PDA

View Full Version : Paul Campaign Suing Maker of Huntsman False-Flag Video!!




Pages : [1] 2

Tyler_Durden
01-17-2012, 08:57 PM
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-18/ron-paul-campaign-sues-makers-of-video-deriding-gop-ex-canidate-huntsman.html



Presidential candidate Ron Paul’s campaign committee filed a lawsuit against the unnamed makers of a video deriding former Utah governor Jon Huntsman that falsely implies Paul made or endorsed the video.
To contact the reporter on this story: Karen Gullo in San Francisco at kgullo@bloomberg.net

nobody's_hero
01-17-2012, 08:58 PM
Can you file a lawsuit against someone if you don't know who it is?

(I'm glad to see that the campaign is standing up for itself, though)

matt0611
01-17-2012, 08:59 PM
Seems like a waste of money at this point IMO.

But I'm interested in knowing who it was.

Sola_Fide
01-17-2012, 08:59 PM
Whoa

Bruno
01-17-2012, 08:59 PM
Shortest, most unhelpful article ever.

Ronulus
01-17-2012, 09:00 PM
Can you file a lawsuit against someone if you don't know who it is?

(I'm glad to see that the campaign is standing up for itself, though)

youtube will have their information.

wgadget
01-17-2012, 09:00 PM
Bossin'.

nobody's_hero
01-17-2012, 09:00 PM
Seems like a waste of money at this point IMO.



Probably true.

coffeewithchess
01-17-2012, 09:00 PM
youtube will have their information.

Yup, and being that they are owned by Google, you can guarantee they probably know the exact location it was uploaded.

ZanZibar
01-17-2012, 09:00 PM
Can you file a lawsuit against someone if you don't know who it is?You file it against John Doe and then subpoena YouTube to give you the data on who logged in and any information they have.

skytoucher
01-17-2012, 09:01 PM
It may come out that the maker of the video has ties with someone interesting, you never know.

braane
01-17-2012, 09:01 PM
They apparently know who it was. This is a net loss, though, this story was dead in the water. Now it just makes the campaign look childish(even though they are in the right). Poor move imo. Unless the person responsible is directly involved in another campaign, it can't possibly help.

bobburn
01-17-2012, 09:01 PM
Yes, you can sue an unknown person. You then get discovery and find out who it is. Doing this ensures that the statute of limitations does not prevent the suit prior to discovering the identity of those involved.

Tyler_Durden
01-17-2012, 09:02 PM
In the District Court of ___________

Ron Paul Presidential Committee, hereby Plaintiff

V.

jongirls2012 et al, hereby Defendants

Muttley
01-17-2012, 09:02 PM
It is useful because it isn't going to cost that much to pursue it, and in the end we're going to find out that Ketchup did it. Hopefully we can tie that to Romney somehow. I think if he gets the nomination, Ketchup will be his VP for the Indie vote.

specsaregood
01-17-2012, 09:03 PM
youtube will have their information.

only a moron would have tried that stunt without covering their tracks.

AngryCanadian
01-17-2012, 09:03 PM
kinda makes you wonder why Huntsman dropped out of then.

wgadget
01-17-2012, 09:03 PM
Fighting against slander when you're running for president doesn't seem childish to me

AhuwaleKaNaneHuna
01-17-2012, 09:03 PM
I wonder if this is why Huntsman dropped out before the SC primary. Maybe someone in his group did do it.

lucent
01-17-2012, 09:03 PM
It is interesting this happens right when Jon Huntsman dropped out.

I will also point out, this is making an example of people who play dirty.

giovannile07
01-17-2012, 09:04 PM
It is useful because it isn't going to cost that much to pursue it, and in the end we're going to find out that Ketchup did it. Hopefully we can tie that to Romney somehow. I think if he gets the nomination, Ketchup will be his VP for the Indie vote.

You talking about Ketchup from the OWS movement? o_o

wgadget
01-17-2012, 09:04 PM
kinda makes you wonder why Huntsman dropped out of then.

Mmmm-hmmmm.

Tyler_Durden
01-17-2012, 09:05 PM
I hope this gets juicy.......

QueenB4Liberty
01-17-2012, 09:05 PM
It is interesting this happens right when Jon Huntsman dropped out.

I will also point out, this is making an example of people who play dirty.

Yeah I think it's a waste of money for the campaign though.

ZanZibar
01-17-2012, 09:06 PM
I bet the people who did this are....









http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8QYZ8ZmAVs

brushfire
01-17-2012, 09:06 PM
I wonder if this is why Huntsman dropped out before the SC primary. Maybe someone in his group did do it.

Yea, you could be right. It will be interesting, regardless. Lets expose this "American Democracy" - its what makes us exceptional.

AngryCanadian
01-17-2012, 09:06 PM
I wonder if this is why Huntsman dropped out before the SC primary. Maybe someone in his group did do it.
Yup that was my point don't forget Huntsman TV And you tube ads against Ron Paul were very childish in reference to the twilight ad.

specsaregood
01-17-2012, 09:06 PM
It is interesting this happens right when Jon Huntsman dropped out.
I will also point out, this is making an example of people who play dirty.

people no longer receiving a paycheck have less loyalty.

braane
01-17-2012, 09:07 PM
Fighting against slander when you're running for president doesn't seem childish to me

It will be spun as if the campaign is whining. It doesn't matter how we view it, it's how the media will present it.

Student Of Paulism
01-17-2012, 09:07 PM
His stupid ass daughter was in on it, she was on that forum laughing about it with her loser friends, and was too dumb to not even understand how to make the thread private when asked by a friend :rolleyes:

wgadget
01-17-2012, 09:07 PM
It will keep Ron in the news cycle up till the primary at least. Topic: slander and due process.

Constitutional Paulicy
01-17-2012, 09:09 PM
One of the Huntsman campaigns websites had campaign staff members who were boasting about having made the video. They were chatting in a thread about how retarded the RP people were for being gullible enough to take the bait. Much of the discussion on that site was captured with screen capture devices and recorded by Ron Paul supporters as well as an alternative media source. I recall having seen all of this in a thread here at RP forums. I'm sure the attorneys for RP have all this info.

hardrightedge
01-17-2012, 09:09 PM
Huntsman dropped out because he was afraid of Colbert finishing in front of him...

moonbat
01-17-2012, 09:09 PM
Good, I'm glad to see the campaign going after this.

low preference guy
01-17-2012, 09:09 PM
only a moron would have tried that stunt without covering their tracks.

there are lots of morons out there

fcofer
01-17-2012, 09:09 PM
The campaign might just be using the lawsuit as a way to obtain a public apology from the responsible parties as a settlement.

blazeKing
01-17-2012, 09:09 PM
This is good..people gotta realize, if you do this false flag style attack you will be punished

wgadget
01-17-2012, 09:09 PM
His stupid ass daughter was in on it, she was on that forum laughing about it with her loser friends, and was too dumb to not even understand how to make the thread private when asked by a friend :rolleyes:

Not to mention her lies on FOX NEWS. Hey, this could draw attention to the fact that Fox News is an accessory to slander against Ron Paul, including their debates.

Tyler_Durden
01-17-2012, 09:10 PM
One of the Huntsman campaigns websites had campaign staff members who were boasting about having made the video. They were chatting in a thread about how retarded the RP people were for being gullible enough to take the bait. Much of the discussion on that site was captured with screen capture devices and recorded by Ron Paul supporters as well as an alternative media source. I recall having seen all of this in a thread hear at RP forums. I'm sure the attorneys for RP have all this info.


The consensus is that those forum threads looked fake. False flag on the false flag.

Varin
01-17-2012, 09:10 PM
The forum with the chat was fake. Probably made by a random RP hater there are a lot of them.

Matthew Zak
01-17-2012, 09:11 PM
They apparently know who it was. This is a net loss, though, this story was dead in the water. Now it just makes the campaign look childish(even though they are in the right). Poor move imo. Unless the person responsible is directly involved in another campaign, it can't possibly help.

It may discourage people from pulling similar stunts? If so, it's a good move.

lucent
01-17-2012, 09:11 PM
One of the Huntsman campaigns websites had campaign staff members who were boasting about having made the video. They were chatting in a thread about how retarded the RP people were for being gullible enough to take the bait. Much of the discussion on that site was captured with screen capture devices and recorded by Ron Paul supporters as well as an alternative media source. I recall having seen all of this in a thread hear at RP forums. I'm sure the attorneys for RP have all this info.

Unknown if any of that discussion was real though. It's also largely irrelevant. This suit will subpoena Google for information on the person who uploaded the video.

VegasPatriot
01-17-2012, 09:11 PM
They apparently know who it was. This is a net loss, though, this story was dead in the water. Now it just makes the campaign look childish(even though they are in the right). Poor move imo. Unless the person responsible is directly involved in another campaign, it can't possibly help.

I disagree. This will, at least, send out a warning to other scumbags (ie: Jere Brower) that if you want to play dirty we will come after you.

Tyler_Durden
01-17-2012, 09:12 PM
The campaign might just be using the lawsuit as a way to obtain a public apology from the responsible parties as a settlement.


Considering Huntsman was probably offered a coveted Cabinet position in the Romney Administration, it will be GREAT if the video could be tied back to Huntsmans people. The media would have a field day with it just because of the scandalous nature of it....

FreeTraveler
01-17-2012, 09:13 PM
With any luck, this will trace back to the "Stop Ron Paul 2012" facebook group. Wouldn't that be fun!

ronpaul1
01-17-2012, 09:14 PM
Yeah I think it's a waste of money for the campaign though.

NO! it is not.

First, it sends a clear message to the media and other campaigns that those responsable will be held accountable.

