I wrote my 50 page article on getting rid of astroturfing because Hillary Clinton ran an entirely fabricated campaign. It was the most deceptive campaign in modern history and im worried there will not be an accurate historical record for our academic institutions to study. The liberal brainwashing really needs to be studied to find out why these people can't accept objective facts.
I analyzed two case study lawsuits under defamation (CTR bullying celebrities) and the lanham act false advertising (CTR hijacking /r/politics on plebbit) and found that holding CTR liable comes down to establishing a procedural rule that denies 1A anonymous free speech protections for paid shills so we can move forward and hold the Super Pac liable.
also, it's only going down if you convince the (((globalists))) it's in their best interests.
maybe tell the ADL that Hillary's racist against Jews because she didn't try hard enough to win.
Eli Sullivan
> establishing a procedural rule that denies 1A anonymous free speech protections for paid shills so we can move forward and hold the Super Pac liable.
now hold the fuck up.
Sup Forums depends on free speech.
if you win... > 2020 > ctr is at it again > Sup Forums calls them out > ctr sues, claiming "paid shills spreading lies on Sup Forums" > anons can't legal > ctr wins default judgement > anons identities exposed > "oh wait guess they were not shills, lol, but now we know where they live" > Sup Forums becomes a ghost town
think before you leak
Christian Rodriguez
I'm in the process of publishing, I can't post the paper.
For my defamation section i used Dilbert guy scott adams blog as a fact pattern. That dude got boned by the clinton campaign hard. He spoke positively about Trump and CTR shit all over him until all of his speaking engagements cancelled on him. He lost an estimated $1mil from speaking engagements based on 20 years of consistent earnings.
Andrew Collins
God speed but it sounds like they would then abuse it to label anyone they could as a "paid shill" then shut down places like this. Its a good idea but easily corruptible.
Hudson Peterson
God speed Mr shackleford
Julian Martin
The procedural rule is only applicable in cases where a plaintiff is suing a Super Pac for defamation or false advertising and all of the elements are met except you need the identities of anonymous internet users to move forward with your lawsuit
The procedural rule avoids that by requiring the subpoena'd social media platform to cross reference users with the list of publicly available shills and let the plaintiff know if there is a match.
And if there is a match, the Super Pac is held liable. If there is no match, there is no lawsuit because non shills are presumptively protected by anonymous 1A and they were not the target of the initial lawsuit
James Gutierrez
what's the highest level of math you've taken?
Jordan Young
only if it is only illegal for the super pacs and not for the shills. the shills shouldn't get in trouble otherwise it would lead to mass censorship.
Easton Morales
The penalty for a super pac that gets caught shilling is a public disclosure of what they did and a 30 day ban on all intake and expenditure of money.
So yeah, it indirectly hurts the shills. But it puts a strong penalty on abusing anonymous free speech to fuck with the election
Easton Kelly
Free speech, you pathetic cuck. Welcome to America.
Charles Kelly
Actually, the supreme court will uphold a law prohibiting an entire class of anonymous free speech if its being used to commit fraud
>Paid speech isn't free speech
Angel Hall
in the interest of free speech the identities of all anonymous posters would have to be sealed from the public and a gag order placed on everyone involved from leaking identities. this would have to be a stipulation otherwise it is unethical to pursue and will create case law that will be used against you in the future
It only applies in a narrow set of fact patterns that only involve paid shills. The whole point of the rule is to hold Super pacs liable for abusing anonymous free speech.
That doesn't apply to the loophole CTR is exploiting. There is nothing in the FEC regs that cover paying people to direct message on social media and because its technically not an advertisement, it qualifies as anonymous free speech with political speech protections.
Isaiah Jones
this is fine, i am just saying you have to make it super fucking clear that anonymous speech must remain anonymous and you can only verify identities from payrolls to anonymous posts, not the other way around. otherwise the case law will bite you in the ass
Jack Butler
Yeah my paper is really specific about that because the Supreme Court only prohibits classes of anonymous 1A speech when there is a compelling interest. Here, its election integrity, upholding the democratic process of allowing political discourse to be a market place of ideas and not tainting it with fake ideas. To be clear, this only applies to political entities under FEC jurisdiction
My argument would not hold up if I tried banning corporate astroturfing and shilling operations and attempts to stretch my case law wouldn't work because its confined to FEC laws.
Cooper Wood
Interesting. Go user.
Dylan Morris
OK just be sure and follow up on your work, and don't let it be twisted by politicians to encompass a broader scope of speech than you originally intended. Also if the media gets hold of your paper and twists it into a story that doesn't reflect your motives it could fuck you as well... lots of things to think about for the long term but I wish you the best on your paper user. Don't let SJWs be the downfall of your career, stay safe.
Hunter Gray
It probably wont get much attention even though we need to address astroturfing before 2020 when it gets much worse.
the media wouldn't know what to do with my paper lol. Hell, they would be pissed if they read it because i did a financial analysis on their industry and discredited them so I can use alternative media sources. They are literally blockbuster calling netflix a computer virus to retain their viewer base.
If I don't get hired for law because of SJW's, I'll use my MBA to go into business creation. You don't want me to go into business creation.
Cameron Gonzalez
Just cut their founding. End SuperPacs and defend free speech on internet. Most internet businessmen are raging libtards.
Hudson Cox
>>that gif
Jack Edwards
...
Ryan Cook
If you pass a law banning super pac astroturfing we wont need super pacs anymore. trump proved you can win an election without any mainstream media advertising, this means cheaper presidential campaigns that are voter friendly and have better candidates that get weeded out early. funding doesnt mean shit anymore, its all about message
Mason Stewart
keep it up
try not to suicide by shotgun to the back of the head also plz
Carson Rodriguez
>Jeb/wH
Jeb! Whitehouse!
Benjamin Hughes
SuperPacs also fund advertisment, etc. They are the core of the problem. That Trump won despite the media doesn't mean that the media didn't have a huge impact in the campaign. Without the media he would have won far, far more easily and with a far better advantage. Just kill the beast. It was rapey Bill doing anyway.
Easton Sanders
The media did have an impact, but they aren't king makers
Evan Rogers
Right, but better don't write them off completely. That would be naive.
Isaiah Moore
ballpark on publishing date?
Colton Evans
Probably the june issue of some ivy league law journal
I submit in February and I have a lot of formatting and sourcing to do in the mean time. But it will be great
