Tuesday, August 16, 2016

When political speech is "cyber terrorism"

He said, he said


GA is struck by the similarity between the national conversation about "freedom of the press" and and the underpinnings of the Bajardi SLAPP.

Commentary about public or limited public figures in the context of politics, including insults and hyperbole, is protected speech.  Rebuttals are fair comment, including insults and hyperbole.

Some public figures consider press which includes commentary of anonymous sources "libel:"

Politico: "Trump: We're going to open up libel laws"

Others call adverse political commentary "cyber terrorism*."



*GA Note: The so-called "cyber-terrorism" is a GA post titled "Jackpot"

Did Hoboken mayoral candidate Peter Cammarano label a series of ghostwritten 'deadbeat dad' articles "cyber terrorism?"





Q: When is protected political speech "cyber terrorism?"

A: When there's an anticipated 2-million dollar payday.

31 comments:

  1. I'm all for freedom of speech. The one problem is that a bunch of right-wing nuts believe all the right-wing nut-job blogs and articles and postings as if what's included therein is gospel.

    The right-wing Internet media is multiplying like rabbits in response to what the wing-nuts perceive as a liberal media bias, although the wing-nuts can't differentiate between socially liberal and economically free-market.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perceived as liberal media bias? The right-wing Internet Media would not exist if not for the very real media bias just like GA and HobokenHorse would not exist if not for the same sort of bias that existed on their competitors.

      BTW, the media not only has a liberal bias, they have a bias towards sensationalized pop journalism stories instead of more boring impactful news. That is why they cover the occasional cop shooting a suspect instead of the hundreds of routine shootings that happen each week, the Kardashians, Zika instead of the absolute implosion of the ACA, Trump/Clinton instead of the LA flooding, etc....

      Delete
  2. Trump proves more and more that we need the legitmate press to survive.
    I fear the day the Breitbarts and Drudge reports and 411's are the only outlets....

    ReplyDelete
  3. Free speech isn't a mandate to make knowingly false statements. That's called malice and is applicable to anyone and certainly the media.

    The media is doing what it does which is make knowingly false statements to advance its political agenda. That rancid cycle is evident to everyone. Of course partisans cheer it but people can oppose it in court and do all the time. Most will not invest the time and energy to fight in court but on occasion they do and sometimes to large awards or settlements. Bye Bye Denton and Gawker.

    Nothing to do with Lane and his frivolous litigation. He had no evidence of anything. He tells the other idiot to put in "just enough" info to "scare" others from taking action.

    This is a guy working in media for years and he thinks he saves himself and his sock puppet publishing knowingly false statements by "adding info?"

    No wonder he landed up owing over $276,000 in legal fees to defendants.
    Total moron!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The media is doing what it does which is make knowingly false statements to advance its political agenda. That rancid cycle is evident to everyone." - Which Media would that be and in regards to whom?

      Delete
    2. And whiny crybabies like Trump accuse the press of "making knowingly false statements" because they don't kiss his ass like FOX, Ann Coulter, Breitbart, and that Nazi Party leader who endorsed him on his radio show. No, he'd like to "change libel laws". Sounds like Bajardi -Klaussen. They label uncomplimentary facts and opinion "cyber- terrorism". Trump wants to sue the NYT, Bajardi sues bloggers for "cyber terrorism". No material difference. Both attack media when it is critical, Trump sucks it up when it's fawning. Maybe libs should sue Breitbart and that freak Gateway Pundit.

      Delete
  4. Another story you will not likely seen covered anywhere else: Hillary Clinton discusses her plan to raise taxes, ironically found at GP, a midwest blogger:
    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/hillary-holds-talk-raising-taxes-another-small-crowd-ohio-high-school-gym/

    Telling the truth means you're "a freak." Especially when Hillary the Corruptocrat Queen makes an Ohio appearance in a small gym with what, a hundred or so people. Couldn't fill a school gym in Philadelphia or Nevada either. She'll be hiding out for days ahead out of public view. Will the media report on any of that? Doubtful.

    The droning on and about what they "think" the other candidate said and their never-ending mindreading "controversies." Yeah, day in and day out. No intentional lying there. LMAO!

    Any discussion about competing national economic plans; the impact on African Americans unemployment to the massive law breaking with illegal immigration encouraged by public officials, paid agitators from Chicago destroying a neighborhood in Milwaukee? Silence.

