Just Breaking
Thank Elon Musk and X, otherwise we would never see this information.
Facebook/Meta is blocking this story proving the DOJ is interfering with the election. Remember, Zuckerberg just openly admitted he was pressured in the 2020 election. He caved again...The poop has really hit the fan on this story. It also encompasses state court, and how they can more easily interfere with the election.
DOJ is doing everything to minimize the spread of this story.
To clarify the guy on tape is the Chief Public Affairs Officer for the Southern District of NY. Has known Bragg for 15 years
https://x.com/i/status/1831701263550996947 WHOA! The DOJ's Chief of Public Affairs admits on camera that the Trump indictments are politically motivated. They're a "perversion of justice." He admits that Alvin Bragg was "stacking charges" on Trump in his "nonsense" case.
Merrick Garland Hates Freedom of Speech
One could argue that Merrick Garland did not get a fair shake when blocked from the Supreme Court.
However, if there ever was an example of divine intervention, this is it.
Garland has destroyed his reputation for history and is provably not a man of good character,
as he presided over lawfare, the open border, human trafficking, fentanyl overdoses, increased crime, censorship, and the damage of numerous previously respected government agencies. His name will forever be attached to all these problems.
Wonder if his petty vengeance campaign was worth it when you consider the death and suffering he brought to his fellow citizens?
Merrick Garland and the DOJ just held a press conference accusing Russia of ‘election meddling’ and ‘spreading disinformation’.
In an effort to accuse the Right of working with Russia, Garland unwittingly reminded the assembled of the DOJ’s terrible record.
Garland returned to the same old threats presumably to intimidate his political opponents by
bringing up the border, inflation, crime, voter fraud, Hunter’s laptop, Biden Family corruption, or the NGO cesspool.
The Left has already been proven wrong on many of these issues in the 2020 election,
and the Left is terrified that these abuses will gain traction before and after the election.
These arguments always come down to who gets to define what disinformation or misinformation actually is.
Our democratic republic is founded on the premise that the government is the last entity to make this call.
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan was a landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that significantly impacted freedom of the press and libel law in the United States. Here are the key points:
Background
The case originated from a full-page advertisement in The New York Times in 1960 criticizing the treatment of civil rights protesters in Montgomery, Alabama
L.B. Sullivan, the Montgomery police commissioner, sued the newspaper for libel over some factual inaccuracies in the ad
An Alabama court initially ruled in Sullivan's favor, awarding him $500,000 in damages.
Supreme Court Decision
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of The New York Times on March 9, 1964
The Court established the "actual malice" standard for defamation cases involving public officials
Under this standard, public officials must prove that false statements were made with knowledge of their falsity or with "reckless disregard" for the truth
Significance
The ruling significantly strengthened First Amendment protections for the press and public debate on government affairs
It made it much more difficult for public officials to win libel lawsuits against the media
The decision is considered crucial for allowing robust reporting on the Civil Rights Movement and other matters of public concern
Current Status
The Sullivan standard remains in effect, though some Supreme Court justices have recently questioned its continued relevance
Critics argue it may insufficiently protect reputations, while supporters maintain its importance for press freedom.
The case continues to be a cornerstone of U.S. media law, balancing free speech protections with the right to protect one's reputation.
And the point is to have freedom of speech, you must protect the speech you hate as well as the speech you agree with.
The idea that a government can decide what is and what is not disinformation is censorship and the beginning of totalitarianism.
Nevertheless, there are creative ways to tackle disinformation under existing law. One approach is through libel suits, such as those brought by election equipment operators and election workers against media who falsely claimed manipulation of the 2020 election, thereby defaming them.
These lawsuits may, it is hoped, get to the truth. But in any event, they will proceed with the robust protection of New York Times v. Sullivan and its progeny intact, preserving the right to speak about controversial subjects in good faith without fear of retribution.
The core teaching of Sullivan is essential: we should not leave it to government to be the arbiter of truth. In civil society, we want to presume that government is acting in good faith. But history teaches us that legislation intended to preserve and protect truth could become an instrument to suppress it.
Rather than provide bad actors with such weapons, the best remedy for false speech is more speech. Or as Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “The response to the unreasoned is the rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the straight-out lie, the simple truth.”