Second, it will discuade others from trying such things against Ron Paul ( ie: jere bowen )

Third, $$$ Imagine if the Huntsman campaign was behind it. He only has two choices, settle, or face a very public trial.

libertyfanatic
01-17-2012, 09:14 PM
Good move by the campaign

Giuliani was there on 911
01-17-2012, 09:14 PM
good

donnay
01-17-2012, 09:15 PM
His stupid ass daughter was in on it, she was on that forum laughing about it with her loser friends, and was too dumb to not even understand how to make the thread private when asked by a friend :rolleyes:

That's what I thought.

I think this is a great move by the campaign--hopefully the talking heads will pay attention since they slander Dr. Paul on a daily basis. Besides Bruce Fein is already in the campaign so all they have to do is file the claim and get it on the record.

libertyfanatic
01-17-2012, 09:15 PM
The hammer of justice will crush the maker of the video

low preference guy
01-17-2012, 09:15 PM
i'm actually kind of surprised. i thought RP was against defamation laws.

Tyler_Durden
01-17-2012, 09:16 PM
It would be AWESOME if the campaign could pull the media outlets into the suit as co-defendants for even running the one-post video as an "Ad"

ropo
01-17-2012, 09:16 PM
I think this is a good thing to do. I remember reading one article claiming to have contacted the user and only got the response "sorry, the campaign told me not to talk", which means they are implying they are in direct contact with the Paul campaign. That is very slanderous.

lucent
01-17-2012, 09:16 PM
i'm actually kind of surprised. i thought RP was against defamation laws.

Since when?

Constitutional Paulicy
01-17-2012, 09:16 PM
I disagree. This will, at least, send out a warning to other scumbags (ie: Jere Brower) that if you want to play dirty we will come after you.

True. Just recently we had the KKK idiots plotting this sort of trash.

low preference guy
01-17-2012, 09:17 PM
Since when?

it was a guess. since always.

MJU1983
01-17-2012, 09:17 PM
I approve of my donations being used for this. :cool:

If it was the Huntsman campaign, or his daughters, oh my...apologies won't be good enough. Cindy McCain better be tweeting something nice...

wgadget
01-17-2012, 09:18 PM
It would be AWESOME if the campaign could pull the media outlets into the suit as co-defendants for even running the one-post video as an "Ad"

Like Fox News, RedState...the list is endless.

donnay
01-17-2012, 09:18 PM
i'm actually kind of surprised. i thought RP was against defamation laws.

Huh? I have never heard him say this. Can you cite your source?

specsaregood
01-17-2012, 09:18 PM
there are lots of morons out there

man, lets hope so. and that they are another team's morons.

low preference guy
01-17-2012, 09:19 PM
Huh? I have never heard him say this. Can you cite your source?

i thought. i'm the source of my thoughts.

Tyler_Durden
01-17-2012, 09:19 PM
Like Fox News, RedState...the list is endless.


Sue everyone, let the judge decide who gets dismissed from the suit.....

rnestam
01-17-2012, 09:20 PM
also...if this leads back to huntsman campaign...it bleeds into Romney. Just another insider stunt who goes on to support a fellow insider....i think it is great. campaign knows more than they are saying or they wouldn't risk a move like this that could go public....Huntsman personally joining in on the outrage sealed the deal...without that the campaign wouldn't give a sh*t.....

James Madison
01-17-2012, 09:20 PM
I approve of my donations being used for this. :cool:

If it was the Huntsman campaign, or his daughters, oh my...apologies won't be good enough. Cindy McCain better be tweeting something nice...

Federal election crimes, perhaps?

wgadget
01-17-2012, 09:20 PM
All those talk radio haters....

wgadget
01-17-2012, 09:21 PM
Now we know why Ron took four days off, perhaps. Interesting.

LisaNY
01-17-2012, 09:22 PM
I think this is a good thing to do. I remember reading one article claiming to have contacted the user and only got the response "sorry, the campaign told me not to talk", which means they are implying they are in direct contact with the Paul campaign. That is very slanderous.

Yes, that was in the Huffington Post. They left a message on Youtube for the make of the vid to comment and he/she said "the campaign told me not to talk about it".

wgadget
01-17-2012, 09:23 PM
i thought. i'm the source of my thoughts.

Libertarian philosophy is very much against encroaching on other people or their property...or their good name.

NoPants
01-17-2012, 09:23 PM
This lawsuit is either an attempt to find out who made the video, or they already know and want to make it official/public. If it's the second case and they know who made it you can bet they are doing this to bring attention to the creator. Just consider the possible results of the video being made by another campaign (Gingrich, Santorum) or even better one of the MSM (CNN, Fox, MSNBC). If it was someone involved with one of those organizations this will be a scandal. It would be a powerful campaign tool for validating the truth of the establishments attempt to derail the campaign making people wonder what these powerful organizations have to lose that they would take such a risk.

Now after saying all that, I think it's a fishing expedition to find out who made the video.

Intoxiklown
01-17-2012, 09:23 PM
The most important thing, if it can be tied to any other campaign, is will be documented proof of constant slander by other parties, and documented proof of poor investigative reporting by the so called "news media". This can be what shows true bias, beyond all doubt. More so, it will forever add a shadow of doubt to anything negative reported about Dr. Paul again.

This can be a very nice thing.

PaulConventionWV
01-17-2012, 09:24 PM
Yeah I think it's a waste of money for the campaign though.

Maybe, but what do they get if they win? If they're doing it, that may just show how strong their evidence is?

RonPaulFanInGA
01-17-2012, 09:26 PM
One of the Huntsman campaigns websites had campaign staff members who were boasting about having made the video. They were chatting in a thread about how retarded the RP people were for being gullible enough to take the bait. Much of the discussion on that site was captured with screen capture devices and recorded by Ron Paul supporters as well as an alternative media source. I recall having seen all of this in a thread here at RP forums. I'm sure the attorneys for RP have all this info.

That was a parody, and an obvious one at that.

Glad the campaign is doing this. Shine the light on the Huntsman cockroaches.

wgadget
01-17-2012, 09:26 PM
Most excellent. To quote Carol Paul, "The truth always wins."

ChrisDixon
01-17-2012, 09:27 PM
Article's been updated:


Presidential candidate Ron Paul’s campaign committee sued the unidentified makers of a video deriding ex-Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, claiming the online attack against the former Republican rival falsely implies it was made or endorsed by the Texas congressman.
A video uploaded from a Twitter account to YouTube on Jan. 4 called “Jon Huntsman’s Values” questions the ex-governor’s religious faith, refers to him as “China Jon” and ends with a fictitious depiction of Huntsman in a Mao Zedong uniform and the text “American Values and Liberty -- Vote for Ron Paul,” according to a complaint filed today in federal court in San Francisco.
The makers use the pseudonym NHLiberty4Paul, “which further implies that plaintiff created endorsed or is affiliated in some way with the video and its contents,” the Paul campaign’s lawyers said in the complaint.
Press coverage of the video has been “scathingly negative” toward Paul because of the assumption that he was behind it, the lawyers said. Huntsman, a former ambassador to China, announced Jan. 16 that he would drop out of the Republican presidential race and endorse former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.
“This is a classic case of dirty politics resulting from the unlawful use in commerce of an underhanded and deceptive advertisement designed to tarnish plaintiff’s reputation,” according to the complaint. The identities of the videos creators are unknown, according to the lawsuit.
The complaint for false designation, false advertising and defamation seeks unspecified punitive damages and a court order barring use of Paul’s name and trademarks and requiring the video to be taken down and destroyed.
The case is Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee Inc. v. John Does, 12-cv-00240, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).

low preference guy
01-17-2012, 09:27 PM
Libertarian philosophy is very much against encroaching on other people or their property...or their good name.

it depends on which libertarian. i agree with Rothbard here and am against defamation laws. that said, i think this move could make redstate and a lot of other idiots look like the idiots they are.

ProBlue33
01-17-2012, 09:27 PM
Good.
This sends a strong message to everybody, you want to take Ron Paul head on, go for it, you want to try a stealth deceitful false flag attack you will be held accountable, for these types of tactics. Slander is horrible, it's character assassination.

Havax
01-17-2012, 09:28 PM
If proven to be connected to the Huntsman campaign it could end his political future.

opinionatedfool
01-17-2012, 09:28 PM
Very interesting. They must have a pretty good idea that it's someone from the Huntsman team.

I don't think it's a waste of money. It would be a good news story(if MSM wouldn't black it out) if it was the Huntsman girls.

Tyler_Durden
01-17-2012, 09:29 PM
The case is Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee Inc. v. John Does, 12-cv-00240, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).

Yep, they'll issue subpoenas to YouTube, twitter, google, etc for discovery purposes :)

bcreps85
01-17-2012, 09:30 PM
This isn't a waste of money, or a bad thing. Ron Paul got a lot of bad press over this, and we all know that that kind of crap is front page news and on TV, then the redaction ends up being size 8 font at the bottom of an online article.

1. Regardless of who did it, it absolves our campaign and gets that seed of doubt out of people's minds.
2. It shows that we will play hard ball with those involved in defamation.
3. If any other campaigns were tied to it, it will expose their true nature. If it was Huntsman for example, people will get suspicious of his sudden dropping out and endorsing Romney, and likely mess up any deal that was in the works for a cabinet position or anything like that. If it was one of the other campaigns, it could knock another one out of the race...
4. Regardless of who did it, it gets us in the news and shows that there are actually people out there engaging in defamation, and that the media isn't properly researching topics before covering them. They might think twice before taking everything at face value.

Keith and stuff
01-17-2012, 09:30 PM
I would just like to make this clear, some people thought that the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance had something to do with this, that is not the case. I do not represent the NHLA and cannot speak for the NHLA but this is the message that was posted to the NHLA Facebook page about this incident.

https://www.facebook.com/NHLiberty
"Just a reminder: the NHLA does not endorse Federal-level candidates. We have received emails regarding videos that a YouTube user named "NHLiberty4..." has been posting. This user is not a representative of the NHLA."

roho76
01-17-2012, 09:31 PM
IDK. I can't complain about the narrative this sets.