    Nope, not politically correct to discuss that. Same goes on in Hoboken with the Hudson Reporter. As George Orwell said, "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

    Stand with the revolution of fellow citizens! Fight the Establishment Power!


    Fight the Power!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More like "truthiness" than truth. The Alt Right-Media, like GP and Breitbart, whose truthy pablum the "revolutionaries" (haw haw) feast on, will scare the rest of America, inc. mainstream Republicans, to the polls. ABT. Viva the anti-Alt Right Revolution!

      Delete
    2. Ah yes, the alt-right trifecta: the media is biased, the polls are wrong and the election will be rigged. Spoke like a true loser.

      Team Trump and Tean Mason, two peas in a pod: both narcissistic crybabies somehow managing to live simultaneously in a fantasyland of both denial and victimhood.

      Delete
    3. Shoot the messengerAugust 18, 2016 at 10:58 AM

      SO true. The WSJ had it right: "stop blaming everyone else."

      Delete
  5. The first line of attack, always attack the straw man not what was said. Yawn.

    Fight the Power! Stop the Corruption!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I went to your link- its garbage. The title is "Hillary Holds Talk on Raising Taxes to Another Small Crowd in Ohio High School Gym"- and that's it. No speech excerpts, no information, no details on the allegation, just empty spin. A title. that's the kind of brainless "press" the Alt-Right calls "truth." The Alt-Right excels at sloganeering: "Fight the Power! Stop Corruption!" Let's see your hero's tax returns. Now there's corruption hiding there, otherwise he would follow decades-old protocol.

      Delete
    2. Well most of the Hillary media will block the truth on her tax increase for the "rich" which will turn out to be everyone over 60K. You're all rich!

      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/17/hillary-clinton-pushes-economic-plan-promises-rais/

      You have to turn off MSNBC to find out the basic facts.
      Did Obama ever show his college records? Nope.
      The tax returns will be released after the audit stated on the record.
      It won't show Trump made $10 million in a slow year because Hillary was told to slow down her treason against America.

      Like the real Russian scandal selling US uranium contracts not the myth made up to distract from the WikiLeaks emails.

      All this Hillary propaganda hurts our feelings. Please stop or we'll have to vote for the Bethy-Hillary Corruption Alliance. That's global!

      Delete
  6. Days later and all the collusion between the Hillary media and the united effort to give her an easy ride to a coronation... It's like it never happened!

    There's so many but here's 9 that Hillary and her media allies never wanted you to see.

    http://usuncut.com/politics/dnc-leaks-9-emails/



    http://usuncut.com/politics/dnc-leaks-9-emails/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey, Wiki-leaked! usuncut.com is a great anti-corruption media outlet, one you can trust unlike the eMedia. So glad you read usuncut.com, too! Great minds like ours think alike. Here are a few articles you might have missed:

      http://usuncut.com/politics/donald-trump-university-trial/
      "Federal Judge Rules Trump Must Face Fraud Trial in Trump University Suit"

      http://usuncut.com/politics/trump-recurring-donations/
      "SCAM: Donald Trump’s Website Won’t Let You Cancel Recurring Donations"

      http://usuncut.com/politics/trump-getting-fact-checked-real-time/
      "Networks Are Now Fact-Checking Trump’s Lies in Real Time and It’s Ruining His Campaign"

      http://usuncut.com/politics/donald-trump-nuclear-weapons/ ("Trump asked why he couldn’t just use nuclear weapons 3 times in a national security briefing")

      http://usuncut.com/politics/reagan-obama/
      "One president paid Iran a ransom to free hostages, but it wasn’t Barack Obama"

      Power to the People! Viva la Revolution! That's global!

      Delete
  7. In Detroit, the poverty rate is 40%! 40 percent! Poverty!
    Democrats give America no choice but globalists control and surrender of America. Screw all of them!

    Over 50% unemployment of African-American youth! Yet the anti-American puppeteers tell Hillary to ignore that and terrorism and allow open borders!

    That's 100% racist!

    Make America Great Again. On Election Day - FIGHT THE POWER!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K678kE_bZq8

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. when has GOP/trumpian trickle-down economics EVER worked? ever. you can't find one example, because it's fantasy.

      Delete
    2. You may not like how much cash trickled down, but the severe impact the recession had on middle and lower income people is kind of proof cash was trickling down. And it is a fact in many major cities where Democrats have had a lock on the levers of power, those cities have economically failed their residents. Trump certainly isn't the answer, but kicking the Democrats who run those cities out might be a good start.

