╌>

Nunes sues Twitter, some users, seeks over $250M alleging anti-conservative 'shadow bans,' smears

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  ender  •  5 years ago  •  92 comments

Nunes sues Twitter, some users, seeks over $250M alleging anti-conservative 'shadow bans,' smears

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


California GOP Rep. Devin Nunes filed a major lawsuit seeking $250 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages against Twitter and a handful of its users on Monday, accusing the social media site of "shadow-banning conservatives" including himself to influence the 2018 elections, explicitly and systematically censoring opposing viewpoints and "ignoring" lawful complaints of repeated abusive behavior.

In a   complaint   filed in Virginia state court on Monday, Nunes said Twitter was guilty of "knowingly hosting and monetizing content that is clearly abusive, hateful and defamatory – providing both a voice and financial incentive to the defamers – thereby facilitating defamation on its platform."

Although federal law ordinarily exempts services like Twitter from defamation liability, Nunes' suit said the platform has taken such an active role in curating and banning content that it should lose that protection and face liability like any other organization that defames.

"Twitter created and developed the content at issue in this case by transforming false accusations of criminal conduct, imputed wrongdoing, dishonesty and lack of integrity into a publicly available commodity used by unscrupulous political operatives and their donor/clients as a weapon," Nunes' legal team wrote.

In large part because of Twitter's actions, Nunes "endured an orchestrated defamation campaign of stunning breadth and scope, one that no human being should ever have to bear and suffer in their whole life" in the past year, according to the complaint.

The complaint also named specific Twitter accounts that spread allegedly defamatory material about Nunes. One defendant, identified as "Liz" Mair, purportedly published tweets that "implied that Nunes colluded with prostitutes and cocaine addicts, that Nunes does cocaine, and that Nunes was involved in a 'Russian money laundering front,'" according to Nunes' lawyers. They specifically quoted a June 22, 2018 tweet that implied Nunes invested in a winery that "allegedly used underage hookers to solicit investment."

Mair did not respond to Fox News' request for comment. Fox News has also reached out to Twitter for comment on the lawsuit, but did not receive an immediate reply.

The complaint also names "Devin Nunes’ Mom," "a person who, with Twitter’s consent, hijacked Nunes’ name, falsely impersonated Nunes’ mother, and created and maintained an account on Twitter (@DevinNunesMom) for the sole purpose of attacking, defaming, disparaging and demeaning Nunes," according to the complaint.

"In her endless barrage of tweets, Devin Nunes’ Mom maliciously attacked every aspect of Nunes’ character, honesty, integrity, ethics and fitness to perform his duties as a United States Congressman," Nunes' lawyers wrote.

As of Monday afternoon, the DevinNunesMom account was suspended by Twitter when Fox News tried to access it. The complaint stated that "Twitter only suspended the account in 2019 after Nunes’ real mother, Toni Dian Nunes, complained. ... Twitter permitted @DevinNunesMom, for instance, to tweet and retweet with impunity throughout 2018."

However, according to the complaint, "Twitter did nothing to investigate or review the defamation that appeared in plain view on its platform. Twitter consciously allowed the defamation of Nunes to continue. As part of its agenda to squelch Nunes’ voice, cause him extreme pain and suffering, influence the 2018 Congressional election, and distract, intimidate and interfere with Nunes’ investigation into corruption and Russian involvement in the 2016 Presidential Election, Twitter did absolutely nothing."

The complaint also charged that Twitter "shadow-banned" Nunes in 2018 "in order to restrict his free speech and to amplify the abusive and hateful content published and republished by Mair, Devin Nunes’ Mom," and other accounts.

"The shadow-banning was intentional," the complaint continued. "It was calculated to interfere with and influence the federal election and interfere with Nunes’ ongoing investigation as a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Twitter’s actions affected the election results. The combination of the shadow-ban and Twitter’s refusal to enforce its Terms and Rules in the face of clear and present abuse and hateful conduct caused Nunes to lose support amongst voters."

The lawsuit cited numerous media reports, including a   Vice News story from last summer , reporting that Twitter had, for a time, downplayed the visibility of prominent conservatives in its search results.

On Monday, Sean Davis, the managing editor of The Federalist, wrote that he had recently been the apparent victim of a form of shadow-banning on Twitter.

"Twitter gave me no notice or explanation when it shadowbanned one of my Tweets about Russian interference in our elections," Davis wrote. "But what's worse is how Twitter apparently gives its users the fraudulent impression that their tweets, which Twitter secretly bans, are still public."

Davis charged that Twitter "claimed in its e-mail to me that it 'mistakenly remove[d]' a completely anodyne tweet about public congressional testimony, but didn't explain why it left the tweet--and metrics showing no engagement--visible to me when logged in. Is conning users a bug, or a feature?"


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Ender    5 years ago

Now tell me, who are the snowflakes again?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @1    5 years ago

Hmmm, the same amount that kid's family is suing CNN for?  See how far it gets you turd!