RockEnds
01-17-2012, 09:31 PM
The media tried to tie this in with the newsletters and make the accusation that even if Paul wasn't aware of it, he was still a bad manager in both cases. I think this is a good move on the part of the campaign.

gerryb
01-17-2012, 09:31 PM
They apparently know who it was. This is a net loss, though, this story was dead in the water. Now it just makes the campaign look childish(even though they are in the right). Poor move imo. Unless the person responsible is directly involved in another campaign, it can't possibly help.

No way.

If discovery determines it was the Huntsman campaign -- he just wasted 2 years of his life preparing for a 2016 run...

otherone
01-17-2012, 09:31 PM
This could really blow up in the Huffington Post's face. If they 'actually' knew the creator, and knew it was a Hunstman rep, then they would be complicit in not reporting the false-flag. Their generic 'campaign' comment won't help them, either, as they would have known the creator was being intentionally vague as to who's campaign asked for his/her silence.

wgadget
01-17-2012, 09:31 PM
Drudge?

sailingaway
01-17-2012, 09:32 PM
Can you file a lawsuit against someone if you don't know who it is?

(I'm glad to see that the campaign is standing up for itself, though)

Yes, does 1-100 to be named later.

sailingaway
01-17-2012, 09:33 PM
youtube will have their information.

and they can subpoena it with a lawsuit and summons.

low preference guy
01-17-2012, 09:33 PM
Drudge?

not yet, i think. let's wait until the maker is known.

donnay
01-17-2012, 09:34 PM
i thought. i'm the source of my thoughts.

Dr. Paul backs unpopular speech (First amendment), but he is certainly not for slander and libel. C'mon think about what you said. Defamation is falsely making statements in somebody's good name.

low preference guy
01-17-2012, 09:36 PM
Dr. Paul backs unpopular speech (First amendment), but he is certainly not for slander and libel. C'mon think about what you said. Defamation is falsely making statements in somebody's good name.

you're an idiot.

if the statement above is false, should you be able to sue me? in my ideal world, at least, no. it's not physical aggression and it's not breaking a contract and it's not theft. it's at the very least an arguable position for a libertarian and held by many libertarians, not a position to be held only by unthinking people which is what you're implying.

PaulConventionWV
01-17-2012, 09:36 PM
man, lets hope so. and that they are another team's morons.

If they subpoena Google for the information, they have to turn it up, right? What are they gonna say, sorry we lost it?

phill4paul
01-17-2012, 09:36 PM
F* yeah! Extend it to Super-Pacs to eat up their war chest.

libertybrewcity
01-17-2012, 09:37 PM
is the youtube vid really that bad? i know it gained some bad press...i haven't seen it yet.

enoch150
01-17-2012, 09:37 PM
Just a guess, but the Paul campaign might already have had a lawyer on retainer. Doing this might not incur an extra cost.

affa
01-17-2012, 09:37 PM
They wouldn't do this if they didn't know who it was. This is beautiful.

sailingaway
01-17-2012, 09:37 PM
They apparently know who it was. This is a net loss, though, this story was dead in the water. Now it just makes the campaign look childish(even though they are in the right). Poor move imo. Unless the person responsible is directly involved in another campaign, it can't possibly help.

Yes it can. In case you haven't noticed, it hasn't stopped. The 'stop Paul' folks planning to dress up in KKK robes and pretend to be Paul supporters, someone has been downvoting Levin's books pretending to be Paul supporters, and moral weasel that he is he egged his supporters to go do that to Ron's on amazon (check it out) while saying 'IF I were like that I'd suggest...' and not actually saying 'do it', but I know no one here who trashed his book, who would buy it, anyhow? And those twitter accounts of celebrities that were hacked, we never did that, OF COURSE the first thing that would happen is the celebrity would take back the endorsement, and that is a net NEGATIVE, so yeah, pretending to be slimy 'Ron Paul supporters' has become an actual narrative, and the campaign is going to yank the hoods off, so to speak.

More power to them.

Johncjackson
01-17-2012, 09:38 PM
It is interesting this happens right when Jon Huntsman dropped out.

I will also point out, this is making an example of people who play dirty.

Yep and this is one of the reasons to do it. Those complaining about wasting money on this are nitpicking IMHO. This isn't a shoe-string educational campaign this time.

sailingaway
01-17-2012, 09:40 PM
is the youtube vid really that bad? i know it gained some bad press...i haven't seen it yet.

the press is the point, and the Huntsman's milked it for all they could, and Ron's surge in New Hampshire ended at exactly that point, and Huntsman's started, although he nver caught up. I'm not saying Huntsman did more than take advantage of the video existing, I don't know, but the video was wildly successful at creating bad media of a nasty sort for Ron.

georgiaboy
01-17-2012, 09:40 PM
good.

MsDoodahs
01-17-2012, 09:41 PM
Not to mention her lies on FOX NEWS. Hey, this could draw attention to the fact that Fox News is an accessory to slander against Ron Paul, including their debates.

Anything that discredits Faux is a good thing IMO.

And I agree that those who engage in this kind of crap can't just be ignored and allowed to get away with it.

Hate it for Hunty but not too much, since he was all too happy to whore his own daughters in his effort to get elected.

Real sleazeball, that dude is.

PaulConventionWV
01-17-2012, 09:41 PM
Libertarian philosophy is very much against encroaching on other people or their property...or their good name.

In fact, tell me if I'm right, I thought I remembered Dr. Paul saying something to the effect of "slander/libel is an attack on your character" to clarify why he thought it should be a crime. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I could have sworn he saaid something to that effect in 2008.

mport1
01-17-2012, 09:42 PM
Non-aggression principle was not violated by the maker of this dumb video. The campaign should not be trying to use the force of the state against them.

James Madison
01-17-2012, 09:42 PM
you're an idiot.

if the statement above is false, should you be able to sue me? in my ideal world, at least, no. it's not physical aggression and it's not breaking a contract and it's not theft. it's at the very least an arguable position for a libertarian and held by many libertarians, not a position to be held only by unthinking people which is what you're implying.

He's not an idiot; he's exactly right. If I run around saying awful things about you, it will hurt your stock in the eyes of employers, significant others, friends, family, etc. This is likely to result in significant reductions in earning potential, not to mention it infringes upon the right of others to pursue happiness as they see fit.

NoPants
01-17-2012, 09:42 PM
if the statement above is false, should you be able to sue me? in my ideal world, at least, no. it's not physical aggression and it's not breaking a contract and it's not theft. it's at the very least an arguable position for a libertarian and held by many libertarians, not a position to be held only by unthinking people which is what you're implying.

You can sue anyone for just about anything. Filing a law suit is completely different from winning one. :)

Besides, I doubt this is about winning the suit and getting damages as much as it is a means to obtain the identity of the creator. Chances are if it's just Joe Blow, a 15 year old kid sitting in his basement that did it as a prank the suit will be dropped. If it's someone tied to an organization... well we'll have to wait and see what they decide once the identity is revealed.

tremendoustie
01-17-2012, 09:43 PM
it depends on which libertarian. i agree with Rothbard here and am against defamation laws. that said, i think this move could make redstate and a lot of other idiots look like the idiots they are.

I'm not 100% sure where I stand on this. There certainly is justification for being liable for damage caused by speech, in certain circumstances (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, telling a person you're selling them kool-aid when it's really poison, etc).

sailingaway
01-17-2012, 09:43 PM
it depends on which libertarian. i agree with Rothbard here and am against defamation laws. that said, i think this move could make redstate and a lot of other idiots look like the idiots they are.

I think you own your reputation, and have a right to defend it, and LOOK at how much Ron has put into his, all these years.

jsoldatot
01-17-2012, 09:43 PM
Good move. Find something good you struck gold, if not noone here's of it again.

low preference guy
01-17-2012, 09:46 PM
You can sue anyone for just about anything. Filing a law suit is completely different from winning one.

i meant sue and reasonably expect to win.

UK4Paul
01-17-2012, 09:46 PM
This is good..people gotta realize, if you do this false flag style attack you will be punished

^^ This, this, this.

Did I mention... "This"?

thoughtomator
01-17-2012, 09:46 PM
Slander requires a component of malice and intent. You cannot be successfully sued for mere factual errors. Slander laws have a tradition back to the earliest English Common laws.

The false flag most certainly constitutes not only aggression, but fraud as well. There is no "liberty" to commit fraud; on the contrary, fraud must be prosecuted to protect liberty.

dvalukis
01-17-2012, 09:46 PM
I don't think they're REALLY going to spend money on it. Just a nice PR move.

low preference guy
01-17-2012, 09:47 PM
I think you own your reputation, and have a right to defend it, and LOOK at how much Ron has put into his, all these years.

i don't hold it against Paul, it's the world we live in. i'd be glad to find out who he is if it's the huntsman campaign.

tremendoustie
01-17-2012, 09:47 PM
Non-aggression principle was not violated by the maker of this dumb video. The campaign should not be trying to use the force of the state against them.

It's not clear cut.

You agree that fraud violates the NAP, right? How about yelling fire in a crowded theater?

I don't have a big problem with the idea of liability for knowingly spreading falsehoods, which cause damage.

opinionatedfool
01-17-2012, 09:47 PM
is the youtube vid really that bad? i know it gained some bad press...i haven't seen it yet.

He probably would have come in about 4 points higher in NH if it weren't for that stupid video. I had to convince of few of my softer Ron Paul supporters that he didn't make the video. I think he lost at least few votes from it.

Tyler_Durden
01-17-2012, 09:47 PM
If they identify the culprit through discovery and that culprit answers to the suit that he received the personal photo and video clips from the Huntsman's, it will be GOLD.

