3 ms·

A lawsuit is just a tweet with a filing fee

munk-a 4y ago
Only if you allow districts to exist that refuse to adapt anti-slapp laws. There is a solution to this problem, we've just failed to adopt it. Edit: Just to clarify - I'm not advocating for removing state autonomy when it comes to legal legislation - but I am advocating for adopting some national anti-slapp rules.
- leephillips 4y ago
  How can a national rule not infringe upon state autonomy?
  - munk-a 4y ago
    A national rule can be targeted for this specific domain and not rob states of their other powers.
    - leephillips 4y ago
      It would seem to be a tautology that a rule about A will not infringe on state autonomy about B. But what if the state prefers to retain its autonomy about A?
      - munk-a 4y ago
        States have been forced to surrender quite a few privileges and legal domains - the existence of state autonomy exists, by design, merely in the space not occupied by national policy. I was trying to clarify that I advocated for a specific national law with limited scope to precisely unify national policy on a particularly terrible legal loophole - as in retrospect I thought my comment could be incorrectly read as advocating for abolishing state courts and jurisdiction specific laws in general.
- Someone1234 4y ago
  Anti-SLAPP has nothing to do with that case. "The South Butt" was actually producing and selling clothing with a logo/slogan very similar to TNF, but even then the two parties settled until "The South Butt" violated the agreement. Anti-SLAPP is about protecting journalism/protest/speech, not for-profit competitors using another brand's branding (even if in parody). Wikipedia Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_South_Butt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_South_Butt If they had just stuck to the name, "The South Butt," I genuinely believe they would have been fine. It is the inverted logo and "Never Stop Relaxing" that caused them to lose. Parody protections have always been curtailed for commercial competition.
  - munk-a 4y ago
    I was replying to: > A lawsuit is just a tweet with a filing fee And not specifically discussing the South Butt case. The idea that lawsuits are just tweets with a filing fee (i.e. a way to spend money in a public forum to try and promote your idea of what's right) translates almost directly to a SLAPP suit. You are quite accurate about the specific South Butt case - but I was trying to be more general.

Only if you allow districts to exist that refuse to adapt anti-slapp laws. There is a solution to this problem, we've just failed to adopt it. Edit: Just to clarify - I'm not advocating for removing state autonomy when it comes to legal legislation - but I am advocating for adopting some national anti-slapp rules.

leephillips 4y ago
How can a national rule not infringe upon state autonomy?
- munk-a 4y ago
  A national rule can be targeted for this specific domain and not rob states of their other powers.
  - leephillips 4y ago
    It would seem to be a tautology that a rule about A will not infringe on state autonomy about B. But what if the state prefers to retain its autonomy about A?
    - munk-a 4y ago
      States have been forced to surrender quite a few privileges and legal domains - the existence of state autonomy exists, by design, merely in the space not occupied by national policy. I was trying to clarify that I advocated for a specific national law with limited scope to precisely unify national policy on a particularly terrible legal loophole - as in retrospect I thought my comment could be incorrectly read as advocating for abolishing state courts and jurisdiction specific laws in general.
Someone1234 4y ago
Anti-SLAPP has nothing to do with that case. "The South Butt" was actually producing and selling clothing with a logo/slogan very similar to TNF, but even then the two parties settled until "The South Butt" violated the agreement. Anti-SLAPP is about protecting journalism/protest/speech, not for-profit competitors using another brand's branding (even if in parody). Wikipedia Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_South_Butt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_South_Butt If they had just stuck to the name, "The South Butt," I genuinely believe they would have been fine. It is the inverted logo and "Never Stop Relaxing" that caused them to lose. Parody protections have always been curtailed for commercial competition.
- munk-a 4y ago
  I was replying to: > A lawsuit is just a tweet with a filing fee And not specifically discussing the South Butt case. The idea that lawsuits are just tweets with a filing fee (i.e. a way to spend money in a public forum to try and promote your idea of what's right) translates almost directly to a SLAPP suit. You are quite accurate about the specific South Butt case - but I was trying to be more general.