5 ms·

Judge halts Texas probe into Media Matters' reporting on X

51 points by nickthegreek 3y ago

ceejayoz 3y ago
It'd be a great time to pass a Federal anti-SLAPP statute.
- nitwit005 3y ago
  I'd assume those laws generally wouldn't apply to an attorney general's investigation.
  - singleshot_ 3y ago
    Wouldn’t this be the most important protection a federal anti-SLAPP statute could provide? I can’t think of another reason why a federal law would be necessary…
    - jcranmer 3y ago
      Because it would cover cases where things end up in federal court because of diversity jurisdiction. Some circuits (e.g., the 9th) have ruled that state anti-SLAPP laws apply in such scenarios, but other circuits (e.g., the 5th) have ruled that they do not apply. Not uncoincidentally, X (a Nevada corporation whose HQ is in California, and whose ToS and presumably all other contracts generally say CA is the proper jurisdiction) filed its lawsuit against Media Matters (a Delaware corporation whose HQ is in DC) in, uh, Texas.
      - singleshot_ 3y ago
        Very interesting answer. Much appreciated.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    Yeah, that would be a matter for Ku Klux Klan Act (Enforcement Act of 1871), not an anti-SLAPP law. The good thing is that this law exists, and provides civil and criminal remedies for state officials engaged in deprivation of Constitutional rights under color of law. The bad thing is that abusive extensions of the Qualified Immunity doctrine has rendered the civil provisions basically a dead letter, and it is very difficult to convince federal prosecutors to enforce the criminal provisions for any but the most egregious violations (by which I mean ones that end up with death of grievous bodily injury resulting from the violation of rights, not something based on how fundamental the rights are.)
- nomel 3y ago
  > Anti-SLAPP laws provide defendants a way to quickly dismiss meritless lawsuits — known as SLAPPs or strategic lawsuits against public participation — filed against them for exercising speech, press, assembly, petition, or association rights. [1] [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/slapp_suit#:~:text=Strategic%20Lawsuit%20Against%20Public%20Participation,legal%20claims%20against%20the%20critics https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/slapp_suit#:~:text=Strategic....
hagbard_c 3y ago
Who watches the watchers? Someone else can pick up where Paxton is blocked and have a look at how Media Matters reports on, well, anything. Preferably someone who is neither 'progressive' like Media Matters nor 'conservative' like Paxton is supposed to be - no idea if he really is but that is besides the point. Having looked into Media Matters' reporting myself I know that they have made an art out of taking lines out of context to drive a 'progressive' narrative so I have a suspicion what such a report would look like but it would be best if this information is available to all from an 'unbiased' source (as far as such a thing exists). This goes for all 'fact checkers' and 'media watchdogs' and, really, all organisations which act in the public space as 'defenders' and 'watchdogs' since many of these have shown to be nothing more than re-badged propaganda outlets.
- add-sub-mul-div 3y ago
  > nor 'conservative' like Paxton is supposed to be - no idea if he really is but that is besides the point. This is (intentionally or unintentionally) comedy. (If intentional, the subtlety is magnificent.) > Paxton rose to power as an ally of the Tea Party movement[3] and has been described as an ultraconservative[2][3][4][5] or far-right[6][7][8][9] politician. As attorney general, Paxton has appointed prominent opponents of LGBT rights to leading positions within his department. In June 2022, Paxton said he would defend state laws prohibiting consensual same-sex relationships if the Supreme Court precedent invalidating such laws, the Lawrence v. Texas decision, was overturned.[10] He has sued president Joe Biden's administration nearly 50 times.[6][9] There's just no way to know!
  - hagbard_c 3y ago
    I'm not from the USA, not conservative and have not made a study of whether Paxton is conservative or not nor do I know whether the 'tea party movement' can be called 'conservative', from what I gather they are/were more of a populist movement? I also do not equate opposition of 'LGBT rights' with conservatism since in my eyes conservatism does not have much if anything to say about such things. Here's what Britannica says about conservatism [1]: conservatism, political doctrine that emphasizes the value of traditional institutions and practices. Conservatism is a preference for the historically inherited rather than the abstract and ideal. This preference has traditionally rested on an organic conception of society—that is, on the belief that society is not merely a loose collection of individuals but a living organism comprising closely connected, interdependent members. Conservatives thus favour institutions and practices that have evolved gradually and are manifestations of continuity and stability. Government’s responsibility is to be the servant, not the master, of existing ways of life, and politicians must therefore resist the temptation to transform society and politics. In a society where 'LGBT rights' have evolved gradually - e.g. the Netherlands (where I'm from, originally) - there is no friction between supporting such and being 'conservative'. I guess the same is true for parts of the USA - California comes to mind - but less so for others - Texas being an example of such. [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/conservatism https://www.britannica.com/topic/conservatism
freitasm 3y ago
It is incredible that those most vehemently arguing media companies are "anti-free speech" seem to be the most anti-free speech of all. Even free speech absolutists.
- jcranmer 3y ago
  My expectation is that most people who call themselves "free speech absolutists" are people who are primarily concerned with the effects of people censoring their own speech due to fear of audience reaction--that is, their absolutism in free speech is mostly centered on protecting speakers from the consequences of their speech, and they are almost invariably willing to trample on the right of others to speak in goal of this protection.
- klyrs 3y ago
  Free speech absolutism is a meme. The so-called absolutists are eager to fight to protect nazis' right to speak; but when they run places like parler, gab, and twitter, they cannot help but censor people who disagree with nazis. For example, downvoting is often equated with censorship. But when I call free speech absolutists nazis, I get downvoted! So, I persist, to highlight the hypocrisy if nothing else.
  - Spivak 3y ago
    Free speech absolutism is an interesting bag because it necessarily implies that people also have an unlimited right to censor others as that is also a form of speech. So many issues can be broken down along the freedom vs liberty axis and this is one of them. One group wants the fewest restrictions to be imposed, freedom from, and one group believes that freedom of speech is best protected when the people who want to speak are able, freedom to, and that necessarily implies some rules. If you're someone who has argued for the principle of free speech that exists beyond 1A you're likely a freedom to kind of person. So the question is whether speech is in issue like chess or driving where rules make the experience better for everyone or whether it's like free association or movement where it's better for everyone if the government has no say in the matter. I'm of the belief that it's the former but I recognize that the opposing view is also reasonable and has strong arguments supporting it.

