Their protection scheme you put out their is entirely speech though. They are saying X is allowing antisemitism to flourish (which let's assume for sake of argument ends up being an opinion and not directly defamatory, because otherwise we agree. I don't mean legally an opinion, I mean a valid but wrong IMO view of facts.).
If that's the case, the the extortion they are doing is telling advertisers X is bad because they won't stop speech the ADL hates.
Only that's not extortion. That's sharing a bad review of a product. It's just that the ADL (wrongly) has a ton of respect and buy in, so its words carry weight.
Now there's a question of if sharing a bad review of a product with that products business partners a problem? Saying you'll review them badly too if they use the product?
I think that probably should fall under the first amendment. Basically, if you complain about Bud Light to a local bar, and note that you won't come back if they keep stocking it, is that tortious interference? If you say you'll tell your friends about it too?
Personally, I don't know where the line goes legally or ought to go legally (this is a legal/policy question to me, as obviously morally the ADL is in the wrong, I just wonder if its safe to punish them or if the collateral will cause more harm than good).
The ADL is engaging in what amounts to a protection scheme against both advertisers and X/Twitter, and you initially acted like protecting the ADL from the implications of their willingness to use inaccurate info to pressure advertisers because of it's 1st Amendment implications was the bigger issue, and want the tort approach as what seemed like ass covering.
Again, read what I wrote. The initiating post:
https://www.kktplaw.com/business-co...us-interference-with-a-business-relationship/
More, he has one of the key elements: actual damages. The big issue will be the opinion part. A
lot of stuff is opinion. "Rittenhouse is a murderer"? Opinion. "X has racist stuff"? Opinion. And I could go on.
He does have a chance through through tortious interference:
https://www.kktplaw.com/business-co...us-interference-with-a-business-relationship/
This is what I think he is going for. I don't know how this works with protected speech though, tbh.
In response to a comment about defamation being hard to prove, but him having receipts, I agreed that he had a good shot, but pointed out that he might get harmed by everything being considered opinion, then noted tortious interference might work instead. I then added that I simply don't know how tortious interference works with protected speech.
I immediately get the response that the ADL shouldn't get protected speech, presumably at all, definitely in connection to this lawsuit. Another took up this position as well.
The ADL have acted like a bloody mafia shaking down businesses for protection money. Damn their “protected speech.”
This is what I think is the worst take. Morally, sure, it's fine (which means no, this isn't an NAP argument Bacle). My issue is that legally/policy wise, it's dumb. Because this is how you lose your rights: the government attacks those everyone hates, then creates a loophole, then drives a tank through the loophole.
Look what they did with Douglass Mackey who made a joke about the election date: Conviction and Prison. The loophole? Defrauding people of the right to vote. Sure, it's wrong to
actually host a campaign to tell people to vote at the wrong place. But this obviously shouldn't cover a joke about voting from home, but that's how it's used in practice by the government. Because your government hates you, and so don't give them more power to fuck you over.
The fundamental problem isn't that the government overreached and didn't use discretion, because the government
always overreaches. The issue is that the law/loophole exists. It's like being mad that a rat shit on a street. The solution is to have less rats on the street, not complain that they aren't house trained.
Hence why I sensibly don't want to give access to more tools to regulate speech to the government. What a bold statement. How controversial.
I was talking about the others talking to you. Obviously. I refuse to believe you didn't realise that from the start. Which means I now consider you to be debating in bad faith.
That the rest of your post is you saying the same damn thing as in your previous posts AGAIN only enforces that conclusion.
I literally pointed out that I had ID'd the wrong problem with another's argument, and changed the argument I made because the previous point I made was lacking. Please read what is posted.
