Supporters Beware: Post-Election Procedures Can Land You In Legal Hot Water | Media Pyro

[ad_1]

As Elon Musk seeks to dismantle Twitter’s approval standards and new products of pro-Trump social media networks—like Truth Social and Rumble—become stronger and stronger. of MAGA media activists to spread false information about the midterm election during the election. in 2020. They should consider what some of their fellow travelers are dealing with.

At first glance, it seems like the most dubious peddlers of Trump’s disinformation—those who haven’t been paid for their lies. But let’s look at the record. Fox News is facing a multi-billion dollar lawsuit over alleged defamation brought by voting-tech firms Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic. Fox has also settled with the family of Seth Rich, a slain Democratic National Committee staffer, who put the network in the same league as Alex Jones, the InfoWars consultant, and is now paying the families. Sandy Hook costs $965 million. These examples show that the rules are offensive possible to make effective use of traditional and unconventional media figures. And new legal action is underway asking the courts to do just that.

Over the past year, the Protect Democracy’s Law for Truth campaign has succeeded in prosecuting certain individuals and organizations that have the power to publish and distribute election information. This represents an effort to disrupt the status quo, where defamation challenges have mostly attacked the major newsrooms at Fox News, CNN, the Washington Postand the New York Timeswhile the lesser-known figures are indescribable and show a complete disregard for journalistic standards.

The definition of partiality in defamation cases has less to do with issues of justice or with certain specific First Amendment protections than with economics. The hate police, thankfully, don’t roam the Internet like the traffic cops looking for violations; Cases can only be brought by people who are oppressed and have a right to justice. The latter issue is particularly important, as obtaining legal remedies is expensive, difficult, and time-consuming. Hence the ineffectiveness of implementing defamation laws: In general, it makes sense for plaintiffs to sue deep-pocketed corporate entities that can afford to pay.

But could this change? Could there be a future in which all media figures, no matter how rich, bent or formally trained, must be held to the principles of fairness and justice? Where are the people behind One America News Network, Gateway Pundit, Project Veritas, and 2000 Mules will they be held responsible for their anointing?


LLast month, Democratic Party lawyers filed a lawsuit against the makers and promoters of the satirical film. 2000 Mules about a private citizen in Georgia who was photographed submitting 2020 ballots for himself and his family and falsely labeled a “voting mule”—that is, someone who bought votes as a way to deprive Donald Trump of his electoral victory . . The state election board investigated the case and cleared the petitioner of wrongdoing. Despite its cancellation, 2000 Mules released to the public. The allegation shows the extent of the abuse suffered by the petitioner as, to this day, his image is still being used to promote electoral ideas. (See more from Philip Bump here.)

The consequences of lying are included 2000 Mules reach beyond Georgia’s borders. Since the film’s release, it has become an organizing tool for Republican Party organizations around the country—a reason to mobilize boycotts. However, the filmmakers he aware of the legal consequences of their fraudulent claims because, in other cases, they have taken steps to minimize their legal exposure.

The companion book to the film was also titled 2000 Mules, which author-turned-photographer Dinesh D’Souza said was recalled and delayed due to unspecified “production errors.” NPR tracked down some of these “mistakes” that the publisher seems to be trying to address: Unedited copies of the book accused several non-profit organizations by name of engaging in “commercial vote”. The book also attempted to link Antifa and the Black Lives Matter movement to voter fraud.

However, the film shines in its purest, unedited form.

The organization True the Vote, which worked with D’Souza to produce the film, is being targeted by the Protect Democracy shirt. Indeed, its leaders were arrested last week after a Texas federal judge charged them with contempt of a separate lawsuit filed against them by election software company Konnech, which claims he is dealing with blasphemy, slander and slander.

That’s not all. Last month, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich asked to open a federal investigation into True the Vote. This was a big deal, as Brnovich had dealt with conspiracies in his first bid for the US Senate, but it seems that he and the people who raised voter-fraud in his government . As he said recently 60 minutes“It’s mostly horse**t, and I’ve tried to take my shoes off last year.”