51 points by nickthegreek 3y ago

ceejayoz 3y ago

It'd be a great time to pass a Federal anti-SLAPP statute.

nitwit005 3y ago
I'd assume those laws generally wouldn't apply to an attorney general's investigation.
- singleshot_ 3y ago
  Wouldn’t this be the most important protection a federal anti-SLAPP statute could provide? I can’t think of another reason why a federal law would be necessary…
  - jcranmer 3y ago
    Because it would cover cases where things end up in federal court because of diversity jurisdiction. Some circuits (e.g., the 9th) have ruled that state anti-SLAPP laws apply in such scenarios, but other circuits (e.g., the 5th) have ruled that they do not apply. Not uncoincidentally, X (a Nevada corporation whose HQ is in California, and whose ToS and presumably all other contracts generally say CA is the proper jurisdiction) filed its lawsuit against Media Matters (a Delaware corporation whose HQ is in DC) in, uh, Texas.
    - singleshot_ 3y ago
      Very interesting answer. Much appreciated.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  Yeah, that would be a matter for Ku Klux Klan Act (Enforcement Act of 1871), not an anti-SLAPP law. The good thing is that this law exists, and provides civil and criminal remedies for state officials engaged in deprivation of Constitutional rights under color of law. The bad thing is that abusive extensions of the Qualified Immunity doctrine has rendered the civil provisions basically a dead letter, and it is very difficult to convince federal prosecutors to enforce the criminal provisions for any but the most egregious violations (by which I mean ones that end up with death of grievous bodily injury resulting from the violation of rights, not something based on how fundamental the rights are.)
nomel 3y ago
> Anti-SLAPP laws provide defendants a way to quickly dismiss meritless lawsuits — known as SLAPPs or strategic lawsuits against public participation — filed against them for exercising speech, press, assembly, petition, or association rights. [1] [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/slapp_suit#:~:text=Strategic%20Lawsuit%20Against%20Public%20Participation,legal%20claims%20against%20the%20critics https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/slapp_suit#:~:text=Strategic....

