Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "CBS, 60 Minutes CAVING To Donald Trump Over Kamala Harris Interview Lawsuit?! Report" video.

  1. Both lying and private censorship are generally considered First Amendment protected. Only certain lies can give rise to a crime or civil suit, and censorship has to be an individual decision, not influenced by any level of government. (That's why we can be cens___d here.)
    3
  2. What do you think constituted fraud here? Do people only listen to the first two minutes? Every unethical act isn't a crime. Nor does it give rise to a viable lawsuit.
    2
  3. Those are two different things. Having a case means it was not about to be dismissed outright. Digging into the motives of a news outlet which edits the content it produces is a non-starter, but this case most likely would have required being willing to carry it through to summary judgment and appeal. (That is why all the carrying on about "hate speech" is nonsense: there is no way to ban "hate speech," in general, under the First Amendment. There is no general ban on lying, either: only some lies are criminal or can be subject to civil suit.)
    2
  4. But it's not at all on her behalf. The point is that you only have the reputation you can afford to buy, and the ability to bring suit is part of that cost. It's a common libertarian position that every moral wrong isn't a crime or a civil wrong that should give rise to a lawsuit. Moreover, the only reason a newspaper settles a lawsuit they could win is because the person suing them has the money to outlast them and drain them of attorney's fees. Williamson's point was the same as Robby's: they should have apologized and issued either a retraction or published the unedited interview or all of the above, before the election. By the way, where are the principled First Amendment advocates willing to defend a news program for a nominal fee plus costs? Lots of law professors are independently wealthy and could do it.
    1
  5. ​ @VoxMachina8 No, you are. If my comment is allowed, it explains the economics. Of course, YT is no fan of reasoned argument.
    1
  6. Who made this up for you? An interview produced for broadcast is no more a "document" in that sense than is a newspaper or a video on YouTube. It preserves in writing or other medium no legal obligation or agreement.
    1
  7. Editing an interview to make the subject look better and outright defaming someone are treated differently by the law, for obvious reasons.
    1
  8. It never went to trial.
    1