Once names are named, we will launch a DRUDGE BOMB!

sailingaway
01-17-2012, 09:47 PM
Slander requires a component of malice and intent. You cannot be successfully sued for mere factual errors. Slander laws have a tradition back to the earliest English Common laws.

The false flag most certainly constitutes not only aggression, but fraud as well. There is no "liberty" to commit fraud; on the contrary, fraud must be prosecuted to protect liberty.

It was slander in implying sponsorship by Ron by virtue of use of his copyrighted logo. Heck, it was slander of US, and I for one appreciate Ron defending our virtue, so to speak...

J_White
01-17-2012, 09:47 PM
this is just about making a point.
i would like if they sued some TV "reporter" for misrepresenting Paul's views or twisting his words.
that would send a message to the MSM maybe to be more careful about what they say about him !

KingNothing
01-17-2012, 09:49 PM
Non-aggression principle was not violated by the maker of this dumb video. The campaign should not be trying to use the force of the state against them.

Nah. Libel/slander which is basically what this was, if the Paul camp is right, certainly does damage. This is the sort of the thing that a state exists to handle.

MsDoodahs
01-17-2012, 09:49 PM
Like Fox News, RedState...the list is endless.

Oh please God let there be a way to slap that guy from RedState betwixt his beady eyes with it. lol.....

eleganz
01-17-2012, 09:50 PM
Seems like a waste of money at this point IMO.

But I'm interested in knowing who it was.


Not at all, to me its more of a statement.

Plus if it is actually the Huntsman campaign or a PAC...it wouldn't be bad to get some extra funds through a quick settlement.

donnay
01-17-2012, 09:50 PM
you're an idiot.

if the statement above is false, should you be able to sue me? in my ideal world, at least, no. it's not physical aggression and it's not breaking a contract and it's not theft. it's at the very least an arguable position for a libertarian and held by many libertarians, not a position to be held only by unthinking people which is what you're implying.

No, you are not slandering my good name, you are stating an opinion...and opinions are like assholes everyone has one. :rolleyes:

KingNothing
01-17-2012, 09:50 PM
If they identify the culprit through discovery and that culprit answers to the suit that he received the personal photo and video clips from the Huntsman's, it will be GOLD.

Once names are named, we will launch a DRUDGE BOMB!

Agreed, that would be awesome. I'm not holding by breath though. I'm sure Huntsman used buffers to do this, if he was involved at all.

NoPants
01-17-2012, 09:50 PM
i meant sue and reasonably expect to win.

Right. Like I said, I do not think this is about winning rather a means to confirm the identity of the creator.

wgadget
01-17-2012, 09:51 PM
And the way certain news outlets and talking heads ran with the story just a couple of days before the NH primary was very suspect, if not to those of us who have come to expect as much.

mport1
01-17-2012, 09:52 PM
It's not clear cut.

You agree that fraud violates the NAP, right? How about yelling fire in a crowded theater?

I don't have a big problem with the idea of liability for knowingly spreading falsehoods, which cause damage.

Fraud is a violation of property rights, as is yelling fire in a crowded theater. How was fraud committed against Ron Paul in this video though? It does not claim to be from Ron Paul or his campaign.

AhuwaleKaNaneHuna
01-17-2012, 09:52 PM
This is not about free speech itself. When you use your free speech, to make UNFOUNDED false claims, that can damage a persons reputation within their career, and or ability to make money it can become an illegal crime called Defamation. It's very suable and often very winnable.


Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. This can be also any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).[1]

In common law jurisdictions, slander refers to a malicious, false,[2][not specific enough to verify] and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images.[3] Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. "Unlike [with] libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy."[4][not verified in body]

False light laws are "intended primarily to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being."[5] If a publication of information is false, then a tort of defamation might have occurred. If that communication is not technically false but is still misleading, then a tort of false light might have occurred.[5]

In most civil law jurisdictions, defamation is dealt with as a crime rather than a tort.[6]

A person who harms another's reputation may be referred to as a famacide, defamer, or slanderer. The Latin phrase

More at-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

FreeTraveler
01-17-2012, 09:52 PM
NAP covers fraud. This is fraud. I see the move as righteous.

Lord Xar
01-17-2012, 09:53 PM
How long do subpoenas take? This is not going to be a quick endeavor

NoPants
01-17-2012, 09:53 PM
this is just about making a point.
i would like if they sued some TV "reporter" for misrepresenting Paul's views or twisting his words.
that would send a message to the MSM maybe to be more careful about what they say about him !

You never know, that might be exactly what this is. :eek: We don't know who created the video. It could have been a junior producer for Faux. (doubt it, but we don't know yet)

FreedomRings
01-17-2012, 09:54 PM
This is a GREAT move. They should have done it right before NH though. If Huntsman had dropped out early last week we could have won NH.

rpwi
01-17-2012, 09:54 PM
Would love to know the identity of the false-flag video producer...but don't think this is the right way to do it. Not comfortable with the idea that an individual with the help of government can force a business (google/youtube) to reveal their clients for merely expressing themselves (even if incorrectly). Even having to appear in court and having to hire a lawyer is a major punishment in and of itself for non-lawyers. Most like the idea of going after (presumably one of Huntsman's daughters) but what if a Ron Paul supporter had made a video about another candidate and that candidate claimed it was false...and sued them in court?

Really think our civil court system needs to return to is core principal of equity disputes. Not sticks and stones...not a quasi-criminal revenge system...but a system to determine if contracts were broken and who owns what land/personal property. We've gone a long way from civil courts deciding who owns want cow to the mess we have now. Wish Paul would keep his energy and resources above this. Even if they nab a high level member of the Huntsman campaign this doesn't advance the causes Paul is for and only really serves as a distraction thereof.

low preference guy
01-17-2012, 09:55 PM
NAP covers fraud. This is fraud. I see the move as righteous.

not all forms of fraud are punished. when i told my last girlfriend "i will marry you" knowing i'd cheat on her that same day, i didn't end up in jail.

UtahApocalypse
01-17-2012, 09:55 PM
I hope the campaign is holding pocket aces.

mport1
01-17-2012, 09:55 PM
Nah. Libel/slander which is basically what this was, if the Paul camp is right, certainly does damage. This is the sort of the thing that a state exists to handle.

I don't believe libel should be illegal. Walter Block in Defending the Undefendable (http://books.google.com/books?id=MHU4KkvxSMsC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=walter+block+on+libel+slander&source=bl&ots=-qVTWTMz_I&sig=gaIs0hVUA_xCjLq7ibuUY4uzTBo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kUIWT9_0PJP_sQKW6KX_AQ&sqi=2&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false), or another article by him http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block124.html

sailingaway
01-17-2012, 09:56 PM
Would love to know the identity of the false-flag video producer...but don't think this is the right way to do it. Not comfortable with the idea that an individual with the help of government can force a business (google/youtube) to reveal their clients for merely expressing themselves (even if incorrectly). Even having to appear in court and having to hire a lawyer is a major punishment in and of itself for non-lawyers. Most like the idea of going after (presumably one of Huntsman's daughters) but what if a Ron Paul supporter had made a video about another candidate and that candidate claimed it was false...and sued them in court?

Really think our civil court system needs to return to is core principal of equity disputes. Not sticks and stones...not a quasi-criminal revenge system...but a system to determine if contracts were broken and who owns what land/personal property. We've gone a long way from civil courts deciding who owns want cow to the mess we have now. Wish Paul would keep his energy and resources above this. Even if they nab a high level member of the Huntsman campaign this doesn't advance the causes Paul is for and only really serves as a distraction thereof.

they were maliciously damaging someone else's hard built reputation. To me it is at least as bad as breaking a window.

FreedomRings
01-17-2012, 09:56 PM
If they identify the culprit through discovery and that culprit answers to the suit that he received the personal photo and video clips from the Huntsman's, it will be GOLD.

Once names are named, we will launch a DRUDGE BOMB!

How about a "&%$! HUNTSMAN Moneybomb" for the campaign!

brandon
01-17-2012, 09:57 PM
This is awesome because as Collins said, they can now subpoena youtube to find out the IP and email of whoever uploaded it. Then they can subpoena the email hosting company and get more info from them. I really hope they trace this back to Huntsman.

PaulConventionWV
01-17-2012, 09:57 PM
you're an idiot.

if the statement above is false, should you be able to sue me? in my ideal world, at least, no. it's not physical aggression and it's not breaking a contract and it's not theft. it's at the very least an arguable position for a libertarian and held by many libertarians, not a position to be held only by unthinking people which is what you're implying.

I think you need to learn the difference between opinions and facts...

Johncjackson
01-17-2012, 09:57 PM
For those arguing this goes against purist libertarian principles, I could argue that running for political office at all does so as well. There is no libertarian purism in electoral politics. To me the choice is to lower yourself to politics or sit out completely.

sailingaway
01-17-2012, 09:59 PM
Ron believes you own your reputation. He has certainly worked hard enough to keep his own spotless. I agree with him.

Mini-Me
01-17-2012, 09:59 PM
Defamation/libel/slander is an interesting libertarian issue. I'm not sure where I stand on it when someone openly spreads lies to destroy someone else, but when someone fraudulently poses as someone else in order to slander them, there's probably a reasonable libertarian case to be made for litigation. The First Amendment also says there shall be "no law," but a civil lawsuit is a different matter altogether...

Regardless, this is tactically sound, and it should act as a deterrent against the continued false flag attacks.

tremendoustie
01-17-2012, 10:00 PM
Fraud is a violation of property rights, as is yelling fire in a crowded theater. How was fraud committed against Ron Paul in this video though? It does not claim to be from Ron Paul or his campaign.

A fair point. I don't know the details of the situation, whether the user misrepresented himself in correspondence with journalists, or what.

I agree that if there was no fraud, then this is a baseless suit.