      Delete
    3. anon@3:00...what? your first sentence doesn't make any sense, there aren't any cases where conservative trickle down economics has ever worked to benefit middle and lower income families. none.

      btw, lousy politicians come in all shapes, sizes and political parties. i know some great dems and repubs, and some crappy ones from each party as well.

      Delete
    4. If wealth wasn't trickling down, then people would not have seen their income drop or lost their jobs during the recession when the wealthy lost their shirts b/c of the collapse in the markets. The working class would have not at all been impacted by a stock market in your "world". That clearly did not happen.

      Delete
    5. when corporations make more, they mostly a) pay their top executives more, b) stash more of it offshore tax free and c) experience an improved stock price, which benefits mostly those outside the middle class. crumbs trickle down, if anything.

      Delete
    6. You don't know much about how corporations make money or operate other than what you learn on the nightly news. For example, corporations don't really pay execs more - they give them stock options which tend to perform better in good years and often are worthless in bad years. As for corps "stashing money overseas", much of that has to do w/ the fact that US corps have Fx subs that generated profits overseas and either keep the profits there or reinvest them overseas. Perhaps if the US didn't have such an obscenely high corporate tax rate, those companies would reinvest that cash in the US, but we don't b/c we have idiots in office who can't seem to grasp the idea that having the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world is probably a bad idea.

      Delete
    7. nothing trickles down when profits get stashed overseas (regardless of the reason WHY they get stashed overseas). and ain't nuthin' trickling down from executive stock options either. so...what's your point again?

      Delete
    8. What the hell do you think they do with profits earned overseas? They invest the money overseas which creates jobs overseas and drives economic growth overseas. And what do you think people who get stock options do with the income? Stuff it under a mattress? Or maybe they buy fancy homes at the shore built by carpenters, go to fancy restaurants, etc...

      Take an economics class or three and get a clue already.

      Delete
    9. The vast majority of corporations are publicly traded companies and their stock is held by tens of millions of people through 401Ks, pension plans, mutual funds or brokerage accounts. When companies generate profits, those profits show up in the form of capital appreciation and dividends. Corporate profits are good for anyone who owns stock directly or indirectly.

      And if people want to "participate" in this way of making money - the best way to do it is to invest.

      Delete
    10. "A 2012 study by the Tax Justice Network indicates that wealth of the super-rich does not trickle down to improve the economy, but tends to be amassed and sheltered in tax havens with a negative effect on the tax bases of the home economy."
      https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/21/offshore-wealth-global-economy-tax-havens

      the market has doubled since obama came into office, why hasn't the fabled trickle down effect had a positive impact on middle class wages? we've added millions of jobs in that time, but no small percentage of them are low-wage positions that, while better than nothing for those who got them, haven't made for a rising tide that lets all ships. and to claim executive compensation has only risen in terms of stock options is total BS.


      Delete
    11. Obamacare and no inflation. The cost of your employer provided health coverage is growing by leaps and bounds. You want a raise or do you want to pay for your own health insurance? Employers can't afford to pay for both. Try again.

      Delete
    12. Employer provider health coverage got worse -- more expensive, higher employee contribution, reduced coverage -- every year before the ACA, are you saying it wouldn't have continued on that upward trajectory if the ACA hadn't happened? C'mon.

      Delete
    13. I am not saying that, studies from entities like the Kaiser Foundation that track health insurance costs say it. Insurance costs are rising faster under the ACA than before it and even if you don't believe the ACA is to blame, the fact remains those insurance costs are rising faster than inflation.

      And you are missing the effing point - your compensation is rising if you include the cost of your benefits. So if you want to know where your effing raise went, blame the ACA for soaking it up in the form of double digit insurance premium costs your employer is absorbing.

      You really need to get your head out of your rear end.

      Delete
    14. i'd be more inclined to continue this conversation if you hadn't been rude for at least the third time.

      Delete
    15. No need to continue. The facts don't at all support your assertions and so it is past time you threw in the towel. Not even BLS agrees with you. People in the bottom quartile (people w/ no really marketable skills) saw a 3.12% increase in wages last quarter. Pretty good when inflation in practically nonexistent. Please take your factually incorrect talking points and toss them in the trash where they belong.

      Delete