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.2  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @1    5 years ago
Now tell me, who are the snowflakes again?

How is this different than the squealing that went on about Facebook after the 2016 elections?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2    5 years ago

Now there is the question that dosen't get answered

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.2.2  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2    5 years ago
How is this different than the squealing that went on about Facebook after the 2016 elections?

Was there another $250 Million court suit that we all missed? If not, that may be the difference you're looking for. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
1.2.3  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.1    5 years ago
Now there is the question that dosen't [sic]] get answered

Many questions like that don't merit an answer. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.2.4  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @1.2.2    5 years ago
Was there another $250 Million court suit that we all missed? If not, that may be the difference you're looking for. 

Meh.  We did have 2 years worth of congressional hearings, and now we're talking about government regulation of FB.

Keep in mind, whatever the settlement is, it won't be $250m.  Also, we're talking about very big companies with very big revenues.  $250m wouldn't hurt very much even if it did happen.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.2.5  seeder  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.4    5 years ago

The hearings were more about how foreign companies, countries, individuals, use bots and social media to sway political opinion, thus maybe an election.

Facebook took it upon themselves to try to delete fake/bot accounts.

If one wants to compare the two, I would say that Nunes is upset that the practice is trying to be negated.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.2.6  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.4    5 years ago
Meh.  We did have 2 years worth of congressional hearings, and now we're talking about government regulation of FB.

You know the seed is about Nunes suing Twitter right? 

Keep in mind, whatever the settlement is, it won't be $250m. Also, we're talking about very big companies with very big revenues. $250m wouldn't hurt very much even if it did happen.

Nunes' suit is ridiculous. I hope he ends up paying their legal fees. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.2.7  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @1.2.6    5 years ago
You know the seed is about Nunes suing Twitter right? 

And your point is that the suit is ridiculous.  

My point is that your point is simply an expression of your well-documented identity politics.  If this was a Democrat suing, you'd be supporting it.

Nunes' suit is ridiculous.

Why?  Why is FB somehow supposed to be responsible for content that gets broadcast through their system and Twitter somehow isn't?  The biggest difference seems to be that one complaint involved messaging working against Democrats and the other involves messaging working against Republicans, of course.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.2.8  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.7    5 years ago
My point is that your point is simply an expression of your well-documented identity politics.  If this was a Democrat suing, you'd be supporting it.

Unsurprisingly, you assume too much. If a Democrat was suing on the same basis as Nunes, I'd laugh him/her out of the party. 

Why? Why is FB somehow supposed to be responsible for content that gets broadcast through their system and Twitter somehow isn't? The biggest difference seems to be that one complaint involved messaging working against Democrats and the other involves messaging working against Republicans, of course.

Well based on Nunes' filing, which I'm sure that you've READ, much like Trump, Nunes seems to lack a basic understanding of libel law, especially when it comes to PARODY. Maybe Nunes' lawyers should have done a little research on the subject before writing an utterly ridiculous filing. 

Secondly, Nunes cited Liz Mair, who has 1st Amendment rights equal to Nunes and Trump for that matter. The majority of the issues with FB has been bots, unnamed or clandestine accounts. It's pretty fucking obvious that Liz Mair's account doesn't qualify as such. 

If Trump can spew his ad nauseam attacks on anyone and everyone who he perceives as a threat, even the dead, Liz Mair has every right to do so too.

So unless and until Nunes demands that Trump be censored for his vitriol, he can go pound sand. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.2.9  Ozzwald  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.7    5 years ago
If this was a Democrat suing, you'd be supporting it.

Nope.

Why is FB somehow supposed to be responsible for content that gets broadcast through their system and Twitter somehow isn't?

Both FB and Twitter should be responsible for some content, but not if it just that the content hurts someone's feelings.  The people that Trump insults, lies about, and demeans on Twitter cannot sue him, why should they be allowed to sue Twitter?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.2.10  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @1.2.8    5 years ago
Unsurprisingly, you assume too much.

Riiiiiiiight.  Given your post history, how could I have ever questioned your impartiality?  

Maybe Nunes' lawyers should have done a little research on the subject before writing an utterly ridiculous filing. 

You're claiming your experience with libel law is more reliable than a highly paid team of experienced lawyers.  Out of curiosity, does this amazing expertise extend to any other fields?  Are you expert enough to know what Jon Gruden needs to do to revive the Raiders?  Are you ready to advise the board of GE on how to turn around a faltering industrial giant?  Maybe you should have lent Hillary some of this vast knowledge back in 2016 and saved her all that embarrassment.

Secondly, Nunes cited Liz Mair, who has 1st Amendment rights equal to Nunes and Trump for that matter.

Accusing someone of child prostitution and cocaine dealing?  Good luck with that.

If Trump can spew his ad nauseam attacks on anyone and everyone who he perceives as a threat, even the dead, Liz Mair has every right to do so too.

