CSGV campaigns to have Emily Miller fired

[b322da]

...The First Amendment won't protect you against a slander suit.

It may. It may not. It depends. Black and white statements about the law can be a trap for the unwary.

One might just run the quoted sentence through Google and take a look at the extensive results. Hardly black and white.

Jim

[puma guy]

I don't know what the civil law is there, but if this were in Texas and if she had a contract with Fox, I'd be filing a suit for tortuous interference with contractual relationship. Get an injunction, attorney fees and perhaps other remedies.

Chas.

How? They are using free speech. I don't agree with it, but thats kind of the point of the Big 2A, to protect the rights of others to say what we don't like and admit how stupid they are.

Tortious interference is attempting to interfere in the contractual relationship existing between two other parties.

Sure, they have free speech, but that neither justifies falsely yelling fire in a movie theater nor interfering in someone's contract.

Which they are doing neither. Good luck with making that claim in court.

IANAL Charles is. I think their actions could meet this definition. per Legal Match
"The purpose of tortious interference laws is to allow parties the freedom to contract with one another and fulfill their contractual obligations without third-party meddling." emphasis by me. It falls under tort law not contractual law. I don't think it is a stretch to state that getting someone fired will definitely prevent the fulfillment of their obligations and no one but an idiot would think a broadcaster would not be working under contract.
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/a ... racts.html

[jimlongley]

I would like to see more lawsuits against the anti-gun organizations when they lie and the media when they intentionally slant a story.

During the George Zimmerman saga, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence had so many lies on their site it made my stomach turn. The more ground they lose, the more desperate they get and the more lies they manufacture.

The lies they tell make each of us look bad as a gun owners and have even encouraged the “swatting” of gun owners.

Is there any practical way of stopping this?

Unfortunately there is no PRACTICAL way of stopping it, and suing for intentional slant has been tried and failed, which leaves suing for lying. IANAL, but suing for lying is no practical because first you have to prove that they are lying, and organizations like the brady bunch are wily enough to have attorneys of their own who can prove that even if what they said wasn't true, they thought it was true, and therefore were not lying.

[Cedar Park Dad]

As I said, I don't know D.C. law, but it would be a viable claim in Texas.

Chas.

We're just going to have to disagree on that.

[Cedar Park Dad]

I don't know what the civil law is there, but if this were in Texas and if she had a contract with Fox, I'd be filing a suit for tortuous interference with contractual relationship. Get an injunction, attorney fees and perhaps other remedies.

Chas.

How? They are using free speech. I don't agree with it, but thats kind of the point of the Big 2A, to protect the rights of others to say what we don't like and admit how stupid they are.

Tortious interference is attempting to interfere in the contractual relationship existing between two other parties.

Sure, they have free speech, but that neither justifies falsely yelling fire in a movie theater nor interfering in someone's contract.

Which they are doing neither. Good luck with making that claim in court.

Signed

The First Amendment won't protect you against a slander suit.

This is true. Common law however will in this instance.
She's a public figure. Whats the slander? They want her fired and are petitioning to do so no?
Please cite winning case law in similar circumstances.

[puma guy]

CPD - I don't think libel or slander have anything to do with what Charles cited. If you have a contract of employment and I convinced your employer to fire you you would have cause under tortious interference. IANAL but say I told your employer you smoked marijuana and you're fired for it you would have a case. You would probably be able to also sue for slander. Or better how about this? I organize a protest against you outside your place of employment and your employer decides to put you on leave or fire you because of it. You are saying you have no remedy under the law. I think not. That's why the law is in place. Has nothing to do with libel, slander, being a public figure or not.

[Cedar Park Dad]

CPD - I don't think libel or slander have anything to do with what Charles cited. If you have a contract of employment and I convinced your employer to fire you you would have cause under tortious interference. IANAL but say I told your employer you smoked marijuana and you're fired for it you would have a case. You would probably be able to also sue for slander. Or better how about this? I organize a protest against you outside your place of employment and your employer decides to put you on leave or fire you because of it. You are saying you have no remedy under the law. I think not. That's why the law is in place. Has nothing to do with libel, slander, being a public figure or not.

Can you cite instances where a petition has been met with a successful tortious interference claim? This is not "prove it" request, more along the lines of is there case law to support this argument?

[mojo84]

Does this address the issue? http://volokh.com/2011/08/30/60000-dama ... son-fired/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I googled "tortiuous interference getting someone fired" and quite a bit came up. This was the first.

https://www.google.com/search?q=tortiou ... ed&spell=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Cedar Park Dad]

Interesting article, cites the case is going to be appealed. One part from your linked story is troubling though-especially my bold.

As I wrote in March, people are constitutionally entitled to speak the truth about others, even with the goal of trying to get them fired. (The tort actually requires either knowledge that such a result is practically certain or a purpose of producing such a result, but I take it that here the allegation is that Hoff wanted Moore to get fired.) The First Amendment constrains the interference with business relations tort, just as it constrains the infliction of emotional distress and other torts. See NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982); Blatty v. New York Times Co. (Cal. 1986) (speech constitutionally protected against a libel claim is also protected against an interference with business relations claim); Paradise Hills Assocs. (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (same); Delloma v. Consolidated Coal Co. (7th Cir. 1993) (“permitting recovery for tortious interference based on truthful statements would seem to raise significant First Amendment problems”); Jefferson Cty. Sch. Dist. No. R-1 v. Moody’s Investor’s Services (10th Cir. 1999) (holding that interference with business relations and interference with contract claims can’t be based on expressions of opinion). The same should apply to the closely related interference with contract tort. See, e.g., Jefferson Cty. Sch. Dist.

