dailycaller.com on 9/11/23 published,
EXCLUSIVE: Legal Group Files Lawsuit Against Minnesota Election ‘Speech Code’ Banning ‘Materially False’ Statements
It speaks for itself, and a Complaint copy is posted on Scribd. Whatever happened to the intent behind court rules saying a Complaint shall be a short, clear statement * * * ?
107 paragraphs. The signature page is p.22. Long winded? Readers can figure that out. Make sense out of where these plaintiffs are coming from.
As a separate thing - When defamation is at issue, I believe in reliance on precedence. In Bebo v. Delander, 632 NW 2d 732,739-40 (Minn.App. 2001). Judge Barry Anderson wrote the Court's opinion, without dissent, (and believed to have not been overturned or expanded upon since) stating:
"[S]tatements which cannot be reasonably interpreted as stating actual facts, are absolutely protected by the First Amendment." Hunt v. University of Minn., 465 N.W.2d 88, 94 (Minn.App.1991) (citation omitted). "Expressions of opinion, rhetoric, and figurative language are generally not actionable if, in context, the audience would understand the statement is not a representation of fact." Jadwin v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co., 390 N.W.2d 437, 441 (Minn.App.1986).
For this reason, even vulgar language or name-calling is not necessarily defamation. See Beatty v. Ellings, 285 Minn. 293, 300, 173 N.W.2d 12, 16-17 (Minn.1969) ("Not all abusive or vulgar epithets * * * are inherently defamatory."); Lund v. Chicago & N.W. Transp. Co., 467 N.W.2d 366, 370 (Minn.App.1991) (vulgarity is not actionable unless "especially shocking or egregious"), review denied (Minn. June 19, 1991); Lee v. Metropolitan Airport Comm'n, 428 N.W.2d 815, 821, 823 (Minn.App.1988) (comments regarding personal characteristics or social life not defamatory, even if more extreme than that usually encountered). For example, as a matter of law, "troublemaker" is not actionable because of its indefinite character. McGrath v. TCF Bank Savs., FSB, 502 N.W.2d 801, 808 (Minn.App.1993), modified on other grounds, 509 N.W.2d 365 (Minn.1993). Similarly, "b—ch" is not actionable. Lee, 428 N.W.2d at 821.
Courts consider four factors when determining whether a statement is one of fact or opinion: (1) the precision and specificity of the statement; (2) the statement's verifiability; (3) the social and literary context of the statement; and (4) the public context in which the statement was made. Huyen v. Driscoll, 479 N.W.2d 76, 79 (Minn.App.1991), review denied (Minn. Feb. 10, 1992); Lund, 467 N.W.2d at 368-69.
Application of this test shows that appellant has failed to allege actionable defamatory statements. The first two statements, "a—hole" and "c—sucker" are pure vulgarity and have no basis in fact. The statements are not precise, specific, verifiable, and they were made in the context of truck deliveries at the Silgan loading docks. Although offensive, the statements are clearly statements of opinion and do not rise to the level of "especially shocking or egregious" conduct given the context in which they were made.
The logic hangs together. Hence I make a statement of opinion, an opinion I truly believe many, many hold, whether written, otherwise communicated, or only held in mind.
Trump is an asshole.
Written in reliance upon judicial precedent. That clear statement of opinion does not rise to the level of "especially shocking or egregious" conduct given the context in which it is made. And, moreover, there is a vagueness to it.
And back to the opening link, there it is:
Count Three 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988 U.S. Const. Amend. I, XIV Minn. Const. art. I, §§ 3, 7 First Amendment Freedom of Speech – Vagueness Procedural Due Process – Vagueness
At paragraph 84, et seq.
While handled lightly to this point, getting serious, this lawsuit is aimed to convince a court that speech aimed at voter turnout suppression is protected speech, and cannot be penalized. My guess, the plaintiffs are Republicans.
Website homepage, https://www.umlc.org. This link, stating:
On December 12, 2022, the CATO Institute and the Manhatten Institute submitted an amicus brief to the United States Supreme Court to support the Upper Midwest Law Center’s case regarding Governor Walz’s COVID-19 Pandemic lockdowns of small businesses. CATO and Manhatten Institutes write that while the two groups have not always agreed on legal and policy questions, they share the plaintiffs’ concern in this matter. Both are interested in this case because of their shared concern for robust civil rights protection under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
UMLC is appealing to the Supreme Court a portion of the Northland case involving the claim for reimbursement for the loss of revenue based on the “taking” or hijacking of their businesses during the lockdowns. UMLC has argued that the share of financial reimbursement is valid whether the Governor’s order was constitutional or not because the government owes refunds when it commandeers property, even if done lawfully.
You can read the full amicus brief here.
Well, yeah, likely Republicans. Likely a bunch of - no, I won't say it. I will hold that opinion to myself. I do believe they actually believe in what they are doing. I see it as counterproductive to our being a good nation. Opinions can differ.