So the best you can really manage is "it's totally wrong but Trump does it, too".  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.2.11  Jack_TX  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.9    5 years ago
Both FB and Twitter should be responsible for some content, but not if it just that the content hurts someone's feelings.  The people that Trump insults, lies about, and demeans on Twitter cannot sue him, why should they be allowed to sue Twitter?

The suit specifically describes Twitter not adhering to their own published rules.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.2.12  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.10    5 years ago
Riiiiiiiight.  Given your post history, how could I have ever questioned your impartiality? 

Is that what you were questioning Jack? 

You're claiming your experience with libel law is more reliable than a highly paid team of experienced lawyers.

What lead you to that conclusion? 

Out of curiosity, does this amazing expertise extend to any other fields? Are you expert enough to know what Jon Gruden needs to do to revive the Raiders? Are you ready to advise the board of GE on how to turn around a faltering industrial giant? Maybe you should have lent Hillary some of this vast knowledge back in 2016 and saved her all that embarrassment.

Supercilious claptrap. 

Accusing someone of child prostitution and cocaine dealing? Good luck with that.

So you're saying that Clinton should be suing twitter for the whole child prostitution ring in the Pizza parlor basement thingy? 

How about Obama suing twitter for Trump's wiretapping lie? 

HOW is twitter libel for the content of Liz Mair's twitter feed? 

So the best you can really manage is "it's totally wrong but Trump does it, too".

I can manage much more but doubt you're worthy of the effort. 

Suffice it to say that perhaps Nunes should grow a pair and address Liz Mair mano a mano. 

The other 'defendants' are non-starters and anyone who is old enough to remember Hustler v Farwell knows that.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.2.13  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.11    5 years ago
The suit specifically describes Twitter not adhering to their own published rules.

What the suit describes are Nunes' interpretation of Twitter's rules. Nunes ASSUMES that the rules outlaw defamation, they do not.

The irony that both you and Nunes seem to ignore is that were Nunes held to the SAME standard that he wants twitter to be held to, HE could be sued for defamation against Hillary Clinton based on his own twitter feed. I'm pretty sure that Nunes' feed will be scrutinized and a plethora of his own tweets will be labeled as defamation. 

Nunes makes some pretty broad assumptions of twitter's 'motives', none of which he seems to support with evidence. He actually claims that the parody sites were somehow 'impersonating' him. Or maybe he's claiming that they were impersonating his cow, hard to tell from his ridiculous filing. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.2.14  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @1.2.12    5 years ago
What lead you to that conclusion? 

Plaintiff's attorneys usually work on a percentage of the settlement.  They do not accept cases they don't think will be profitable.  

Supercilious claptrap. 

Not enough people use the word "supercilious" these days.  Or claptrap.  Well done.

So you're saying that Clinton should be suing twitter for the whole child prostitution ring in the Pizza parlor basement thingy?  How about Obama suing twitter for Trump's wiretapping lie? 

If either believes they can prove that they were harmed and Twitter violated or abridged their own terms of use...then yes...absolutely. 

HOW is twitter libel for the content of Liz Mair's twitter feed? 

I think the word you're looking for is "liable" (they can be held "liable" for the "libel" on the site), but the accountability of internet platforms with regard to the content they host is a well established legal principle.  You may have heard of "Napster" or "Kim Dotcom". 

Twitter, Facebook, et al have Terms of Use agreements that everyone accepts without reading when they set up their account.  If the owners of the platform fail to enforce the terms of use and people are harmed, they can be held liable.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.2.15  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @1.2.13    5 years ago
What the suit describes are Nunes' interpretation of Twitter's rules. Nunes ASSUMES that the rules outlaw defamation, they do not.

They specifically prohibit abuse, harassment, and impersonation.

Nunes makes some pretty broad assumptions of twitter's 'motives', none of which he seems to support with evidence.

I'm sure you don't think so.  I'm also sure the Jack Dorsey could stab him in the eye with a flathead screwdriver and you would struggle to find anything wrong with it.

claims that the parody sites were somehow 'impersonating' him.

Or his mother.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.2.16  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.14    5 years ago
Plaintiff's attorneys usually work on a percentage of the settlement.  They do not accept cases they don't think will be profitable.  

WTF does that have to do with your claim? Hint: nothing. 

You may have heard of "Napster" or "Kim Dotcom".

It would behoove you to recognize that there is a HUGE difference between defamation and theft of intellectual property.

Kim Dotcom what a criminal enterprise. Again, a false equivalency.

Twitter, Facebook, et al have Terms of Use agreements that everyone accepts without reading when they set up their account. If the owners of the platform fail to enforce the terms of use and people are harmed, they can be held liable.

Actually, Twitter's Terms of Service states clearly:

You understand that by using the Services, you may be exposed to Content that might be offensive, harmful, inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate, or in some cases, postings that have been mislabeled or are otherwise deceptive. All Content is the sole responsibility of the person who originated such Content. We may not monitor or control the Content posted via the Services and, we cannot take responsibility for such Content.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.2.17  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @1.2.16    5 years ago
WTF does that have to do with your claim? Hint: nothing. 

