A more fundamental question is why litigation is so expensive. Anti-SLAPP is a crude patch for one particular manifestation of that problem.
The barriers to entry established by bar associations artificially raise the cost of legal services. I advocate letting anyone hang out a shingle calling themself a lawyer, and allowing the market to operate in determining who is competent.
As is often the case, Ken is correct. Ken is also frequently an annoying person, which makes it extra annoying when he is right, but it is something we should all be used to by now. When he's wrong, he's REALLY wrong, but that's part of what makes him so indispensable.
It was bold to lead with the origin of anti-SLAPP as another weapon in the quiver of NIMBYs, who just suck. I know Ken has been beating this drum for many years, long before Trump was anywhere near the presidency (though Trump has been, you will be unsurprised to learn, a recurring character in SLAPP and anti-SLAPP disputes across decades and the nation), but to the uninitiated, the timing can smell a bit fishy. Ken's timing, and his inability to truly get the knives out for the left, even when they deserve it, is one of the things that makes him annoying.
In terms of public opinion, it is important that everyone involved in a SLAPP suit is often deeply unsympathetic. For example, I (and I think most people) have zero sympathy for Kendrick Lamar. None. If he is chilled from making diss tracks where he calls people pedophiles, I would personally have no problem with that. Drake, meanwhile (and as far as I know, god forbid I should follow rap 'beefs') lost the musical argument, for lack of a better term, and went running to daddy (the judge). That's pathetic.
But that would raise the question of who decides who is a Lamar and who is a Walz (for example). 'Who decides?' is the frequently the only question that truly matters. As often as possible, the answer should be 'no one.' Thus, we need broad anti-SLAPP.
The problem with your argument is that those who have been sued by Trump and have been found guilty of defamation have in fact been found liable of knowingly telling falsehoods about him to ruin his reputation and hurt him financially or politically. You can criticize Trump all you want, but if you defame him you can be held accountable in court.
Caleb: can you identify a case in which a party has been found liable of knowingly telling falsehoods about Trump? (It’s not “guilty” in a civil case.)
The case where Trump sued George Stephanopolous for falsely saying that Trump was found guilty of rape in a civil case. The network decided to settle, probably because Trump’s lawyers had Stephanopolous dead to rights and discovery was making it clear the falsehood was intentional.
So: when you said that they were “found guilty of defamation,” were you lying, or do you not understand the difference between a settlement and a judgment from a judge or jury? Does that mean you agree that Fox News was “found guilty” of defaming Dominion Voting Systems because they settled that case? Also, it’s pretty clear they settled because the President is a fascist, supported by fascists, willing to use the power of the state to attack litigation opponents.
Stephanopoulos and the network publicly admitted they had broadcast falsehoods about Trump and they paid him money. I suspect they settled because they feared having to pay 10 times as much money and because the discovery process was turning up more evidence against them. This case just underscores why you can’t trust any of the media smears against Trump. They turn out to be lies and exaggerations, as this one was.
I think you raise a good point, Caleb. But I think Ken White's proposal would handle it. Trump could go to court in this case and provide the kind of evidence that Ken White thinks a plaintiff should provide.
I mean, giving Mark Fuckerberg's kowtowing to Trump, the $25 million "settlement" is really just a bribe.
A more fundamental question is why litigation is so expensive. Anti-SLAPP is a crude patch for one particular manifestation of that problem.
The barriers to entry established by bar associations artificially raise the cost of legal services. I advocate letting anyone hang out a shingle calling themself a lawyer, and allowing the market to operate in determining who is competent.
As is often the case, Ken is correct. Ken is also frequently an annoying person, which makes it extra annoying when he is right, but it is something we should all be used to by now. When he's wrong, he's REALLY wrong, but that's part of what makes him so indispensable.
It was bold to lead with the origin of anti-SLAPP as another weapon in the quiver of NIMBYs, who just suck. I know Ken has been beating this drum for many years, long before Trump was anywhere near the presidency (though Trump has been, you will be unsurprised to learn, a recurring character in SLAPP and anti-SLAPP disputes across decades and the nation), but to the uninitiated, the timing can smell a bit fishy. Ken's timing, and his inability to truly get the knives out for the left, even when they deserve it, is one of the things that makes him annoying.
In terms of public opinion, it is important that everyone involved in a SLAPP suit is often deeply unsympathetic. For example, I (and I think most people) have zero sympathy for Kendrick Lamar. None. If he is chilled from making diss tracks where he calls people pedophiles, I would personally have no problem with that. Drake, meanwhile (and as far as I know, god forbid I should follow rap 'beefs') lost the musical argument, for lack of a better term, and went running to daddy (the judge). That's pathetic.
But that would raise the question of who decides who is a Lamar and who is a Walz (for example). 'Who decides?' is the frequently the only question that truly matters. As often as possible, the answer should be 'no one.' Thus, we need broad anti-SLAPP.
Can you give an example of a time Ken has been wrong/annoying? Because I've read a lot of his stuff and never seen it.
The problem with your argument is that those who have been sued by Trump and have been found guilty of defamation have in fact been found liable of knowingly telling falsehoods about him to ruin his reputation and hurt him financially or politically. You can criticize Trump all you want, but if you defame him you can be held accountable in court.
Caleb: can you identify a case in which a party has been found liable of knowingly telling falsehoods about Trump? (It’s not “guilty” in a civil case.)
The case where Trump sued George Stephanopolous for falsely saying that Trump was found guilty of rape in a civil case. The network decided to settle, probably because Trump’s lawyers had Stephanopolous dead to rights and discovery was making it clear the falsehood was intentional.
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/media/article-14383293/George-Stephanopoulos-miserable-ABC-settlement-Trump.html
So: when you said that they were “found guilty of defamation,” were you lying, or do you not understand the difference between a settlement and a judgment from a judge or jury? Does that mean you agree that Fox News was “found guilty” of defaming Dominion Voting Systems because they settled that case? Also, it’s pretty clear they settled because the President is a fascist, supported by fascists, willing to use the power of the state to attack litigation opponents.
Stephanopoulos and the network publicly admitted they had broadcast falsehoods about Trump and they paid him money. I suspect they settled because they feared having to pay 10 times as much money and because the discovery process was turning up more evidence against them. This case just underscores why you can’t trust any of the media smears against Trump. They turn out to be lies and exaggerations, as this one was.
I think you raise a good point, Caleb. But I think Ken White's proposal would handle it. Trump could go to court in this case and provide the kind of evidence that Ken White thinks a plaintiff should provide.
Ken!!! I’ve missed you man
Really need to download the Beehiive app
You’re always fascinating to read even when I disagree but mainly when you’re teaching me about something I knew nothing about or barely understood
Yes. Thanks. Sometimes autocorrect is a total nuisance.