/townhall/ - Townhall

>>6638
> as long as they are political opponents then outright willful lies are "political speech".
False. The actual malice standard (which is applicable to speech about public figures) is quite lenient, but knowing lies are unprotected, as is reckless disregard of the truth.

>I'd love to see Gorsuch's head lopped off for the Trans-Am Trucking absurdity,
Please explain what you find absurd.  Or do you find all decisions based on technicalities to be absurd?

>>6643
That a worker is expected to allow himself to die or be rightfully fired is absurd.

"Technicalities" is a nice excuse.  But no, there is no technicality supporting that decision because enployment contracts have an implied covenant that workers cannot be expected to sacrifice their lives to comply with their obligations.

And its true, politicians can lie about facts and each other all they want, without regard for standards of malice or disregard.  Its protected political speech.

>>6651
>That a worker is expected to allow himself to die or be rightfully fired is absurd.
I agree with that.

>enployment contracts have an implied covenant that workers cannot be expected to sacrifice their lives to comply with their obligations.
That would be state law, not the federal statute at issue.  Not every tort is addressable in federal court.

>And its true, politicians can lie about facts and each other all they want, without regard for standards of malice or disregard.  Its protected political speech.
Please cite a court case that held this.

I'm greatly wary about expanding laws to restrict free speech, even when it comes to outright lies, given the dystopian hell existence that we're living in today.

I mean, to be frank, do you really want, say, an Mississippi judge that's a hardcore ideological conservative having to decide whether or not transgender people have the right to say that they're "born that way" or if they're engaged in "sodomite propaganda"?

Or just imagine similar situations where the facts about climate change, or evolution, or whether or not the Holocaust happened, or so get decided by judges using politics rather than by experts using evidence.

>>6638
Lies are 'legal' because they're a pain in the rear to prove. Though as it pertains to politicians, they have immunity from what I understand anyway.
I'd love to get rid of that, though.

Don't much care for the guillotine aspect, however. Such mob-controlled executions tend to get a lot of innocent people killed.

>>6659
>Though as it pertains to politicians, they have immunity from what I understand anyway.
>I'd love to get rid of that, though.
Politicians don't have any special immunity, except for the immunity that Congressmen have for anything that they say in Congress ("for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place").

>>6660
I'm thinking of Elizabeth Warren's claim of "sovereign immunity" in regards to the Covington Catholic kids.

Recommended to everyone is a discussion among legal experts about lying and incitement in terms of free speech here: https://abovethelaw.com/2019/08/should-the-north-carolina-gun-store-billboard-targeting-the-squad-be-unconstitutional/

>>6661
Oh, I see what you're talking about now.  That applies to any federal employees who are acting "within the scope of their employment".  https://casetext.com/case/doe-v-haaland#pa14

>>6663
Ah, I see. Still, if they can use it for things like this, it definitely should be axed.

>>6653
>That would be state law, not the federal statute at issue.  Not every tort is addressable in federal court.

If there is a federal question or other means of federal jurisdiction then absolutely every state issue involved in the matter is also under the jurisdiction of the federal court.

Further contract law is the opposite of torts and entirely different.  Just to correct your vocabulary.