*eyeroll*  

Again, your committed, dogged refusal to see anyone's view but your own prevails.  Again.  And again.  And again. 

Again, a false equivalency.

I'm sure you are desperate to believe so.  I'm sure you are absolutely never, ever, ever going to admit that your initial knee jerk emotional biased reaction is not the absolute law of the land.   But the fact remains that people have lost significant court cases based on content they hosted.

Actually, Twitter's Terms of Service states clearly:

It clearly states:

Abuse:  You may not engage in the targeted harassment of someone, or incite other people to do so.

and

You may not impersonate individuals, groups, or organizations in a manner that is intended to or does mislead, confuse, or deceive others.

So we'll see.  Some very high powered lawyers on both sides are going to make some very persuasive arguments, and the implications of the case are extraordinary.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.2.18  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.17    5 years ago
Again, your committed, dogged refusal to see anyone's view but your own prevails.  Again.  And again.  And again. 

YOU said:

You're claiming your experience with libel law is more reliable than a highly paid team of experienced lawyers.

That's not a question, that's a statement. YOU made an unfounded allegation. I asked you:

What lead you to that conclusion?

And instead of giving me a cogent answer, you blathered some bullshit about legal fees and posted the revelation that lawyers work for profit. In short, you deflected. 

So what fucking 'view' are do you claim that I'm refusing to see Jack? 

I'm sure you are desperate to believe so.

Again, your assumption is wrong. 

I'm sure you are absolutely never, ever, ever going to admit that your initial knee jerk emotional biased reaction is not the absolute law of the land.

More supercilious claptrap. Well done. 

But the fact remains that people have lost significant court cases based on content they hosted.

The fact remains that you've already cited 2, neither of which is relevant. I've already shot both of them down.

Conversely, I cited the precedent setting court case ruling on parodies of public figures. 

How about instead of devolving to personal comments, you cite a case that actually relates to a host being held liable for defaming content posted by a user? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.2.19  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.15    5 years ago
They specifically prohibit abuse, harassment, and impersonation.

Perhaps you are unaware that twitter allows the account holder to block people AND to close down an account. Nunes should have used those tools to mitigate his 'distress'. 

I'm sure you don't think so.

I READ his filing, I KNOW so. 

I'm also sure the Jack Dorsey could stab him in the eye with a flathead screwdriver and you would struggle to find anything wrong with it.

You're also wrong AGAIN. You are commenting on what you think about ME instead of the LAW. Try harder...

BTFW, I could not care less about Jack Dorsey. Hell, I had to look him up. 

The basis of the Hustler v. Farwell ruling is:

If parodying a public figure depicts facts which no reasonable person could take as true, that figure cannot prevail under a theory of emotional distress.

Nunes will have to PROVE that reasonable people who were exposed to the tweets believed that the depicted facts were true. Nunes being butthurt won't cut it...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.20  Tessylo  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.4    5 years ago
'$250m wouldn't hurt very much even if it did happen.'

NOT GONNA HAPPEN

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.21  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @1.2.13    5 years ago

'What the suit describes are Nunes' interpretation of Twitter's rules. Nunes ASSUMES that the rules outlaw defamation, they do not.'

Wasn't one of the tweets that Nunes' was Rump's little bitch?  jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

It's not defamation when it's true.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.2.22  Jack_TX  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.20    5 years ago

Well now that it's in all caps, I agree completely....  jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @1    5 years ago

THEY MADE FUN OF ME ON TWITTER!  I'M SUING!

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2  JBB    5 years ago

The gop just keeps on getting smaller and smaller and smaller. So, um, pathetic...

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Ender  replied to  JBB @2    5 years ago

How sad is it that an acting member of congress is suing a company because he is butthurt.

Pathetic is correct.

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Silent
3  lib50    5 years ago

I don't know how anyone can respect these people.  They dish out the hate but can't take the scrutiny that comes with the job.  Maybe Putin will step in.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
4  bbl-1    5 years ago

Nunes is lining up some 'attorney money?'  Better yet, call the Trump, maybe he can set you up with a Saudi loan.

Besides Mr. Nunes, being a cowardly lying weasel are 'piss poor' credentials for being a 'so called' conservative. 

Cry baby cry.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5  Trout Giggles    5 years ago

"extreme pain and suffering"?????

Really, Mr. Nunes?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6  Vic Eldred    5 years ago

How dare he!

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
6.1  Ronin2  replied to  Vic Eldred @6    5 years ago

Who does he think he is, a Democrat?!!!!

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
6.1.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Ronin2 @6.1    5 years ago
Who does he think he is, a Democrat?!!!!

Yeah, ride that nag and see how far it gets you.  

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
6.1.2  Studiusbagus  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @6.1.1    5 years ago
Yeah, ride that nag and see how far it gets you.  

