Thread by @dmschmeyer

This is one of the dumber laws I've ever seen.

Of course it's facially unconstitutional.

But God, line by line it's farcical.

https://twitter.com/LoveMyTN/status/1379943170264403969

I need a document perusing break. Let's laugh at this for a bit.

Somebody's 18 yr old dingbat nepotism intern hire google strict scrutiny and felt real proud of this section, I bet. Because holy effing cow.

Compelling interest to obliterate the 1A, huh? Yikes.

Good legislation concisely and compellingly casts law to address or redress.

This is way too specific to be general.

I wonder which friend of the legislator has this extremely specific gripe.

What a groaningly gas-bag way to say absolutely nothing.

Freedom comes from truth, does it? Is that where it comes from?

Again, eyebrow-raisingly specific screed for legislation that brazenly opens about a dozen unconstitutional cans of worms.

Also a sterling example of that beloved right-wing party game "Let's Invent Civil Liberties Out of Whole Cloth".

Oh, hello, name of act that has oddly little to do with the prior screed.

"Stop Guilt by Association Act."

...If the association is with a lawsuit wouldn't this be "The Innocent Until Proven Guilty in Civil Court As Well" act or something?

Newt Gingrich would be disappoint.

So these guys want to define "abuse of process" as...uh...well...

Creating causes of action that call for mind-reading and inference drawing. Off to a great start. This will work *wonderfully* in practice. Psychic Plaintiff's lawyers, your time has *come*.

Oh, god, seriously?

Oh hey, let's compel speech.

This is both a great idea and totally legal. /s

Not only does this compel speech, but it also seems to compel a point of view.

The final verdict being less than the complaint originally alleged means...what? You want the news to report on that in the exonerative tense? You want them to be ORDERED by defendants to do so?

This isn't funny.

It's not a joke when lawmakers fire a broadside at your Constitutional rights. Not even to protect rights that you *checks act* do not in fact have. You don't have the right to a good reputation. You do not have the right to be viewed the way you want to be.

You do have the right to think what you will and speak your mind absent defamation.

The state wants to *take* that from you. And once you let them, you'll find it VERY hard to claw back. See history writ large.

You don't have the right to not be news. You don't have the right to dictate to the press by *force of law* that you paid fewer damages than you were originally sued for.

Your right to due process doesn't extend to the "court of public opinion". How risible. How sad.

I have to get back to work.

But I'm doing so with a frown on my face.

Millions of citizens stroll around electing legislators who put out crap like this. Freedom-loving lawyers and introspective learned judges should be the *last* line of defense. Some places, they're *it*.

If that doesn't make you think some alarming thoughts, well...

Join us in reality. We need you.

Really quick, because it is currently lying heavy on my soul.

I have people dear to me out there fighting important fights through the courts. Enduring considerable strain trying to see justice done. To advance important causes and protect vulnerable groups.

These people are my heroes. They live their principles and put it on the line to do the right thing.

The legal system can't always deliver total victory to a party, even where it is richly deserved. For a million reasons.

A law like this would see them punished for *trying*.

Who does that protect? 🤔

Could it be powerful, entrenched white men across industry, commerce, and cause, who frequently heap abuse and discrimination on women and minorities?

Their money is their armor. Their social advantages. Their privilege.

They already own the levers of public opinion and use them to silence anyone who would speak out against their misdeeds. Look *around*.

Compelling interest, huh?

Ugh.