If the creator was associated with the huntsman campaign, however, don't you think there is a fraudulent component? They obviously tried to pretend the video was from a source other than themselves -- either the RP campaign or RP supporters -- and this deception certainly caused material damage (again, if these are the facts of the case -- I don't know for sure).

Keith and stuff
01-17-2012, 10:00 PM
This is a GREAT move. They should have done it right before NH though. If Huntsman had dropped out early last week we could have won NH.

? Look where Huntsman did the best in NH. In many cases, it was rich liberal Republican leaning voters and Democratic leaning voters that supported Huntsman. Around 1/2 of the Huntsman voters were satisfied with Obama. My guess is Huntsman voters would have split to (mostly) the Democratic Primary, Ron Paul, Romney and not voting. Maybe 30% to the Democratic Primary, 20% to Ron Paul, 20% to Romney, 20% to not voting and the other 10% to the 27 other Republican candidates.

http://nhinsider.squarespace.com/rep-steve-vaillancourt/2012/1/17/county-by-county-percentages-for-nh-primary.html


I also separated the towns Ron Paul won (approximately 60, mostly small towns), the towns Huntsman won (very few), and the towns Huntsman came in second ahead of Ron Paul, mostly more upscale or largely Democratic communities. Imagine that! Only towns in which more than 100 votes were cast are tabulated here.

Huntsman finished first in: Dublin, Keene, Nelson, Hanover, Hillsborough, Canterbury, Concord Ward 5, and Henniker.

Huntsman finished ahead of Ron Paul in those towns along with: Jackson, Bartlett, Tuftonboro, Chesterfield, Keene overall, Richmond, Walpole, Westmoreland, no place in Coos County, Franconia, Hebron, Holderness, Lebanon, Lyme, Orford, Waterville Valley, Amherst, Bedford, Hollis, Manchester Ward 1, Peterborough, Temple, Bow, Concord Wards 7 and 10, Hopkinton, Newbury, New London, Atkinson, Exeter, Greenland, Hampstead, Hampton Falls, Newcastle, Newfields, Newington, North Hampton, Portsmouth Wards 1 and 5, Rye, Stratham, Dover Wards 3 and 5, Durham, Madbury, Rochester Ward 3, Claremont Ward 2, Cornish, Grantham, and Plainfield.

rob7779
01-17-2012, 10:01 PM
Can anyone estimate a realistic time frame as to when this lawsuit will expose those behind this ad? After the elections?

Tina
01-17-2012, 10:01 PM
They apparently know who it was. This is a net loss, though, this story was dead in the water. Now it just makes the campaign look childish(even though they are in the right). Poor move imo. Unless the person responsible is directly involved in another campaign, it can't possibly help.

What are you talking about? It doesn't make the campaign look childish at all. Lairs need to be exposed. This type of manipulation needs to be challenged as often as possible for the good of society as a whole.

Flirple
01-17-2012, 10:02 PM
Ron believes you own your reputation. He has certainly worked hard enough to keep his own spotless. I agree with him.

You can't own a reputation because a reputation only exists in the mind of someone else. It is not a finite resource.

mport1
01-17-2012, 10:02 PM
A fair point. I don't know the details of the situation, whether the user misrepresented himself in correspondence with journalists, or what.

I agree that if there was no fraud, then this is a baseless suit.

If the creator was associated with the huntsman campaign, however, don't you think there is a fraudulent component? They obviously tried to pretend the video was from a source other than themselves -- either the RP campaign or RP supporters -- and this deception certainly caused material damage (again, if these are the facts of the case -- I don't know for sure).

Your second point does have merit.

wgadget
01-17-2012, 10:03 PM
For god's sake, Ron is running for the office of president. Just last night he had a question about negative ads and he said they're fine if they're TRUE. This libelous video was billed as an ad by countless media, and god knows it wasn't close to being true.

low preference guy
01-17-2012, 10:04 PM
lol at this thread turning into a debate about the propriety of defamation laws...

RonPaulFever
01-17-2012, 10:06 PM
Four words:

GO GET 'EM, RON.

low preference guy
01-17-2012, 10:06 PM
but when someone fraudulently poses as someone else in order to slander them, there's probably a reasonable libertarian case to be made for litigation

agree. the question is: should one reasonably expect that the video was made by Paul just because the name of the channel was NH4Paul? since no one verifies the veracity of channels name, i believe that's not a reasonable expectation.

RonPaulFever
01-17-2012, 10:07 PM
Lairs need to be exposed.

Indeed. Let's start with the BatCave!

:p

UK4Paul
01-17-2012, 10:08 PM
Bottom line... it may deter others from doing the same.

That's a GOOD THING.

wgadget
01-17-2012, 10:09 PM
agree. the question is: should one reasonably expect that the video was made by Paul just because the name of the channel was NH4Paul? since no one verifies the veracity of channels name, i believe that's not a reasonable expectation.

The point is, Ron's enemies took the bait and ran with it days before the NH primary. Dirty pool.

nano1895
01-17-2012, 10:10 PM
lol at this thread turning into a debate about the propriety of defamation laws...

:D

PaulConventionWV
01-17-2012, 10:11 PM
Non-aggression principle was not violated by the maker of this dumb video. The campaign should not be trying to use the force of the state against them.

This is why ancappers really annoy me. The law is one of the few legitimate uses of the state.

low preference guy
01-17-2012, 10:12 PM
The point is, Ron's enemies took the bait and ran with it days before the NH primary. Dirty pool.

i'm not against he lawsuit. i'm talking about the theoretical perfect libertarian society with mini-me. sorry it's off topic, but people are talking about it already.

lucent
01-17-2012, 10:13 PM
This is why ancappers really annoy me. The law is one of the few legitimate uses of the state.

Luckily most of us aren't anarchists.

Ilhaguru
01-17-2012, 10:14 PM
I thought Paul didn't believe in defamation. . .

georgiaboy
01-17-2012, 10:15 PM
it should act as a deterrent against the continued false flag attacks.

This is what I like about the campaign's decision here. We've got a long way to go, and this kind of activity needs to be nipped in the bud now.

thehungarian
01-17-2012, 10:16 PM
I doubt anything will come of it. Makes for a great headline, though and that's probably all they were looking for.

Tyler_Durden
01-17-2012, 10:16 PM
In the District Court of Northern California

Ron Paul Presidential Committee, Plaintiff

V.

jongirls2012, Redstate, Fox, MSNBC, CNN et al, Defendants


^^this. lol

TheViper
01-17-2012, 10:19 PM
I thought Paul didn't believe in defamation. . .
How about fraud? Which is what the video amounted to.

tremendoustie
01-17-2012, 10:20 PM
This is why ancappers really annoy me. The law is one of the few legitimate uses of the state.

This isn't an ancap vs. minarchist question. It's just a question of what constitutes a legitimate tort. I recon some ancaps would fall on each side of this issue.

low preference guy
01-17-2012, 10:21 PM
How about fraud? Which is what the video amounted to.

come on, is it really reasonable to expect that it came from Paul just because the name of the channel was NH4Paul? there is no one checking the accuracy of the channel's name.

low preference guy
01-17-2012, 10:21 PM
This isn't an ancap vs. minarchist question. It's just a question of what constitutes a legitimate tort. I recon some ancaps would fall on each side of this issue.

yeah, i'm not even an anarchist.

mport1
01-17-2012, 10:22 PM
This isn't an ancap vs. minarchist question. It's just a question of what constitutes a legitimate tort. I recon some ancaps would fall on each side of this issue.

Agreed.


Luckily most of us aren't anarchists.

There are quite a few of us here though ;)

joshnorris14
01-17-2012, 10:22 PM
This is why ancappers really annoy me. The law is one of the few legitimate uses of the state.

This is why statists annoy me. They think the law is one of the few legitimate uses of the state.

Mini-Me
01-17-2012, 10:24 PM
agree. the question is: should one reasonably expect that the video was made by Paul just because the name of the channel was NH4Paul? since no one verifies the veracity of channels name, i believe that's not a reasonable expectation.

That's a good point...but didn't the Huntsman campaign specifically blame Ron for it and crap on him for running a "dirty" campaign? If it turns out the Huntsman campaign was also behind it, the two acts combined would be enough to draw such a connection, right?

As secondary grounds for a lawsuit, what are your feelings on class action lawsuits? In a sense, using the name NH4Paul was a way of fraudulently posing as a John Doe Ron Paul supporter as a way of collectively smearing each and every one of us. That's probably stretching it though, and it seems to buy into collectivism too much. Despite the fact that this was the Huntsman camp's probable intent (smearing ALL of us), it might be legally viewed more correctly as smearing just one particular John Doe...who if nonexistent wouldn't count. Hrm...

sailingaway
01-17-2012, 10:24 PM
Can anyone estimate a realistic time frame as to when this lawsuit will expose those behind this ad? After the elections?

They should be able to start discovery, i.e. send out subpoenas, pretty soon. That doesn't wait for determination of the case.

RDM
01-17-2012, 10:26 PM
All I can say is, I'm glad about 10% of the posters on this thread will NEVER sit on the Supreme Court.

dbill27
01-17-2012, 10:26 PM
what if it turns out that the vid maker was just some really dumb rp fan?

Gaddafi Duck
01-17-2012, 10:27 PM
This is why statists annoy me. They think the law is one of the few legitimate uses of the state.

OHHHH!!!!

Game, set, match.

TheViper
01-17-2012, 10:27 PM
come on, is it really reasonable to expect that it came from Paul just because the name of the channel was NH4Paul? there is no one checking the accuracy of the channel's name.
You are missing the point. If it turns out that the Huntsman campaign or family had anything to do with the video, that's fraud and very much worth prosecuting.

low preference guy
01-17-2012, 10:28 PM
As secondary grounds for a lawsuit, what are your feelings on class action lawsuits?

i don't know, it seems to me that it's possible only if a court accepts a definition of "Ron Paul supporter" which seems unlikely. your first point is really good though.

sailingaway
01-17-2012, 10:28 PM
what if it turns out that the vid maker was just some really dumb rp fan?