Perhaps because of this, the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 772(a) provides that, “One who intentionally causes a third person not to perform a contract or not to enter into a prospective contractual relation with another does not interfere improperly with the other’s contractual relation, by giving the third person … truthful information.” See also, among many other cases, Walnut Street Assocs., Inc. v. Brokerage Concepts, Inc. (Pa. Super. 2009) (so holding); Recio v. Evers (Neb. 2009) (likewise). Minnesota seems to have accepted § 772(a) as well, see Glass Service Co. v. State Farm Ins. Co. (Minn. Ct. App. 1995); Fox Sports Net North, LLC v. Minnesota Twins Partnership (8th Cir. 2003). But even if Minnesota courts take the opposite view as a matter of state law, such a view would be preempted by the First Amendment.

So are you arguing that anyone signing a petition to get someone fired (or posting about it like, say on here) is liable for tortious interference?
In that case I take back everything I said about Eric Holder, and everyone at certain DPS, tax, and post offices...

[mojo84]

Not troubling at all. The question of truth hasn't been argued as part of the OP. The issue is a third party interfering in a contractual relationship and causing one party of the contract to not perform as contracted.

Just because it's being appealed doesn't mean the decision is wrong. You asked for an example and I provided one.

[The Annoyed Man]

In another thread, use of the term "libtard" was questioned. I myself admitted to being uncomfortable with the term. But whether or not I use the term, I will never stop from pointing out the hypocrisies of modern liberalism. One of those hypocrisies is the use of the 1st Amendment to destroy someone else's first Amendment rights. This comes straight out of the leftist practice of the politics of personal destruction. In order to attack an opponent's ideas, they have to destroy the person speaking those ideas. Of course, this is an ideological red herring so to speak, because in so doing, they never actually address the ideas to which they object. They simply take the focus off of the opposition's ideas by concentrating it on the opponent's alleged sins. The practice has extended into other areas, including trying to destroy others financially.

That is what leftism does. It tears down, but never builds up. Furthermore, leftists who have no problem with vigilante "justice". Moore is not charged in a fraud case that results in a sentence for someone else, in which he was somehow peripherally involved. Refusing to believe that investigators and prosecutors may have quite legitimately concluded that Moore had done no wrong, and that he was not therefore charged, Hoff decides that he is prosecutor, judge, jury, and hangman, and he sets about the destruction of an innocent man. Why "innocent"? Because unless we are charged AND PROVEN guilty, our default legal status is innocence.

Leftists are not believers in due process or justice systems, and cannot accept anything that doesn't go their way; nor can they accept that someone that they don't like might have any success or a career in life. Why is this? I believe that it is because, deep down in their baggy hearts, they know that their ideas are unnatural and destined for failure unless ALL people embrace them - and the only way to ensure that all people embrace them, is to destroy those that won't.

This is why clowns of the posterior circus like Michael Moore (unrelated to the Moore in the OP's article) feel compelled to destroy their betters. They know that their own ideas won't survive the bracing light of excellence.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Not troubling at all. The question of truth hasn't been argued as part of the OP. The issue is a third party interfering in a contractual relationship and causing one party of the contract to not perform as contracted.

Just because it's being appealed doesn't mean the decision is wrong. You asked for an example and I provided one.

“One who intentionally causes a third person not to perform a contract or not to enter into a prospective contractual relation with another does not interfere improperly with the other’s contractual relation, by giving the third person … truthful information.”

Whether or not TI can be made, I find it troubling that the response to a petition-free speech- would be to shut down that free speech. Thats effectively responding to the statement "I think they should be fired!" with LAWSUIT. How many of us would have been sued over the years with that standard? How many would be sued from posts on this board alone?

Better to counter petition, as others have done on this thread.

[mojo84]

Not troubling at all. The question of truth hasn't been argued as part of the OP. The issue is a third party interfering in a contractual relationship and causing one party of the contract to not perform as contracted.

Just because it's being appealed doesn't mean the decision is wrong. You asked for an example and I provided one.

“One who intentionally causes a third person not to perform a contract or not to enter into a prospective contractual relation with another does not interfere improperly with the other’s contractual relation, by giving the third person … truthful information.”

Whether or not TI can be made, I find it troubling that the response to a petition-free speech- would be to shut down that free speech. Thats effectively responding to the statement "I think they should be fired!" with LAWSUIT. How many of us would have been sued over the years with that standard? How many would be sued from posts on this board alone?

Better to counter petition, as others have done on this thread.

You've changed the argument now that your original argument proved wrong. I agree with the petition showing support. I also agree there may be a remedy via the civil court system if she is damaged by be a third party interfering in her contractual relationship.

If you drove a green Prius and I convinced your employer to fire you because I think green Prius are only driven by spineless progressive liberals, would you start a petition or sue me?

[Cedar Park Dad]

If you drove a green Prius and I convinced your employer to fire you because I think green Prius are only driven by spineless progressive liberals, would you start a petition or sue me?

As the son of someone raised in New Orleans, I'd actually probably just run over you with the Prius.
Being its a Prius you might even notice. I think those things weigh less than my fat wiener dog (and slower than him too).

So the response to someone using speech to try to get someone fired for speech they don't agree with, is to use your speech to sue them for using their free speech? Getting real hard to tell who the good guy is in that little scenario.

[mojo84]

If you drove a green Prius and I convinced your employer to fire you because I think green Prius are only driven by spineless progressive liberals, would you start a petition or sue me?

As the son of someone raised in New Orleans, I'd actually probably just run over you with the Prius.
Being its a Prius you might even notice. I think those things weigh less than my fat wiener dog (and slower than him too).

So the response to someone using speech to try to get someone fired for speech they don't agree with, is to use your speech to sue them for using their free speech? Getting real hard to tell who the good guy is in that little scenario.

Who causes who damage? That's who the bad guy is.


Why do some think their rights trump other people's?