Seems like some of the "Stop the Steal" chickens are coming home to roost.

Turns out that both Dominion and Smartmatic are suing the peddlers of falsehoods about "stolen" or "rigged" elections for what could be termed a "tidy sum of money".

The free speech deflectors will no doubt be out in force defending the right of people to spread falsehoods and misinformation.

What's really good about these cases? Well, for a start, the myriad claims various people and organisations made about voting machines "switching" votes can be tested.

Contrary to the wishes of certain people, that doesn't mean that the voting machine companies will need to prove that their machines didn't "switch" votes (that ship has sailed). No, what will need to be proven will be that the claims made by the defendants do indeed have some basis in fact or "truth".

Because if they can't so prove - and the companies in question can successfully argue negative business/reputational consequences arising out of these claims - well, it could get very expensive for cartain people.

I for one will watch with interest.

I imagine that all of those people here - particularly those on "the right" who bleat about "justice" - will be doing the same.

"Free speech" doesn't confer a right to spread bullsh*t. Some speech just isn't "free", as I imagine some worthies may find to their (literal) cost.

https://www.theage.com.au/world/north-america/fox-news-fox-hosts-giuliani-and-powell-named-in-us2-7-billion-libel-suit-by-voting-company-20210205-p56zrl.html

Mix_Master wrote on Feb 5^th, 2021 at 7:36am:

"Free speech" doesn't confer a right to spread bullsh*t. Some speech just isn't "free", as I imagine some worthies may find to their (literal) cost.

So how do you deal with the age old question; who determines whats true and whats BS. EG I for one believe that climate change deniers are full of BS but somehow I suspect that they dont see it that way. Are you going to take sides in that debate and say from now on who can and who cant speak on that issue???   

Jest wrote on Feb 5^th, 2021 at 7:42am:

Mix_Master wrote on Feb 5th, 2021 at 7:36am: "Free speech" doesn't confer a right to spread bullsh*t. Some speech just isn't "free", as I imagine some worthies may find to their (literal) cost. So how do you deal with the age old question; who determines whats true and whats BS.

Do you realize what happens in a court room?

Jest wrote on Feb 5^th, 2021 at 7:42am:

Mix_Master wrote on Feb 5th, 2021 at 7:36am: "Free speech" doesn't confer a right to spread bullsh*t. Some speech just isn't "free", as I imagine some worthies may find to their (literal) cost. So how do you deal with the age old question; who determines whats true and whats BS. EG I for one believe that climate change deniers are full of BS but somehow I suspect that they dont see it that way. Are you going to take sides in that debate and say from now on who can and who cant speak on that issue???

No. Because this isn't about Climate Change. This is about people who made a number of allegations of fraud in the recent U.S Federal election, and now get their opportunity to "prove" that what they claimed actually has some basis in fact.

I'm sure many people will join me in thanking you for sharing your views on Climate Change in a thread about something else entirely.

Do you  actually have a view on what this thread is about?

As for "who determines what's true and what's BS...?" I would say that there were a number of opportunities for some of the defendants involved in this suit to make - and prove - their allegations about the election being "stolen". Not only could they NOT prove that such was the case, they actually told the Courts that there was no fraud, but instead that their cases were based around "irregularities" in small numbers of votes (nowhere near enough to swing the election, BTW).

So, on the one hand, they were admitting in Courts of Law (because there are actual consequences for peddling falsehoods there) that there "was no fraud", and yet on the other, they were peddling conspiracy theories in various media about that same election being "stolen" via "switched votes".

In a litigious country like the U.S, are they surprised that someone is looking to provide them a financial "disincentive" from continuing to do so?

Is anyone?

Cancel culture. Dominion and the leftards just want to stop Rudy and Sidney Powell making stuff up. Why shouldn't they be able to put Dominion out of business? Why shouldn't they be allowed to have their employees threatened?

That's capitalism, no? That's democracy.

So unfair.

Donald Trump could also be sued. The plaintiffs might just be waiting for the outcome of the cases or settlements before targeting Donald Trump.

Donald Trump could also be sued for slanderous utterings and tweets during his tenure as POTUS.

In fact, multiple members of the Trump family could be sued.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Feb 5^th, 2021 at 8:56am:

Donald Trump could also be sued.

