The Trump Campaign Says Exploiting Hacked Emails Is Free Speech

[RavenSky]

In a motion to dismiss a new lawsuit accusing President Donald Trump’s campaign team of illegally conspiring with Russian agents to disseminate stolen emails during the election, Trump campaign lawyers have tried out a new defense: free speech.

the right to free speech, the campaign’s lawyers argued, supersedes the right to privacy. “At a minimum, privacy cannot justify suppressing true speech during a political campaign,” they wrote. Quoting from the Citizens United case, they added that the First Amendment leaves parties “‘free to obtain information from diverse sources in order to determine how to cast their votes.’ It would eviscerate that guarantee to punish true disclosures made in a political campaign.”

Experts fear that the continued use of hacked documents by campaigns only encourages cybercriminals to keep meddling in U.S. elections. While it is often difficult to differentiate between material that has been leaked and material that has been hacked, “there should be” a cohesive policy used to distinguish between the two

And as an aside:

House Democrats have pledged not to use stolen or hacked materials in their campaigns this fall. As I reported last month, their Republican counterparts declined to match that commitment

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...fends-wikileaks-use-hacked-dnc-emails/572587/

 

[Angry Floof]

Yes, well, Trump actually wants the meddling, so using foreign interference with US elections as an argument against the statement is just ringing the dinner bell for Trump.

 

[J842P]

Well, sure. Anyone can use this once it is released. Hell, even top secret information that is leaked can be reprinted. *Directing* someone to obtain private information would be a crime, though.

 

[Opoponax]

What a load of shit.

We also have a Constitutional freedom to contract. That doesn't mean that I can contract with a drug cartel to buy a pound of blow.
Because that would be illegal.

Similarly, breaking one law in order to gain information and then using that information does not fall under 1AM protections.

But hey, send it up to SCOTUS now and maybe our First Amendment rights will get a makeover the same way a face gets made-over by a fist wearing a set of brass knuckles.

This is an especially evil strategy. Get the pertinent statue struck down so that the illegal act you committed would no longer be illegal. Yes, that's not a defense, because you can still be punished if the act was illegal at the time, but it would be mitigating enough for the GOP. And given that Kavanaugh was nominated to be Trump's lackey, this is even more so.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If it is fabricated, that's slanderous and wrong.

If it is true but irrelevant and pushed to hurt or ruin somebody, that is also wrong.

If it is misconduct or bias etc of a politician and true, I have no problem with it being spread, even for political gain by a rival party. Trump being recorded saying grab em by the pussy is a good example.

 

[Trausti]

Experts fear that the continued use of hacked documents by campaigns only encourages cybercriminals to keep meddling in U.S. elections. While it is often difficult to differentiate between material that has been leaked and material that has been hacked, “there should be” a cohesive policy used to distinguish between the two

And as an aside:

House Democrats have pledged not to use stolen or hacked materials in their campaigns this fall. As I reported last month, their Republican counterparts declined to match that commitment

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...fends-wikileaks-use-hacked-dnc-emails/572587/

There's so much misunderstanding here. Using information that was "stolen" or acquired inappropriately is free speech so long as the speaker did not steal the information and it is a matter of public concern. That is settled law. This is not a new defense. The plaintiffs in this case are alleging that they were harmed by disclosure of these emails because they contained personal information. They are not alleging that the Trump Campaign conspired to hack the DNC but that it conspired to disseminate the emails after the fact. Like the New York Times. It's a shit lawsuit and should be dismissed; and the plaintiffs' lawyers sanctioned.

 

[untermensche]

Fraud is nothing but free speech.

False advertising is nothing but free speech.

 

[James Madison]

Experts fear that the continued use of hacked documents by campaigns only encourages cybercriminals to keep meddling in U.S. elections. While it is often difficult to differentiate between material that has been leaked and material that has been hacked, “there should be” a cohesive policy used to distinguish between the two

And as an aside:

House Democrats have pledged not to use stolen or hacked materials in their campaigns this fall. As I reported last month, their Republican counterparts declined to match that commitment

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...fends-wikileaks-use-hacked-dnc-emails/572587/

How unpalatable it may be, Trump's attorneys may be correct.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And as an aside:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...fends-wikileaks-use-hacked-dnc-emails/572587/

How unpalatable it may be, Trump's attorneys may be correct.

The parallel would seemingly be stolen money given to a campaign. There likely is no law that bans such a thing, but campaigns typically return money if such situations come up. So the Trump argument is 'it is unethical as all fuck, but it ain't illegal'.

But then we get to a sticking point, what if they they are complicit in theft of money or electronic documents?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think the content of the information matters. So few people talk about the content of those emails and instead focus on how they were stolen. It isn't like they stole nude photos or baking recipes. The information mattered and it was good for the people to see it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think the content of the information matters. So few people talk about the content of those emails and instead focus on how they were stolen. It isn't like they stole nude photos or baking recipes. The information mattered and it was good for the people to see it.

Or it isn't like when GOP operatives broke into the medical offices of political opponents and stole their documents... back in the Watergate era

or like when the conspired or attempted to conspire with foreign officials to obtain documents for an election.

 

[laughing dog]

So the Trump argument is 'it is unethical as all fuck, but it ain't illegal'.

Which is unsurprising because it has been Trump's MO for decades.

 

[Elixir]

They are not alleging that the Trump Campaign conspired to hack the DNC

ALLEGING? Surely you mean OBSERVING that the Trump Campaign - in the form of Cheato himself - conspired to hack the DNC. Or do you ascribe to synchronicity the fact that Putin's gang went after the DNC server and Hillary's emails the day after he explicitly and publicly asked them to do so?

 

[RavenSky]

And as an aside:



https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...fends-wikileaks-use-hacked-dnc-emails/572587/

How unpalatable it may be, Trump's attorneys may be correct.

Was hoping you would turn up. I'd like to see your argument.

 

[Elixir]

And as an aside:



https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...fends-wikileaks-use-hacked-dnc-emails/572587/

How unpalatable it may be, Trump's attorneys may be correct.

Was hoping you would turn up. I'd like to see your argument.

I'm sure JM would honor the "how was I s'posed to know?" defense.

 

[Jarhyn]

Was hoping you would turn up. I'd like to see your argument.

I'm sure JM would honor the "how was I s'posed to know?" defense.

Well I'm sure Brett Kavanaugh would honor it, at any rate. Probably right up there with his "I like beer" defense.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Or it isn't like when GOP operatives broke into the medical offices of political opponents and stole their documents... back in the Watergate era

or like when the conspired or attempted to conspire with foreign officials to obtain documents for an election.

Both of those cases are about how the information was obtained, and not the content of that information. As somebody wrote above, hacking, breaking in, etc is a crime. Spreading the information around is often quite legal, and even a service to the community.

 

[James Madison]

Was hoping you would turn up. I'd like to see your argument.

I'm sure JM would honor the "how was I s'posed to know?" defense.

Nah, that would be you, after all it is your modus operandi to interject with irrelevant and uninteresting commentary. It’s true. The “‘how was s’posed to know’ defense” isn’t germane to the free speech claim.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Mueller must have some pretty good shit if Trump's attorneys are working to forestall its presentation before the fact.