IIn addition to his trial 2000 Mules, Protect Democracy A lawsuit has been filed against a former Erie, Pennsylvania mail carrier accused by Project Veritas of illegally returning ballots to vote for Joe Biden. The organization also brought the cases of Fulton County, Georgia, election workers Ruby Freeman and Wandrea “Shaye” Moss to Gateway Pundit and One America News Network (OAN). Freeman and Moss are known speakers. They were accused of sending packages full of fraudulent ballots to polling places and feeding them to voting machines to increase the vote total for Joe Biden. The couple appeared before the House Committee on January 6 earlier this year to testify about the abuse they suffered as a result of these false statements.

The Democratic Party’s lawsuit against OAN has yielded results. The network agreed to settle the case last April, and while exact terms of the settlement are not yet available, Wall Street Journal Reportedly, as part of the settlement, an OAN reporter went on to say that Freeman and Moss “did not engage in voter fraud or misconduct,” and OAN documents indicate that employees taken from his website.

More importantly, after Protect Democracy sued OAN, DirecTV, Verizon, and Frontier in a lawsuit against OAN, DirecTV, Verizon, and Frontier, OAN dropped its distribution channels, severely limiting the reach of its future broadcasts. recently. (Dominion and Smartmatic have submitted their allegations to OAN as part of their legal proceedings.)

And while the broadcasters are buzzing about their decision to cancel OAN, it’s not the best thing to take away from the season, with Fox News’ decision to terminate longtime Fox Business host Lou Dobbs, these combined legal actions have taken place.

Smartmatic was the first to broadcast a billion dollar law on Fox News, on February 4, 2021. Dobbs was named. The next day, Fox News sued Dobbs, perhaps hoping the case would not go forward. Executives said it was just part of a series of “programming changes” that Fox News is “considering.”

Along those same lines, Protect Democracy filed its lawsuit against OAN on December 23, 2021. Not long after the holidays, DirectTV was the first to cut ties with OAN. Like Fox News, DirecTV issued a nonchalant, business-like statement to the press: “We spoke to Herring Networks. [owner of OAN] and, following an internal review, we do not intend to enter into a new contract once our current agreement expires,” the company said.

Meanwhile, more Democratic Defense lawsuits are moving forward. Former Trump campaign attorney Rudy Giuliani was involved in Protect Democracy’s OAN lawsuit, and last month, a judge denied Giuliani’s requests for a motion to dismiss. The lawsuit against Project Veritas allowed the motion to dismiss in July.


Ddespite these legal storms, most of the 2020 voters are still struggling with their jobs. Their politics did not die quietly at the end of the presidential election cycle. They stumble like zombies destroying everything in their path. Two years after the fall of Donald Trump, Republican officials and candidates continue to use his polls as the basis for their campaigns, research, evaluations, and new laws – despite the claims under those actions were not resolved and were rejected by the courts many times. .

To that end, Trump appeared on D’Souza’s podcast last week, in a segment described as “2000 Mules Exclusively with Donald Trump. Allegedly, the ex-president and his pardoned person rebutted the objectionable claims from the film and the film, and made many to eat again.

As bad as it is, they are forced to do so because, for what it is, the self-reinforcing triangle of death between policymakers like D’Souza, the establishment, and the head of the GOP, Trump, continues to benefit. without damage. The penalties for peddling these lies have not been strong enough to deter those who could easily benefit from them, whether for economic or political gain. Someone like Sidney “Kraken” Powell could have his license revoked and receive a fine, but the $175,250 fine is a pittance considering he’s raised more than $14 million in his campaign to change in voting for Trump.

But if the Democratic Party succeeds, everything will change.

What kind of punishment is appropriate to deter bad actors? Democratic Defense’s Ian Bassin is happy to let the court decide. “All that the courts decide is the right amount to compensate the injured for their pain and to prevent those who cause these injuries from doing it again, that’s what we need to do. pay,” Bassin told me.. “No more and no less.”

Let Democratic Defense defamation cases be a warning that there will be consequences, no matter what. It’s over.

[ad_2]

Source link

Media Pyro