Don't like it sue emFollow

I think he'll have a hard time proving that his inclusion on the list directly contributed to his electoral loss. He'd do better (although it's still kind of silly) arguing that his inclusion on the list was libelous.

Edit: Also, even if the court ruled in his favor, I seriously doubt that they could overturn the election results. The most likely outcome of a ruling in favor of the plaintiff would be a monetary award. This is kind of like the woman who sued McDonald's because they didn't explicitly warn her that her coffee was hot. "What, you mean people with differing political views might try to discredit me during an election? That's insanity; sue the bastards!"

Edited, Oct 25th 2011 2:09pm by Demea

Oh, and I thought this topic would be about Biden, who apparently filed an official complaint against a journalist who pushed him on a comment he made. I guess the complaint is to see if he broke any rules because the guy used a false pretext to talk to him and then launched into the controversial comments.



Edited, Oct 25th 2011 3:12pm by LockeColeMA

It's from you Varus. Of course we can believe it.

Why do you hate women's rights?

While I suspect you're joking, I can't support 1 good thing over all of the other bad things.

Barring them actually having said something substantially untrue about him directly, this case should not even have moved forward at all (you're correct that the article is unclear on specifics like what exactly they said and even what phase the trial is in). From what I can read (again assuming we're getting the gist of the whole issue), there's no grounds to sue at all. Even if his allegations are true, there's no slander in a group with a political agenda saying that some politician is someone they disagree with and asking people not to vote for that politician. That's called free speech and is presumably protected.


It can't be a "lie" because the group itself clearly has the right to decide if they believe that a politicians actions are in opposition to their own. A third party, much less the politician himself don't have any say in the matter. The voters get to decide if they agree with the organization's portrayal of him, and in this case it looks like they did. This should be thrown out on standing alone.


What's bothersome by this is that it does create a chilling effect on political speech. If some judge gets to decide whose opinion is "true" then that amounts to picking a side and using the judiciaries own biases to infringe political speech. That's a scary dangerous precedent to set.

You do realize that case had absolutely nothing to do with elections or appointments, right? Well, it did in the same way that the McDonald's suit mentioned earlier was about coffee (not very much). It certainly isn't even remotely relevant to someone suing because he lost an election due to political opponents encouraging people to not vote for him. I'm frankly unsure how one can even begin to make such a political claim with a straight face.

What exactly is the Obama camp?

And Michelle fattens you up. Probably to eat.

Exactly, it's all about pistols at dawn.

Which in all probability still does not justify the decision of the judge in this case. Even just allowing the case to continue beyond the "file and reject" phase has a chilling effect on free speech. What now? Everyone who expresses a political opinion about an election or a candidate in an election has to come in and defend himself in court?