Well, that's it. How very dare they?

Suing Rudy or Sidney Powell is one thing, but Mr Trump?

PATHETIC, LEFTARDS, JUST PATHETIC.

Jest wrote on Feb 5^th, 2021 at 7:42am:

EG I for one believe that climate change deniers are full of BS but somehow I suspect that they dont see it that way.

First you would have to show people deny climate changes. The LIA, MWP, Holocene Optimum didn't happen? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

...

Mix_Master wrote on Feb 5^th, 2021 at 8:02am:

Jest wrote on Feb 5th, 2021 at 7:42am: Mix_Master wrote on Feb 5th, 2021 at 7:36am: "Free speech" doesn't confer a right to spread bullsh*t. Some speech just isn't "free", as I imagine some worthies may find to their (literal) cost. So how do you deal with the age old question; who determines whats true and whats BS. EG I for one believe that climate change deniers are full of BS but somehow I suspect that they dont see it that way. Are you going to take sides in that debate and say from now on who can and who cant speak on that issue???    No. Because this isn't about Climate Change. This is about people who made a number of allegations of fraud in the recent U.S Federal election, and now get their opportunity to "prove" that what they claimed actually has some basis in fact. I'm sure many people will join me in thanking you for sharing your views on Climate Change in a thread about something else entirely. Do you  actually have a view on what this thread is about? As for "who determines what's true and what's BS...?" I would say that there were a number of opportunities for some of the defendants involved in this suit to make - and prove - their allegations about the election being "stolen". Not only could they NOT prove that such was the case, they actually told the Courts that there was no fraud, but instead that their cases were based around "irregularities" in small numbers of votes (nowhere near enough to swing the election, BTW). So, on the one hand, they were admitting in Courts of Law (because there are actual consequences for peddling falsehoods there) that there "was no fraud", and yet on the other, they were peddling conspiracy theories in various media about that same election being "stolen" via "switched votes". In a litigious country like the U.S, are they surprised that someone is looking to provide them a financial "disincentive" from continuing to do so? Is anyone?

Ah yes your quite right, my error (my apologies and to AiA as well). I read your statement about free speech not with regard to this liable case (where of course a court can make a judgment after the fact about whether something that was said was false) but as a general rule for deciding before or at the time something is said whether a person can or can't say it. Of course one always takes the risk that one might be sued if they say something false that hurts another financially and/or to their reputation etc. 

Jest wrote on Feb 5^th, 2021 at 8:44pm:

...

Very succinct. ;)

lee wrote on Feb 5^th, 2021 at 8:05pm:

Jest wrote on Feb 5th, 2021 at 7:42am: EG I for one believe that climate change deniers are full of BS but somehow I suspect that they dont see it that way. First you would have to show people deny climate changes. The LIA, MWP, Holocene Optimum didn't happen?

Yes in the sense in which Im using it, you're a climate change denier, you're full BS and I was right, you dont see it that way. 

Jest wrote on Feb 5^th, 2021 at 9:29pm:

Yes in the sense in which Im using it, you're a climate change denier, you're full BS and I was right, you dont see it that way.

You just forgot to show I deny climate changes. Schist I even mentioned the LIA, WMP and the Holocene Optimum. That doesn't sound like denial to me.

Perhaps you need to define your "climate change denial" mantra. ;)

I know let's call it AGW. ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Feb 5^th, 2021 at 8:05pm:

Jest wrote on Feb 5th, 2021 at 7:42am: EG I for one believe that climate change deniers are full of BS but somehow I suspect that they dont see it that way. First you would have to show people deny climate changes. The LIA, MWP, Holocene Optimum didn't happen? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yes, dear, you. We've seen you deny global warming, celebrate global warming, praise increased CO2, deny increased CO2, the lot. You've said it's happening, it's not happening, but at the end of the day, no matter what you've said, you say we should just sit on our hands and say ah.

You? Oh, yes. You haven't got your story straight once. Even now, you'll deny, tell us to quote you, play quote bombs, and try as hard as you can to say nothing, because you know as well as anybody here: you actually have nothing left to say. You have, after all, said it all. You?