Why ride anything at all?

You're debating with Harry Houdini of the internet...just disappears.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
7  Thrawn 31    5 years ago

Meh fuck him. Don't say dumb shit on social media, problem solved. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
7.1  Split Personality  replied to  Thrawn 31 @7    5 years ago

384

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
8  Dulay    5 years ago

I doubt that Nunes, being the mental defective that he is, recognizes that were Twitter be held to the standard that he wants to set for it, hundreds of people could sue Trump for his tweets. 

Seriously, Trump perpetrates every one of the actions Nunes decries on an almost daily basis. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
8.1  Split Personality  replied to  Dulay @8    5 years ago
WASHINGTON

In suing two Twitter parody accounts for defamation, Rep. Devin Nunes amplified their audiences.

One of the accounts, known as Devin Nunes’ Cow, saw its followers on Twitter swell from just over a thousand to more than 119,000 in less than a day after the Republican congressman from Tulare announced his lawsuit on Fox News.

The anonymous writer behind the account continued to taunt the congressman. In one post, the author wrote, “Do process servers visit dairies, or will it come in the mail?”

Nunes filed his lawsuit in Henrico County, Virginia early Tuesday. He’s seeking more than $250 million from Twitter, a political strategist who is critical of Nunes on Twitter and the anonymous users behind the parody accounts, arguing the tweets damaged his reputation and were responsible for his narrower-than-usual win of his congressional seat in 2018.

Nunes said the lawsuit was “the first of many,” when he appeared on Sean Hannity’s Fox show Monday night. He added he was “starting with Twitter and going on to the fake new stories.”

"the first of many"...   shades of Sandman.

And yet Devin Nunes continues to have 2 Twitter accounts.....

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
8.1.1  Split Personality  replied to  Split Personality @8.1    5 years ago

Fox News’ Judge Napolitano Dismisses Devin Nunes’ Twitter Lawsuit: ‘Novel Litigation’ to Get Attention

‘Sometimes courts don’t like to be used to make political statements but we will see where this goes,’ the Fox News analyst said.

...

Appearing on Fox & Friends Tuesday morning, Napolitano immediately said that “it’s a novel litigation” and “we haven’t seen anything like this before” when asked his opinion on the suit.

“Usually when public officials sue because of what somebody said or didn’t say about them, they lose,” he added. “The theory being they have as big a megaphone as the person they claim has harmed them.”

Noting that Twitter’s not regulated by the First Amendment as it’s a private company, the Fox analyst wondered whether Nunes was just looking to make a statement, prompting co-host Steve Doocy to excitedly declare that that’s exactly what the Republican congressman is doing.

 
 
 
Rmando
Sophomore Silent
8.1.2  Rmando  replied to  Split Personality @8.1    5 years ago

""the first of many"... shades of Sandman."

I don't know if Nunes has an actual case but Sandmann certainly does. There's a world of difference between a politician who puts himself in the public sphere and a minor who passively stands still will being mocked and provoked with hate speech and threatened by a proven liar. The "adults" at WaPo and CNN should've known better than to vilify and encourage hate on an innocent bystander.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
8.1.3  Split Personality  replied to  Rmando @8.1.2    5 years ago

Ok, I'll grant you that there's a slight difference between the 2 suits, but not the outrageous amounts.

But tell me, who mocked a minor and provoked him with hate speech?  What would that person's being a proven liar have to do with anything at all?

Besides, an "innocent bystander" was not forced to "stand his ground" was he?  He had other choices, right?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
8.1.4  seeder  Ender  replied to  Rmando @8.1.2    5 years ago

I agree with the shades of sandman for the fact that it is a coordinated effort.

This seems to be a tactic of some republican operatives.

 
 
 
Rmando
Sophomore Silent
8.1.5  Rmando  replied to  Split Personality @8.1.3    5 years ago

The people who provoked him were the Black Hebrew Israelites or whatever they call themselves who were hurling racial and gay slurs at not just the kids but even the Native American groups. The proven liar was Nathan Phillips who contradicted himself over and over. And no, Sandmann has every right to stand his ground. Americans do not have to flee and live in fear in the face of hate and bigotry. 

In case you've forgotten here's a sample of the vitriol he had to face and even liberals condemning the biased media coverage in the video above.

 
 
 
Rmando
Sophomore Silent
8.1.6  Rmando  replied to  Ender @8.1.4    5 years ago

What coordinated attack? Unless you mean the media deliberately did not do its job in researching the incident. The whole video that told the true story was readily available. Any competent journalist could've easily found it. At best it was gross negligence and shoddy work on the part of the media, at worst it was coordinated character assassination, hence the lawsuits.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
8.1.7  seeder  Ender  replied to  Rmando @8.1.6    5 years ago

Do you think this kid and his family have the ability to do all this on their own?

There are backers and people coordinating all of it.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
8.1.8  Split Personality  replied to  Rmando @8.1.6    5 years ago

This is the age of the internet and smart phones, anonymous keyboard warriors and people who post anonymous you tube films.

