Comment on [deleted]
PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 year agoHe was convicted of a misdemeanor.
He was in federal prison.
Freedom is speech is between you and the government. It’s not about people defaming you.
You can’t have free speech without protections from slap suits.
wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Umm… Where do you think a person goes to serve time if they go to a federal institution?
Free speech is between you and the government. It isn’t between you and another party.
PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Is there somewhere you’re going with this?
Slapp suits use the government to silence people. I don’t know why your bringing this up as if it helps make your case.
wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Yes there is nothing odd serving a federal sentence in a federal prison. That’s common sense. Where else would they serve their time? A misdemeanor is a year of less. So the sentence would tell you it’s a misdemeanor. Also the paperwork would show its misdemeanor. The crime itself would tell you it’s a misdemeanor.
Where did Thomas mention a slapp suit ?
And no a slapp suit is the the government silencing anymore. Good lord learn how the system works. It’s a civil action between two parties. The government is just enforcing the laws.
PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The active malice requirement is a protection against slapp suits and similar. He doesn’t need eo explicitly mention them for them to be a part of this.
It’s run by the government and enforced by the government. If you fail to show up, fail to get the money together to fight it, etc, you will be severely punished (enforced by the government).
You can’t act like the government isn’t involved in lawsuits.