IRAC is the method of legal analysis known to law students everywhere.

1/
IRAC stands for:

🔹Issue
🔹Rule
🔹Analysis
🔹Conclusion

Issue the framing of the question: Can a case of defamation be proven against Trump and pals?

For rule, we plug in the elements of defamation.

2/
To prove defamation, the plaintiff must meet 4 elements:

1) a false statement purporting to be fact,
2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person,
3) fault amounting to at least negligence,
4) damages, or some harm caused to plaintiffs.

3/
Read 16 tweets
22 Dec
These defamation cases are going to get extremely interesting.

As I said yesterday, I've often thought defamation lawsuits were a good way to push back against the spread of disinformation.
If you missed it, I wrote this up last night. terikanefield-blog.com/why-is-newsmax…
He uses them as a means of intimidation.

The beauty of a defamation lawsuit is that truth is a defense. The trial becomes (partly) about whether the statements were true.

There is also a negligence (or higher) standard.
Read 5 tweets
22 Dec
(Thread) Gun Laws in America Have Been A Means of Solidifying White Power

Part I: Colonial America to the Writing of the Second Amendment.

I recently wrote about how rape is a means of asserting patriarchal power.

Now let’s look at gun laws.
1/ Source: This incredible reference put together by Mark Frassetto @MarkFrassetto
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…

Among the first gun laws in America outlawed giving guns to Native Americans.

Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York had similar laws. Image
2/ It was also a crime to give guns to Blacks. No surprise there, right?

Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Virginia had similar laws. Image
Read 15 tweets
20 Dec
(Thread)

How the NRA helped get us into this mess, and how we can get out.

I read these two books⤵️ and I’m ready with a Twitter Book Report.

The NRA was founded in 1871 by a former Union general and a soldier who were appalled by the terrible marksmanship of Union soldiers.
2/ Before the Civil Rights movement, the NRA was an apolitical, gun safety group. Members were gun enthusiasts from both parties.

When the National Rife Act of 1934 was debated in Congress, the NRA lobbyist said this ⤵️
3/ Then after the Civil Rights movement, everything changed.

There was a power struggle within the NRA between the “old guard” and the radicalized extremists who advanced the [new] idea that “conservatism” meant unfettered access to guns.
Read 18 tweets
20 Dec
Yes, this is dangerous--not because a military coup would succeed between now and Biden's inauguration (Biden will be president) but because a major political party and so many voters continue to back Trump.

The danger going forward is that so many voters are OK with this.
The end game is a successful disinformation campaign, by which I mean that a significant portion of the population either believes (or for political expediency pretends to believe) that Trump would have won the election if not for massive fraud.

A Pinochet-style military coup was more common in the 20th century.

21st-century would-be autocrats have an easier and less bloody method: They overthrow democracy by undermining truth and disrupting accurate dissemination of information.
Read 10 tweets
17 Dec
Nah. Trump survived the Access Hollywood tape with those voters.
The patriarchial view is that sexual assault and rape are natural results of "human nature." In other words, it doesn't bother them.

In fact, rape is a means of asserting patriarchial power.
My generation learned that rape is a means of asserting patriarchal power from ⤵️

You could see it play out in the Kavanaugh hearings, particularly in the right-wing defense of Kavanaugh.

I have a thread about that somewhere . . .
Here it is:
(If you wonder how I find my stuff so fast, it's all filed and categorized on my blog. Me = 🤓)
Read 15 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!