Can he sue Nathan Phillips for anything, no.

Can he sue the Black Hebrews for bad behavior, no.

Should he be suing anyone over the filming of his own behavior, maybe, but it isn't CNN or WAPO.

Like I said, he had ample opportunity to turn aside or walk away. That wasn't the media's decision.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
8.1.9  seeder  Ender  replied to  Split Personality @8.1.8    5 years ago

Gotta love the new mentality. Don't like the outcome of a situation...sue.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
8.1.10  Tacos!  replied to  Ender @8.1.9    5 years ago
Don't like the outcome of a situation...sue.

What situation?

 
 
 
Rmando
Sophomore Silent
8.1.11  Rmando  replied to  Split Personality @8.1.8    5 years ago

Phillips doesn't have an international platform with any journalistic ethics to uphold and I seriously doubt the Black Hebrews even have a source of income. Sandmann had absolutely no obligation to walk away. It's not about the filming or the online trolling from regular people either. It's about media groups with the ability to trash a person's reputation and job opportunities with reckless slander and malice. CNN and WaPo are guilty of journalistic malpractice. That's why WaPo at least gave a belated retraction over a month later. They know they screwed up.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @8.1.4    5 years ago
'I agree with the shades of sandman for the fact that it is a coordinated effort. This seems to be a tactic of some republican operatives.'

Yup!  Agreed!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  Rmando @8.1.6    5 years ago

He was never threatened.  He was in no way defamed.  His family hired a team of spin doctors and they're going to sue, sue, sue, and sue some more.  It won't go anywhere.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  Rmando @8.1.5    5 years ago
'In case you've forgotten here's a sample of the vitriol he had to face and even liberals condemning the biased media coverage in the video above.'

NOPE

 
 
 
Rmando
Sophomore Silent
8.1.15  Rmando  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.13    5 years ago

If Sandmann wasn't threatened by having Philips get in his face then Philips wasn't threatened in the original fake version of the story. You can't have it both ways.

The "spin doctors" as you call them include the attorney who represented Richard Jewell in the suit against NBC on the 96 Atlanta Olympics bombing coverage. NBC paid out and my guess is so will WaPo and CNN. If they don't I'll enjoy watching them squirm in court.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.16  Tessylo  replied to  Rmando @8.1.15    5 years ago

He wasn't threatened or harrassed in the slightest by Mr. Phillips.

Spin doctors.  Frivolous lawsuit.  

The little turd was taunted by those black israelites or whoever the hell they were.  

The suit won't go anywhere.  It's frivolous.  250 million?  GTFOOH!

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
8.1.17  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Rmando @8.1.15    5 years ago
then Philips wasn't threatened in the original fake version of the story. You can't have it both ways.

I don't recall anyone claiming Philips was "threatened" by Sandmann. I do recall people calling Sandmann a smug little racist shit, which regardless of the initial taunting by the black Hebrews, would still be the conclusion many have about Sandmann after watching him react to Philips.

Media, anywhere, even a small town newspaper, is like a magnifying glass. If you get "featured" people are going to have opinions and it's very unlikely everyone will draw the same conclusions. It seems here, Nunes, and other thin skinned conservatives, are trying to blame the media for printing stories about them that other people then express opinions about on the new social media of today which are just the new gossip rings. They also don't appear to know the difference between someone expressing an opinion and someone slandering or libeling them. If a story comes out about Nunes, or a video is shown of Sandmann, that is not libelous unless it contains actual false statements about them. Calling Nunes "Trumps whipping boy" or the white houses "little bitch" are just opinions formed after hearing the media stories and drawing your own conclusion. Twitter allows people to share their opinions, and calling someone names is protected speech and something these snowflake conservatives hero Donald Trump does all the time.

These cases will be thrown out, but I think that may have been their intent all along, to create more aggrieved conservatives who imagine the world, including the courts, is tilted against them when in reality they're the ones walking around with their heads cocked to one side. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
8.1.18  seeder  Ender  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @8.1.17    5 years ago

The way they have been packing the courts, I know wonder how some of these would go.

 
 
 
Rmando
Sophomore Silent
8.1.19  Rmando  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @8.1.17    5 years ago

"I don't recall anyone claiming Philips was "threatened" by Sandmann. I do recall people calling Sandmann a smug little racist shit, which regardless of the initial taunting by the black Hebrews, would still be the conclusion many have about Sandmann after watching him react to Philips."

The only people still calling Sandmann racist after watching the full video must be ones with a lot of hate in their hearts or a chronic case of TDS. It was a blatant case of journalistic malpractice.