Who first thing tweeted their first ever video from a brand new account directly to the Huntsman's and the Huntsmans' site first picked up the video before anyone else had it?

I think you are stretching credulity somewhat.

AhuwaleKaNaneHuna
01-17-2012, 10:28 PM
what if it turns out that the vid maker was just some really dumb rp fan?

He'll be sued for being really dumb. No way a Paul supporter would be dumb enough to put their name to that though.

tremendoustie
01-17-2012, 10:29 PM
All I can say is, I'm glad about 10% of the posters on this thread will NEVER sit on the Supreme Court.

I'd like to see enough variety among american societies/communities that some will have your notion of legitimate torts, and a few will have the 10% view, for those who strongly prefer it.

sailingaway
01-17-2012, 10:30 PM
i don't know, it seems to me that it's possible only if a court accepts a definition of "Ron Paul supporter" which is unlikely. your first point is really good though.

they won't there is a principle in libel and slander law that if a group is libeled it has to be wholesale "ALL Ron Paul supporters did this" or else a small group, not a large one, to have standing to sue.

specsaregood
01-17-2012, 10:30 PM
come on, is it really reasonable to expect that it came from Paul just because the name of the channel was NH4Paul? there is no one checking the accuracy of the channel's name.

my initial response would be, "No". But I'm tech savvy. If one was basing the answer to that question on how the media treated it, the answer would have to be a resounding, "Yes".

Mini-Me
01-17-2012, 10:31 PM
Who first thing tweeted their first ever video from a brand new account directly to the Huntsman's and the Huntsmans' site first picked up the video before anyone else had it?

I think you are stretching credulity somewhat.

I also don't see how a random Ron Paul supporter would have access to the Huntsman family home video collection. ;)

dbill27
01-17-2012, 10:31 PM
Who first thing tweeted their first ever video from a brand new account directly to the Huntsman's and the Huntsmans' site first picked up the video before anyone else had it?

I think you are stretching credulity somewhat.

wasn't aware of those details

low preference guy
01-17-2012, 10:35 PM
my initial response would be, "No". But I'm tech savvy. If one was basing the answer to that question on how the media treated it, the answer would have to be a resounding, "Yes".

maybe you won this round. the reason it's believable is that the media freaking believed it!

FreedomRings
01-17-2012, 10:36 PM
Huntsman himself announced that the video was coming... the day before it came out. It was on the Piers Morgan show. There's a video of it somewhere on YouTube. He talked about his daughters doing some sneaky stuff and having something up their sleeves against Ron Paul.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-A-R07mgs8

(How do you embed a video on this forum? -- Thanks!)

nano1895
01-17-2012, 10:38 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-A-R07mgs8

(How do you embed a video on this forum?)

on the quick reply bar (with the font/bold/italics/underline etc) to the right is an icon that looks like a vertical film reel, copy+paste the youtube video there.

AhuwaleKaNaneHuna
01-17-2012, 10:40 PM
maybe you won this round. the reason it's believable is that the media freaking believed it!

More like, the media was trying to get the public to believe it.

TheViper
01-17-2012, 10:40 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-A-R07mgs8

(How do you embed a video on this forum?)
[video]url of the video[ /video]

Remove the extra space between [ and /.

PaulConventionWV
01-17-2012, 10:41 PM
agree. the question is: should one reasonably expect that the video was made by Paul just because the name of the channel was NH4Paul? since no one verifies the veracity of channels name, i believe that's not a reasonable expectation.

There was also something in the video that suggested the person was a Ron Paul supporter, and you know the media ran with it and treated it as an actual ad. If this can be tied to another campaign then that seals the deal right there because there is an obvious intent tied to a very strong motive and evidence of that intent. Therefore, I think the case is rock solid if they can find out who it is. It is a completely legitimate reason to sue.

RickyJ
01-17-2012, 10:42 PM
I also don't see how a random Ron Paul supporter would have access to the Huntsman family home video collection. ;)

Ron Paul supporters are everywhere, even within the Huntsman family. :D

low preference guy
01-17-2012, 10:44 PM
More like, the media was trying to get the public to believe it.

i agree. i was tempted to put "believe" in quotes but didn't want to make too many points.

PaulConventionWV
01-17-2012, 10:47 PM
This isn't an ancap vs. minarchist question. It's just a question of what constitutes a legitimate tort. I recon some ancaps would fall on each side of this issue.

Perhaps you're right, but for the record, I support defamation laws.

PaulConventionWV
01-17-2012, 10:49 PM
This is why statists annoy me. They think the law is one of the few legitimate uses of the state.

Not to derail the thread, but what other way would you have it? Everyone gets to decide their own laws? There's no justice in that system.

dirtdigger
01-17-2012, 10:52 PM
Seems like a waste of money at this point IMO.

But I'm interested in knowing who it was.

This is not a waste. The lawsuit will change any remaining perception that the RP campaign was behind the video.

dirtdigger
01-17-2012, 10:55 PM
what if it turns out that the vid maker was just some really dumb rp fan?
No such thing called dub rp fan. One is either a supporter of RP or is dumb.

low preference guy
01-17-2012, 10:57 PM
No such thing called dub rp fan. One is either a supporter of RP or is dumb.


i can tell you're new here. hang out more with us.

Mini-Me
01-17-2012, 10:59 PM
No such thing called dub rp fan. One is either a supporter of RP or is dumb.

Corner case: Technically, a moron could could play eenie-meenie-miney-moe and/or arbitrarily choose to like Ron Paul for all the wrong reasons. :p

Extra Credit Challenge: Convert someone to support Ron Paul using this. It's hard, but it can be done:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvahywQKeFc&ob=av3e

LBennett76
01-17-2012, 11:00 PM
Maybe it was that Jere guy that's been stirring up trouble. Maybe this is something they were actually able to catch him on. ... a possibility.

affa
01-17-2012, 11:00 PM
Assuming it's Huntsman related, and OH do I assume that... the only way for Huntsman to avoid destroying his career with a massive scandal is for his daughters to immediately come forward and admit their wrong doing. It'll still be a scandal, but survivable.

Who brought the popcorn?

kylejack
01-17-2012, 11:00 PM
I know they're just trying to get the IP to expose the creator.

But I don't really like that he's using the arm of the state to do this when the video, while vile, is free speech. No Ron Paul trademarks are used, and the ad only says to vote for Ron Paul, not that he had any part in creating it.

PaulConventionWV
01-17-2012, 11:04 PM
i can tell you're new here. hang out more with us.

It seems like you're trying to suggest there are dumb supporters here. One would only do that out of arrogance and self-righteousness. I disagree with others sometimes, but I never call them stupid or dumb for disagreeing with me. I believe everyone here is intelligent. Many may be misguided, but we are all intelligent in our own right.

Mini-Me
01-17-2012, 11:06 PM
I know they're just trying to get the IP to expose the creator.

But I don't really like that he's using the arm of the state to do this when the video, while vile, is free speech. No Ron Paul trademarks are used, and the ad only says to vote for Ron Paul, not that he had any part in creating it.

Huntsman blamed it on Paul though and crapped on Paul for running a "dirty" campaign...so if it turns out the Huntsman campaign actually created it as well, the two acts combined would make that connection for fraudulence.

Schiff_FTW
01-17-2012, 11:06 PM
They should also sue the multiple major media outlets (WAPO, AP, etc.) that ran headlines falsely implying this was connected to the campaign.

RockEnds
01-17-2012, 11:06 PM
Assuming it's Huntsman related, and OH do I assume that... the only way for Huntsman to avoid destroying his career with a massive scandal is for his daughters to immediately come forward and admit their wrong doing. It'll still be a scandal, but survivable.

Who brought the popcorn?

I don't think that will help. Huntsman said himself that the girls had something planned. If they did it, he's already implicated himself.

LBennett76
01-17-2012, 11:07 PM
The thing that makes it legit is that it was shown on national news media quite a few times leading up to an election. If it had remained an obscure internet video that only a handful of people saw, it would be irrelevant. But it was seen by lots of people and commented on by "journalists" and Huntsman. I'm all for him going after someone who caused harm to his character going into a key voting state's primary.

moonbat
01-17-2012, 11:08 PM
I know they're just trying to get the IP to expose the creator.

But I don't really like that he's using the arm of the state to do this when the video, while vile, is free speech. No Ron Paul trademarks are used, and the ad only says to vote for Ron Paul, not that he had any part in creating it.

What about the Huffington Post's report that when they contacted NHLiberty4Paul they replied with "Sorry, campaign has asked me not to speak to reporters"? That, to me, is taking it to the next level. Wouldn't that be fraud?

donnay
01-17-2012, 11:12 PM
Here is one of the negative articles blaming Ron Paul Supporters

Ron Paul Supporters Release Racist Ad Depicting Jon Huntsman As Maoist Soldier

America has only experienced the first of many primary contests this week, and already a candidate for “most offensive campaign ad” has come to the fore, and with gusto. The group “New Hampshire Liberty 4 Paul”– supporting Rep. Ron Paul– has come out swinging against Jon Huntsman for his ties to China, asking whether he is the “Manchurian Candidate” and whether he lacks “American values” for having lived in Beijing.

The ad begins asking of Huntsman, “The Manchurian Candidate,” “What’s he hiding?” It features “traditional” Chinese music and clips of Huntsman doing things in China: speaking Mandarin, taking interviews from Chinese press, walking around in China– you get the idea. It then asks a series of questions during the montage like, “American values, or Chinese?” and “Weak on China? Wonder why?” It also takes a detour to slam him for being Mormon (“A man of faith?”) before the coup de grace, a doctored photo of Huntsman in what appears to be Maoist military garb. Essentially, it makes “Willie Horton” look like Will.I.Am’s “Yes We Can” ad.