hagbard_c 3y ago

Who watches the watchers? Someone else can pick up where Paxton is blocked and have a look at how Media Matters reports on, well, anything. Preferably someone who is neither 'progressive' like Media Matters nor 'conservative' like Paxton is supposed to be - no idea if he really is but that is besides the point. Having looked into Media Matters' reporting myself I know that they have made an art out of taking lines out of context to drive a 'progressive' narrative so I have a suspicion what such a report would look like but it would be best if this information is available to all from an 'unbiased' source (as far as such a thing exists). This goes for all 'fact checkers' and 'media watchdogs' and, really, all organisations which act in the public space as 'defenders' and 'watchdogs' since many of these have shown to be nothing more than re-badged propaganda outlets.

add-sub-mul-div 3y ago
> nor 'conservative' like Paxton is supposed to be - no idea if he really is but that is besides the point. This is (intentionally or unintentionally) comedy. (If intentional, the subtlety is magnificent.) > Paxton rose to power as an ally of the Tea Party movement[3] and has been described as an ultraconservative[2][3][4][5] or far-right[6][7][8][9] politician. As attorney general, Paxton has appointed prominent opponents of LGBT rights to leading positions within his department. In June 2022, Paxton said he would defend state laws prohibiting consensual same-sex relationships if the Supreme Court precedent invalidating such laws, the Lawrence v. Texas decision, was overturned.[10] He has sued president Joe Biden's administration nearly 50 times.[6][9] There's just no way to know!
- hagbard_c 3y ago
  I'm not from the USA, not conservative and have not made a study of whether Paxton is conservative or not nor do I know whether the 'tea party movement' can be called 'conservative', from what I gather they are/were more of a populist movement? I also do not equate opposition of 'LGBT rights' with conservatism since in my eyes conservatism does not have much if anything to say about such things. Here's what Britannica says about conservatism [1]: conservatism, political doctrine that emphasizes the value of traditional institutions and practices. Conservatism is a preference for the historically inherited rather than the abstract and ideal. This preference has traditionally rested on an organic conception of society—that is, on the belief that society is not merely a loose collection of individuals but a living organism comprising closely connected, interdependent members. Conservatives thus favour institutions and practices that have evolved gradually and are manifestations of continuity and stability. Government’s responsibility is to be the servant, not the master, of existing ways of life, and politicians must therefore resist the temptation to transform society and politics. In a society where 'LGBT rights' have evolved gradually - e.g. the Netherlands (where I'm from, originally) - there is no friction between supporting such and being 'conservative'. I guess the same is true for parts of the USA - California comes to mind - but less so for others - Texas being an example of such. [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/conservatism https://www.britannica.com/topic/conservatism

freitasm 3y ago

It is incredible that those most vehemently arguing media companies are "anti-free speech" seem to be the most anti-free speech of all. Even free speech absolutists.

jcranmer 3y ago
My expectation is that most people who call themselves "free speech absolutists" are people who are primarily concerned with the effects of people censoring their own speech due to fear of audience reaction--that is, their absolutism in free speech is mostly centered on protecting speakers from the consequences of their speech, and they are almost invariably willing to trample on the right of others to speak in goal of this protection.
klyrs 3y ago
Free speech absolutism is a meme. The so-called absolutists are eager to fight to protect nazis' right to speak; but when they run places like parler, gab, and twitter, they cannot help but censor people who disagree with nazis. For example, downvoting is often equated with censorship. But when I call free speech absolutists nazis, I get downvoted! So, I persist, to highlight the hypocrisy if nothing else.
- Spivak 3y ago
  Free speech absolutism is an interesting bag because it necessarily implies that people also have an unlimited right to censor others as that is also a form of speech. So many issues can be broken down along the freedom vs liberty axis and this is one of them. One group wants the fewest restrictions to be imposed, freedom from, and one group believes that freedom of speech is best protected when the people who want to speak are able, freedom to, and that necessarily implies some rules. If you're someone who has argued for the principle of free speech that exists beyond 1A you're likely a freedom to kind of person. So the question is whether speech is in issue like chess or driving where rules make the experience better for everyone or whether it's like free association or movement where it's better for everyone if the government has no say in the matter. I'm of the belief that it's the former but I recognize that the opposing view is also reasonable and has strong arguments supporting it.