I'll agree the Nunes case won't go anywhere but I seriously doubt he filed it thinking it would. That was most likely a way to draw attention to Twitter and their practices. But as long as conservatives keep using Twitter while complaining nothing will change. It's like Occupy Wallstreet pushing against the 1% while drinking coffee at Starbucks and using their I phones,

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
8.1.20  Split Personality  replied to  Split Personality @8.1    5 years ago

'Devin Nunes’ Cow' mooves past Devin Nunes in Twitter followers less than 2 days after lawsuit

Devin Nunes Cow now has 401,000 followers, topping the congressman's 394,500 followers.

Talk about unintended consequences !!

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
8.1.21  Kavika   replied to  Split Personality @8.1.1    5 years ago

When the Judge calls you a ''snowflake'' you know that there is nothing brass about you...

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
8.1.22  Studiusbagus  replied to  Rmando @8.1.11    5 years ago
I seriously doubt the Black Hebrews even have a source of income.

Amusing you would come to this conclusion. What was it that inspired this gem of perception for such a thought? Do you know their families? 

Sandmann had absolutely no obligation to walk away.

Actually he did. That property was permitted to the original Americans for their private use, not as a bus stop for a bunch of students. 

Being youths, I wouldn't expect them to be abreast of those details. And since there obviously was a lack of proper adult supervision this situation got worse and became the scandal du jour for the right because the woman hating indoctrinators were spread too thin allowing a smug teenager to think he's 10 feet tall. 

When he grows up and finds some compassion, the passing of this elder before he could learn to speak as man instead as a political prop will haunt him until his passing.

But by that time both will long be forgotten by self centered pricks that continue to make hay and sew hate. Those guys, they just disappear when responsibility for their input or facts come calling.

 
 
 
Rmando
Sophomore Silent
8.1.23  Rmando  replied to  Studiusbagus @8.1.22    5 years ago

"Amusing you would come to this conclusion. What was it that inspired this gem of perception for such a thought? Do you know their families?"

Why would I want to get to know the families of bigots? These idiots were calling the Covington kids "faggots" and the Native Americans "Uncle Tomahawks". I'm sure they're just as unemployable as the neo Nazis in Charlottesville since they are all like minded bigots and thugs.

Going to a pro life rally doesn't make them women haters anymore than pro choice rallies are full of baby killers. It's the extremist nonsense like that which keeps the country divided.

The last I checked the Lincoln Memorial was available to everybody. The kids were under no obligation to move. The "elder" that lied repeatedly about his behavior deserves no more respect than any other liar who lies about his military record and the details of the incident. That whole event proved who has hate and prejudice and its wasn't the kids.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
8.1.24  Split Personality  replied to  Split Personality @8.1.20    5 years ago

Devin Nunes Cow, 586K followers, and growing.

DeveinNunesMom account previously deleted by Twitter at the request of the actual Mrs.Nunes

has been replaced by Devin Nunes Alt-Mom.

American ingenuity at it's best.

Meanwhile someone dug up a clip of Nunes being interviewed and asked what he thought of protesters calling John Lewis a "ni###r and Nunes appears to defend their right to free speech......

“I think there’s people that have every right to say what they want. If they wanna smear someone, they can do it.”

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
8.1.25  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Split Personality @8.1    5 years ago
And yet Devin Nunes continues to have 2 Twitter accounts.....

He was born stupid but has vastly increased it by diligent hard work on his own ever since.  Most of his stupidity is self-made.  A truly self-made moron.  

 
 
 
Rmando
Sophomore Silent
9  Rmando    5 years ago

I don't know if he has a case or not but I do know that Twitter has been two sided and biased in their standards. When Candace Owens retweeted Sarah Jeongs racist tweets but replaced the word white with other groups she got hit with a temporary suspension. It was rescinded but it still shows some level of bias.

That said I don't think he'll get too far since he's a public figure but maybe it'll get Twitter to clean up their act for a while.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1  Tessylo  replied to  Rmando @9    5 years ago

Who is Candace Owens?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @9.1    5 years ago

She is what progressives hate most.

 
 
 
Willjay9
Freshman Silent
9.1.2  Willjay9  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.1    5 years ago

An opportunist who will say and do anything for money?.....Yep! Sure do!

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
9.1.3  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tessylo @9.1    5 years ago

She is a great American 🇺🇸! 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9.1.4  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @9.1    5 years ago

last years token that can only safely appear on a friendly network now

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @9.1.4    5 years ago

I knew who the dumb bitch was.  She can't even get on Fux 'news'.  I think she has a you tube show.  jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

Also, the RIGHT WING EXTREMIST KILLER in New Zealand named the darling on the 'right'

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
9.1.6  Studiusbagus  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.1    5 years ago
She is what progressives hate most.

Ugh! I have to get my calender straightened out...

Okay, last week we hated Jews the most..

The week before that we hated black people because we enslaved them, wrote Jim Crow laws, hung them, set their homes on fire, raped their children...and there were no conservative injured during our murderous melee'

And the week before that we mostly hated.......

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
9.1.7  Studiusbagus  replied to  Studiusbagus @9.1.6    5 years ago
And the week before that we mostly hated.......

Oh, that's right, now I remember.