Yes, dear, you.  ;)

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Big Donger wrote on Feb 5^th, 2021 at 9:53pm:

Yes, dear, you.

Poor petal. trying so hard to be relevant and failing.

I don't deny that CO2 has the potential to increase temperatures. All else remaining the same. Unfortunately the the climate is a chaotic system and all else does not remain the same. Climate models are the only things that show increased warming. And they have no predictive power. They can't even hindcast accurately. There a many parameters in the climate models. And as von Neumann said "with four parameters I can make an elephant, with five I can wriggle his trunk."

I have praised increasing CO2 it causes crops to flourish.

I haven't denied increasing CO2.

I have said what's happening or not happening petal? you should try to write with clarity. ;)

Who said we should sit on our hands petal.  If you sit on your hands no work gets done. ;)


Big Donger wrote on Feb 5^th, 2021 at 9:53pm:

You haven't got your story straight once.

Wow you are confused. Yes I do tell you to quote me; because you keep saying stuff I haven't said. ::)

lee wrote on Feb 5^th, 2021 at 10:07pm:

Big Donger wrote on Feb 5th, 2021 at 9:53pm: Yes, dear, you.  Poor petal. trying so hard to be relevant and failing. I don't deny that CO2 has the potential to increase temperatures. All else remaining the same. Unfortunately the the climate is a chaotic system and all else does not remain the same. Climate models are the only things that show increased warming. And they have no predictive power. They can't even hindcast accurately. There a many parameters in the climate models. And as von Neumann said "with four parameters I can make an elephant, with five I can wriggle his trunk." I have praised increasing CO2 it causes crops to flourish. I haven't denied increasing CO2. I have said what's happening or not happening petal? you should try to write with clarity. ;) Who said we should sit on our hands petal.  If you sit on your hands no work gets done. ;) Big Donger wrote on Feb 5th, 2021 at 9:53pm: You haven't got your story straight once. Wow you are confused. Yes I do tell you to quote me; because you keep saying stuff I haven't said. ::)

Told you. You left out one thing, dear:

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Big Donger wrote on Feb 5^th, 2021 at 10:24pm:

You left out one thing, dear:

Never mind petal You will recover... eventually.

And so having finished with your lies I will leave you to your wistful dreamings. ;)

Big Donger wrote on Feb 5^th, 2021 at 10:24pm:

lee wrote on Feb 5th, 2021 at 10:07pm: Big Donger wrote on Feb 5th, 2021 at 9:53pm: Yes, dear, you.  Poor petal. trying so hard to be relevant and failing. I don't deny that CO2 has the potential to increase temperatures. All else remaining the same. Unfortunately the the climate is a chaotic system and all else does not remain the same. Climate models are the only things that show increased warming. And they have no predictive power. They can't even hindcast accurately. There a many parameters in the climate models. And as von Neumann said "with four parameters I can make an elephant, with five I can wriggle his trunk." I have praised increasing CO2 it causes crops to flourish. I haven't denied increasing CO2. I have said what's happening or not happening petal? you should try to write with clarity. ;) Who said we should sit on our hands petal.  If you sit on your hands no work gets done. ;) Big Donger wrote on Feb 5th, 2021 at 9:53pm: You haven't got your story straight once. Wow you are confused. Yes I do tell you to quote me; because you keep saying stuff I haven't said. ::) Told you. You left out one thing, dear: ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Lee, you got a history and try as you might you can't shake it. We've all seen your BS so I'll just second Karnal's post, with this emphasis  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Jest wrote on Feb 5^th, 2021 at 11:13pm:

We've all seen your BS so I'll just second Karnal's post, with this emphasis

So youhave no proof of "climate change denial" or you are so special it is a Humpty Dumpty thing "When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.' ". You just use a phrase instead of a word.

;)

Edit: And of course you can't quote me because of FD's search engine too. ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Feb 6^th, 2021 at 12:15pm:

So youhave no proof of "climate change denial"

;D ;D ;D

it's in all your work ::)

John Smith wrote on Feb 6^th, 2021 at 3:28pm:

it's in all your work

Poor petal, I have never denied the climate changes.

But of course perhaps you can quote me. The others can't. Oh noes it is FD's search algorerithm. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D