In other news

Not experimental PLUS it did stop the spread..... but PB doing PB things.

Not sure which laws apply as i don't know which states have jurisdiction over national media alleged defamation, but if Trump can lose a lawsuit for defamation because he called someone a liar about something that the jury thought actually happened, then i suppose a media company can lose a suit for defamation if they ever called trump a liar about something he technically didn't lie about right? at least if the jurisdiction is in new york state.

Probably. That's what I'm asking PB what he's actually suing for. If it's like your example, it would have to be some specific article or claim that some media outlet made. I get the impression PB thinks you can sue "the media" as some sort of amorphous monolithic entity for "bias" i.e. general negative coverage.

I wonder if you can countersue a sitting president?

Election interference, conspiracy, possibly even treason against the United States. They conspired to install a particular candidate into office (like they did in 2020).

Oh, so not bias and defamation then. Oh my, treason, that sounds pretty bad. Odd that traitors are tried in civil suits brought by private party plaintiffs these days, so hard to keep up with the ever expanding legal universe. Anyway, keep us in the loop as to how that's going.

If the gov't decides to proceed with charges of treason, there's no civil court it gets handled by the military (Vice Admiral Darse Crandall and military officers from the Judge Advocate Generals Corp. specifically). This also goes for all the corrupt judges in NYC, CO and elsewhere, and if the jurors or anyone else took bribes in lieu of a conviction they're all subject to treason charges as well.

That's wild bro. Keep me posted.

We love our freedom of speech don’t we folks

There are a few things:

-truth is always a defense against defamation accusations
-being a political figure the courts will almost never find their defamation cases to be valid
-you have to actually show damages
-e gene carrol likely sent many cease and desist requests before suing for defamation
-trump was already found civilly liable and therefore he was not eligible to contest the sexual assault the second time around
-trump continued the pattern of behavior that led him to be found liable in the first place
-and remember, this was for actions that occurred after his presidency had already ended

This is more than just being about freedom of speech. CBS changed the answer that a presidential candidate gave while she was being interviewed and showed a new changed version to the public making it look like it was her answer, not knowing the original answer was changed. That's fraud at best and it was done to help her win. That's cheating and treason. And furthermore, all the debates were clearly extremely biased to help the democrats win. That's why the moderators jumped in to discredit Trump, but it shouldn't be about their opinions or what they have to say. That's dishonesty. If Trump says something that's inaccurate (he turned out to be right about crime rising) then let the news talk shows and the rest of the wold decipher that, not a controlled moderator. What gives a network, a show, or anybody the right to do that?

TIL that editing an interview is treason. Every day's a school day.

the first amendment.

dishonesty in speech to a large degree is fully legal.

you can change stuff to make something look like something else especially given you are not claiming anything other than showing the edited footage.

the right run AI generated videos of Harris and others saying absurd things (some were quite funny). some people might have taken those for "real". still legal

Point me to the statute or law that was violated.

Spoiler alert: you can’t because there isn’t one.

And that’s assuming everything you say is true which I disagree with but don’t need to get into to make my point. Even if the facts are exactly what you allege, it wouldn’t be illegal, let alone “treason” which is just a stupid thing to say.

I guess freedom of speech is not acceptable for maga .
Only speech from foxnews and the bible is ….

It was conspiracy and collusion to keep a coup in power for another 4 years. The fake MSM colluded with the handlers of the democrats to heavily favor 4 more years of their criminal regime.

Again, with the ridiculous lies, liar. It’s for defamation and defamation per se. it’s a two count complaint.

Case 0:22-cv-61842-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/03/2022 Page 1 of 29
DONALD J. TRUMP, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC. Serve on:
C T CORPORATION SYSTEM 1200 SOUTH PINE ISLAND ROAD PLANTATION, FL 33324
DEFENDANT.
CASE NO. _________________ COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
Introduction
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION
1. The Plaintiff, President Donald J. Trump, has been a long-time critic of the Defendant, Cable News Network, Inc. (“CNN”)—not because CNN does a bad job of reporting the news, but because CNN seeks to create the news (“fake news,” as the Plaintiff has characterized it in public statements). Beyond simply highlighting any negative information about the Plaintiff and ignoring all positive information about him, CNN has sought to use its massive influence— purportedly as a “trusted” news source—to defame the Plaintiff in the minds of its viewers and readers for the purpose of defeating him politically, culminating in CNN claiming credit for “[getting] Trump out” in the 2020 presidential election. CNN’s campaign of dissuasion in the form of libel and slander against the Plaintiff has only escalated in recent months as CNN fears the Plaintiff will run for president in 2024. As a part of its concerted effort to tilt the political balance to the Left, CNN has tried to taint the Plaintiff with a series of ever-more scandalous, false, and defamatory labels of “racist,” “Russian lackey,” “insurrectionist,” and ultimately “Hitler.” These

So what would the statute or law be? You realize vaguely gesturing at legal terms isn’t an argument about why something is illegal, right?

That's the same as sedition or treason or something, right? I mean, dude, did you not see what they did? They. Edited. An. Interview.

This wasn't always the case. Before cable television when there were just three networks, because the networks were "borrowing" the airwaves from the government, they were forced to give equal time to both political parties. Once cable became a thing that system went away but there are still vestiges of it. Saturday Night Live recently ran into an issue with it after having Kamala on.

You forgot u/45 😀

Pb must have read the secret amended criminal indictment in a civil complaint that the msm is trying to bury.

BREAKING: The Pentagon fails its seventh consecutive financial audit, unable to account for $824 billion of its budget.

(this will get swept under the rug again by the msm puppets).

Obivously if the gov't would be taking any action against them (even for at the very least suspending their license to broadcast) it would be a different complaint. It would't be tied to a civil complaint.

You were the one that claimed Trumps causes of action were:

Are you backing off this lie or are you trying to educate me on the differences between criminal and civil proceedings?