We hated America because we are for swinging the doors wide open for every drug dealer, terrorist, human traffiker, .....well, except for the ones that know the president personally and conveniently own massage parlors near Mara Lago.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.8  Vic Eldred  replied to  Studiusbagus @9.1.6    5 years ago

It sounds like youv'e finally got it!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  Studiusbagus @9.1.7    5 years ago

"Leading people into the blind alley of dependency and grievances may be counterproductive for them but it can produce votes, money, power, fame and a sense of exaltation to others who portray themselves as friends of the downtrodden."......Thomas Sowell

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
9.2  XXJefferson51  replied to  Rmando @9    5 years ago

It is time to sue social media up one side and down the other over their bigoted bias against conservatives and Christians.  The intolerance has gone too far and if it takes lawsuits to bring them to fairness and objectivity so be it.  [deleted]

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9.2.1  devangelical  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.2    5 years ago

a frivolous lawsuit by an asshat that obstructed justice. Constitution trumps bible. tough shit.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
9.2.2  XXJefferson51  replied to  devangelical @9.2.1    5 years ago

I stand by all that I said.  

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9.2.3  devangelical  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.2.2    5 years ago

testify

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
9.3  Studiusbagus  replied to  Rmando @9    5 years ago
.....she got hit with a temporary suspension. It was rescinded but it still shows some level of bias.

A "temporary suspension"? Wow that kinda smarts.

She must have reallly fucked up to be fired from FOX.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
10  Tacos!    5 years ago
It was calculated to interfere with and influence the federal election

So, shouldn't Democrats be lining up to investigate? Or does using social media to interfere with an election only become a problem if it harms a Democrat?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
10.1  seeder  Ender  replied to  Tacos! @10    5 years ago

I wouldn't exactly call a concerted effort by a hostile foreign country the same as people making fun of Nunes on twitter.

Poor little buttercup. I guess I can be sued for saying that?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
10.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  Ender @10.1    5 years ago
I wouldn't exactly call a concerted effort by a hostile foreign country the same as people making fun of Nunes on twitter.

And if that's all it is, I would agree. But the accusation is that there was interference in a federal election. For the last two years, that has been enough to launch several investigations.

I guess I can be sued for saying that?

I don't know why.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
10.2  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @10    5 years ago
Or does using social media to interfere with an election only become a problem if it harms a Democrat?

Exactly, if not for those horrid tweets, Nunes would have been re-elected.

Oh wait.../s

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
10.2.1  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @10.2    5 years ago

Why should that matter? Do you care about the integrity of our system or not? Maybe you only care about getting Democrats elected and you don't care how it happens? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
10.2.2  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @10.2.1    5 years ago
Why should that matter?

It matters because in his lawsuit, Nunes is claiming that he was HARMED. 

Do you care about the integrity of our system or not?

Yes. 

Maybe you only care about getting Democrats elected and you don't care how it happens? 

Hey, I'd be fine with opening up Liz Mair, who BTFW is a conservative commentator, to libel  litigation, IF it opens Trump up to libel litigation too. I'm sure Cindy McCain would be first in line to nail Trump. 

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Silent
10.3  lib50  replied to  Tacos! @10    5 years ago

Its always amusing when a republican who defends the bullying of the president gets the vapors over some funny tweet 'attacks'.  Maybe he should read some of the tweets Trump's followers sent Cindy McCain.   Meantime, Devin Nunes' Cow now has far more followers than he does.  Its hilarious.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.3.1  Tessylo  replied to  lib50 @10.3    5 years ago
'Its always amusing when a republican who defends the bullying of the president gets the vapors over some funny tweet 'attacks'.  Maybe he should read some of the tweets Trump's followers sent Cindy McCain.   Meantime, Devin Nunes' Cow now has far more followers than he does.  Its hilarious.'
So true.  I posted a seed on it myself.  Called her Ms. Piggy and hoped she would choke and die.  Also insulted Cindy McCain and called her a cunt.  The deplorables also shit all over Mr. McCain as well just like the 'president' and he continues to shit all over Mr. McCain.  

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
11  Krishna    5 years ago

This entire brouhaha (Haha!!!) is indicative of the moral decay infesting the youths of our society today in the perilous times in which we live!

There's only one solution-- we must totally ban the Internet!

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
11.1  seeder  Ender  replied to  Krishna @11    5 years ago

Or sue it.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
12  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    5 years ago

Apart from the fact that these two Twitter accounts belong to a woman who's a conservatarian Never-Scumbag the other extra bonus for this idiotic ploy is that apparently it's being funded by billionaire wingnut libertoonian Peter Thiel who must have let his one-off success at taking down Gawker go to his head.  But Twitter isn't Gawker and Nunes is definitely not Hulk Hogan (Terry Bollea)  so let him spend all the money he can to lose.  

[Love the picture for this article.  What a Sad Sack.]

 
 

Who is online





Snuffy
CB
Sparty On
jw


86 visitors