The ad is part of an account labeled “New Hampshire Liberty 4 Paul” on YouTube and appears to have no connections to any actual Rep. Paul SuperPAC or his official campaign. But it has been floating around the blogosphere and, given that the reaction in many circles to it has been something to the effect of “those crazy Ron Paul fans strike again!” rather than “This is a joke, right?” is just as much of a problem– in fact– possibly the central problem– the Rep. Paul campaign faces in this election. The predominant attitude towards this campaign is that it would, entirely seriously, have supporters who would launch attacks like this. And even in the event that this ad is revealed to be a joke, the fact that most take it at face value is indicative of precisely the challenge Rep. Paul faces and what kind of campaign many– rightfully or otherwise– believe he is capable of.

Then there is the actual content of the ad, which is problematic (though not entirely surprising) in itself. There is a long and storied tradition on American history of discrimination against far east Asians, particularly of Chinese descent. While this ad, ridiculous as it is, may remind many of you of myriad different political attacks in the election sphere, the quote that came most to mind for me was from Justice Harlan’s dissent in the “separate but equal” case Plessy v. Ferguson. In short, this is what “non-racist” people sounded like, not so long ago in America:

There is a race so different from our own that we do not permit those belonging to it to become citizens of the United States. Persons belonging to it are, with few exceptions, absolutely excluded from our country. I allude to the Chinese race. But, by the statute in question, a Chinaman can ride in the same passenger coach with white citizens of the United States, while citizens of the black race in Louisiana, many of whom, perhaps, risked their lives for the preservation of the Union, who are entitled, by law, to participate in the political control of the State and nation, who are not excluded, by law or by reason of their race, from public stations of any kind, and who have all the legal rights that belong to white citizens, are yet declared to be criminals, liable to imprisonment, if they ride in a public coach occupied by citizens of the white race.

And that’s not even mentioned the (still totally legal!) internment of thousands of Japanese-Americans for no reason during WWII. Even when overt discrimination against black Americans became entirely socially unacceptable (some may argue it is still not entirely so), the alternative discrimination against Asian Americans was considered a responsible alternative. As far as history goes, Rep. Paul’s supporters may then be onto something here, igniting racial thoughts in voters that will cause Republicans to distrust Huntsman. But that doesn’t make it any less vile, and toxic for Rep. Paul himself should he not denounce it.

h ttp://www.mediaite.com/online/ron-paul-supporters-release-racist-ad-depicting-jon-huntsman-as-maoist-soldier/

______________________________________

Then the Blaze made sure to run with it:

‘Stupid’: Huntsman Reacts to Pro Ron Paul Ad Painting Him as ‘Manchurian Candidate’

GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman said Friday a new online ad posted by apparent Ron Paul supporters painting him as a “Manchurian candidate” is “stupid” and out of line.

The ad, posted to YouTube by “NHLiberty4Paul,” includes video footage of Huntsman with his daughters – he adopted two girls from China and India — and wonders, “China Jon’s daughters: even adopted?”

Huntsman served as the U.S. ambassador to China under President Barack Obama from 2009 to 2011, when he resigned from his post to explore a Republican bid for president.

The ad features clips of Huntsman speaking Chinese and says, “The Manchurian candidate. What’s he hiding?”

“American values? Or Chinese?” it asks. The video ends with the words, “Vote Ron Paul.”

Asked about the video during a campaign stop in New Hampshire Friday, Huntsman said, “First of all, it’s just stupid.”

“If someone wants to poke fun at me, that’s OK,” Huntsman said, according to the Associated Press. “What I object to is bringing forward pictures and videos of my adopted daughters, and suggesting there is some sinister motive there.”

He said his daughter Gracie, now 12, was abandoned in China when she was two months old and left in a vegetable market.

“She was picked up by the police and sent to an orphanage. No future, nothing to look forward to. Now she’s in my family,” Huntsman said. His daughter Asha, 6, was left to die by the side of a road in India the day she was born.

Paul’s campaign told the Boston Globe it has no connection to the video and does not know who made it.

“We had nothing to do with it and we think it’s completely distasteful,” Paul spokeswoman Kate Schackai told the Globe. “Nobody who actually supports Dr. Paul’s principles would put together something like that.”

Huntsman has put his campaign efforts into New Hampshire, opting to skip Tuesday’s Iowa caucuses in favor of shoring up a base in the Granite State, whose first-in-the-nation primary will be held Tuesday. Huntsman’s campaign has posted several ads attacking Paul, calling him unelectable.

Despite his efforts, the latest poll released Friday from Suffolk University has Huntsman in fifth place at 8 percent among likely Republican primary voters, ahead only of Rick Perry, The Hill reported. Iowa caucus winner Mitt Romney leads at 40 percent, followed by Paul in second place at 17 percent and Rick Santorum at 11 percent. Newt Gingrich is fourth at 9 percent.

h ttp://www.theblaze.com/stories/stupid-huntsman-reacts-to-pro-ron-paul-ad-painting-huntsman-as-manchurian-candidate/

low preference guy
01-17-2012, 11:14 PM
It seems like you're trying to suggest there are dumb supporters here. One would only do that out of arrogance and self-righteousness. I disagree with others sometimes, but I never call them stupid or dumb for disagreeing with me. I believe everyone here is intelligent. Many may be misguided, but we are all intelligent in our own right.

yeah, everyone is intelligent. we are all super awesome.

low preference guy
01-17-2012, 11:15 PM
They should also sue the multiple major media outlets (WAPO, AP, etc.) that ran headlines falsely implying this was connected to the campaign.

they would claim they were deceived and that it was a honest mistake. that would of course be a lie.

kylejack
01-17-2012, 11:17 PM
What about the Huffington Post's report that when they contacted NHLiberty4Paul they replied with "Sorry, campaign has asked me not to speak to reporters"? That, to me, is taking it to the next level. Wouldn't that be fraud?
Okay, maybe.

tempest
01-17-2012, 11:18 PM
Seems like a waste of money at this point IMO.Wrong. Not a waste of a dime.

The lawsuit serves the purpose of deterrence (to the other candidates and their hacks @ Huffington Post and whatever other media outlets). Think!

Kregisen
01-17-2012, 11:18 PM
It seems like you're trying to suggest there are dumb supporters here. One would only do that out of arrogance and self-righteousness. I disagree with others sometimes, but I never call them stupid or dumb for disagreeing with me. I believe everyone here is intelligent. Many may be misguided, but we are all intelligent in our own right.

No...there are definitely stupid people here. I don't think they admins require people score high on an IQ test to register. There are stupid people in any group.

TheViper
01-17-2012, 11:19 PM
I know they're just trying to get the IP to expose the creator.

But I don't really like that he's using the arm of the state to do this when the video, while vile, is free speech. No Ron Paul trademarks are used, and the ad only says to vote for Ron Paul, not that he had any part in creating it.If it were from the Huntsman campaign or family, that is not free speech, that is fraud.

AhuwaleKaNaneHuna
01-17-2012, 11:19 PM
What about the Huffington Post's report that when they contacted NHLiberty4Paul they replied with "Sorry, campaign has asked me not to speak to reporters"? That, to me, is taking it to the next level. Wouldn't that be fraud?

Good memory.

tremendoustie
01-17-2012, 11:20 PM
Not to derail the thread, but what other way would you have it? Everyone gets to decide their own laws? There's no justice in that system.

Not at all. There is nothing wrong with enforcing rules, so long as those rules are consistent with the NAP. Members of a community are no doubt going to have an organization, or a number of organizations, hired to stop thieves, murderers, and the like. The state goes wrong firstly because it funds itself via confiscatory taxation, secondly because it enforces victimless crimes, and thirdly because it prohibits competition -- not because it arrests murderers, theives, those who commit fraud, etc.

The strong majority in any community will generally have say in how things are run. The problem with democracy is not that the majority has the power -- the majority always has the power. The problem with democracy is that it supposes that the actions of said majority are not subject to the same rules for moral behavior that apply to individuals -- i.e. that extortion, agression, coersive monopolism, etc, are wrong only for individuals, and not for individuals organized into large enough mobs.

In short, we need societies of people the majority of whom are dedicated not only to stopping individuals who would seek to use agression on others, but refraining from using agression themselves.

agorist ninja
01-17-2012, 11:22 PM
Good for the campaign.

Wish it would have happened sooner.

kylejack
01-17-2012, 11:28 PM
If it were from the Huntsman campaign or family, that is not free speech, that is fraud.
No it isn't. Calling myself or my Dad a Manchurian Candidate is opinion, and free speech. That's also speculatory.

tremendoustie
01-17-2012, 11:30 PM
No it isn't. Calling myself or my Dad a Manchurian Candidate is opinion, and free speech.

But then going on TV and complaining about "other people" who put the ad out -- and implicating the Paul campaign for the ad you yourself made -- is fraudulent.

kylejack
01-17-2012, 11:33 PM
But then going on TV and complaining about "other people" who put the ad out -- and implicating the Paul campaign for the ad you yourself made -- is fraudulent.
Huntsman never said that Paul's people created it, just that it was stupid and offensive. The supposed source was in the premise of the question from the journalists. He has no affirmative duty to correct their question.

TheViper
01-17-2012, 11:33 PM
No it isn't. Calling myself or my Dad a Manchurian Candidate is opinion, and free speech. That's also speculatory.
See below.

But then going on TV and complaining about "other people" who put the ad out -- and implicating the Paul campaign for the ad you yourself made -- is fraudulent.

The intent of the ad was to harm the campaign of Ron Paul. Malicious intent automatically makes it fraud.

sailingaway
01-17-2012, 11:33 PM
I know they're just trying to get the IP to expose the creator.

But I don't really like that he's using the arm of the state to do this when the video, while vile, is free speech. No Ron Paul trademarks are used, and the ad only says to vote for Ron Paul, not that he had any part in creating it.
That isn't true. They use his campaign logo at the end, where it usually would say "I'm Ron Paul and I approve this message" Regardless, many, and I am one of them, consider their reputations their property and willful damage by fraud to someone's reputation to be actionable.

sailingaway
01-17-2012, 11:39 PM
No it isn't. Calling myself or my Dad a Manchurian Candidate is opinion, and free speech. That's also speculatory.

the faking it as coming from someone else and playing that up in the media is the fraud part.

tremendoustie
01-17-2012, 11:40 PM
Huntsman never said that Paul's people created it, just that it was stupid and offensive. The supposed source was in the premise of the question from the journalists. He has no affirmative duty to correct their question.

If I hand you a cold drink laced with poison, I'm liable for the damage, even though I never told you it wasn't poison -- you just assumed it. There is a context to actions and words. If Huntsman or his daughters created that ad, their behavior was absolutely fraudulent, and clearly intended to deceive.

sailingaway
01-17-2012, 11:41 PM
Huntsman never said that Paul's people created it, just that it was stupid and offensive. The supposed source was in the premise of the question from the journalists. He has no affirmative duty to correct their question.

He very clearly implied it was a Paul supporter and went along with the implication by others. A reasonable person would say he intended that message be sent.

kylejack
01-17-2012, 11:41 PM
That isn't true. They use his campaign logo at the end, where it usually would say "I'm Ron Paul and I approve this message" Regardless, many, and I am one of them, consider their reputations their property and willful damage by fraud to someone's reputation to be actionable.
No, there is no Ron Paul logo. There is a quick flash of Huntsman standing at a podium with his daughter next to him.

sailingaway
01-17-2012, 11:42 PM
No, there is no Ron Paul logo. There is a quick flash of Huntsman standing at a podium with his daughter next to him.

the version I saw the first day had Ron's logo at the end. Now I'm going to have to go back and look, though. Even without it the 'forPaul' part of the name clearly was an attempt to pin it on Paul and the media all said it was a Paul supporter and Huntsman, knowing that, played to it.

kylejack
01-17-2012, 11:45 PM
If I hand you a cold drink laced with poison, I'm liable for the damage, even though I never told you it wasn't poison -- you just assumed it. There is a context to actions and words. If Huntsman or his daughters created that ad, their behavior was absolutely fraudulent, and clearly intended to deceive.
If the video was created by someone else, they're now forced to respond to the lawsuit or face possible penalties from the government, when what they did, vile as it was, was an exercise of free speech.

sailingaway
01-17-2012, 11:46 PM
If the video was created by someone else, they're now forced to respond to the lawsuit or face possible penalties from the government, when what they did, vile as it was, was an exercise of free speech.

slandering someone isn't free speech, in my book. And the implication it was a Paul supporter to associate it with people to hurt them, where no association actually existed, was fraud. You may disagree, but I bet a court won't. And discovery of the creator comes before a court has to rule, in any event.

thoughtomator
01-17-2012, 11:48 PM
with liberty comes the responsibility to respect the liberty of others

A breach of another's liberty is most definitely an actionable tort... libertarianism is not lawlessness, it's a minimalist framework for resolving disputes without violence.

TheTexan
01-17-2012, 11:49 PM
The campaign probably knows somehow that Huntsman's camp was behind it. Otherwise I don't think they'd bother with a lawsuit.

TheViper
01-17-2012, 11:49 PM
If the video was created by someone else, they're now forced to respond to the lawsuit or face possible penalties from the government, when what they did, vile as it was, was an exercise of free speech.
No, it was fraud. The intent of the video was to harm the Ron Paul campaign. The medium used is irrelevant. Speech, written, video, music, doesn't matter how it was portrayed. Fact of the matter is that someone did X for the purpose of harming the campaign under a false premise.

sailingaway
01-17-2012, 11:49 PM
with liberty comes the responsibility to respect the liberty of others

A breach of another's liberty is most definitely an actionable tort... libertarianism is not lawlessness, it's a minimalist framework for resolving disputes without violence.

I'll go further and say if it is a requirement to be libertarian that you have to let other people maliciously trash your reputation fraudulently, I have no interest in being libertarian. In any event, I fully support the law suit.

AngelClark
01-17-2012, 11:51 PM
http://exm.nr/wmT6CW - here's my copy of the same story. Remember how Huntsman complained that everyone was just too mean to each other? Won't it be great if this lawsuit forces out the truth?

Wanted to get the word out before I go onto my SOPA blackout.

kylejack
01-17-2012, 11:51 PM
slandering someone isn't free speech, in my book.
It's all hedged in opinion anyway. There may be people out there legitimately uncomfortable with Huntsman's connection to China.


And the implication it was a Paul supporter to associate it with people to hurt them, where no association actually existed, was fraud.
You don't know if the creator is a Paul supporter, and it isn't right to initiate force against someone who is engaging in free speech. Furthermore, "Paul supporter" is not an identifiable person who has been slandered. The ad doesn't claim to speak for all Ron Paul supporters, only for this particular one.

TheViper
01-17-2012, 11:53 PM
Malicious intent under false premise = fraud.

I'll keep posting this if I have to.

TheTexan
01-17-2012, 11:53 PM
Coulda been the Newter behind it also for all we know.

kylejack
01-17-2012, 11:55 PM
No, it was fraud. The intent of the video was to harm the Ron Paul campaign.
Harming the Ron Paul campaign by exercising free speech (even with misguided opinions) isn't a crime. If it was we could put a lot of people in jail.


The medium used is irrelevant. Speech, written, video, music, doesn't matter how it was portrayed. Fact of the matter is that someone did X for the purpose of harming the campaign under a false premise.
Remembering that we were talking about if the video was created by someone else other than Huntsman etc., I think you're going to have a hard time proving the false premise, that the person doesn't support Ron Paul. They can claim they support whatever is convenient for the suit.

RockEnds
01-17-2012, 11:55 PM
The maker of the video was free to speak. The campaign is free to sue. The court is free to make a decision.

sailingaway
01-17-2012, 11:56 PM
Coulda been the Newter behind it also for all we know.

I'm not interested in speculating who it was, I just know it wasn't us, and I am glad the campaign is moving to reveal the real culprit.

kylejack
01-17-2012, 11:57 PM
I'll go further and say if it is a requirement to be libertarian that you have to let other people maliciously trash your reputation fraudulently, I have no interest in being libertarian.
You don't have to let it go unanswered (we're all entitled to use free speech), but you can't initiate force.

sailingaway
01-18-2012, 12:00 AM
It's all hedged in opinion anyway. There may be people out there legitimately uncomfortable with Huntsman's connection to China.


You don't know if the creator is a Paul supporter, and it isn't right to initiate force against someone who is engaging in free speech. Furthermore, "Paul supporter" is not an identifiable person who has been slandered. The ad doesn't claim to speak for all Ron Paul supporters, only for this particular one.

I disagree. You sure are protective of them.

sailingaway
01-18-2012, 12:02 AM
You don't have to let it go unanswered (we're all entitled to use free speech), but you can't initiate force.

If you do indeed hold the designation of libertarianism, then, neither Ron nor I are libertarians. I can live with that. I think the govt is supposed to be the way of resolving fraud which I see as force, if you like.

kylejack
01-18-2012, 12:02 AM
I disagree. You sure are protective of them.
The most detestable speakers are the canary in the mine for free speech rights. I defend the free speech rights of Communists and the KKK as well, because I'm defending a principle, not any particular user of the principle.

PaulConventionWV
01-18-2012, 12:04 AM
yeah, everyone is intelligent. we are all super awesome.

I agree 100%. :D

muh_roads
01-18-2012, 12:05 AM
Huntsman dropped out...not sure why we would want to waste money and resources on this...

kylejack
01-18-2012, 12:06 AM
Huntsman dropped out...not sure why we would want to waste money and resources on this...
I suppose we could parlay into making Romney look dirty as well since Huntsman has endorsed him.

TheViper
01-18-2012, 12:06 AM
Harming the Ron Paul campaign by exercising free speech (even with misguided opinions) isn't a crime. If it was we could put a lot of people in jail.


Remembering that we were talking about if the video was created by someone else other than Huntsman etc., I think you're going to have a hard time proving the false premise, that the person doesn't support Ron Paul. They can claim they support whatever is convenient for the suit.
Malicious intent and false premise will be very easy to vet out. And both are the purpose of this investigation. It has nothing to do with stifling free speech or the use of force as a means to suppress free speech.

parocks
01-18-2012, 12:07 AM
You talking about Ketchup from the OWS movement? o_o

Some people think that Huntsman has something to do with Ketchup.

Telling them that Huntman's Dad invented the Styrofoam Clamshell packaging for Big Macs does not cause them to start saying Styrofoam man.

They like Ketchup guy, perhaps because they remember Kerry? I don't know.

PaulConventionWV
01-18-2012, 12:08 AM
No...there are definitely stupid people here. I don't think they admins require people score high on an IQ test to register. There are stupid people in any group.

You would have to define stupid. First of all, one has to be at least minimally intelligent to use a computer and care about internet discussions. Secondly, they have to be even more intelligent to care about what Ron Paul is saying. I would argue that the ones who come to this message board are the ones who are passionate, not the "soft" support. In order to be passionate about this, you have to have a certain level of intellect. I doubt there is anyone here who is actually nominally stupid.

parocks
01-18-2012, 12:08 AM
It is interesting this happens right when Jon Huntsman dropped out.

I will also point out, this is making an example of people who play dirty.

Yes, it's to keep other campaigns from doing something like this.