How does "Project Veritas bad" erase the fact that the NYT argued in front of a judge that what is on its front page should be understood to be opinion and not fact, even when it appears in the form of facts? That claim has nothing at all to do with Project Veritas; the NYT just happened to say it in a related context.
Claiming first amendment rights is the easiest and lowest risk route to winning the case. What would be the point of fighting the case on the basis that you do not have rights that you actually do?
Fox News also did the exact same thing on a similar lawsuit. It was used as a "gotcha" moment, but it still wasn't very meaningful.
Because there's a point where you end up going full ouruboros, which undermines the integrity of the institution all tpgether. The major established players want to be able to say other attempts at news outlets are deceptive, then turn around and do the same stuff, and yet still not be subject to the same loss of credibility.
I think public opinion is pretty clear at this point that no one cares about the specifics of the legal arguments made in any court cases other than lawyers and activists trying to gin up arguments for their side, and perhaps a very small number of people who care about the rule of law for its own sake. Everyone else just cares about the outcome of the case. No credibility is at stake, because 95% of the population has no interest in the contents of legal briefs.
I care that legal arguments aren't complete bullshit, actually. We need a justice system based in reason and in shared truths or we're just asking for society to collapse. No one wants to play Calvinball for very long.
A defamation case is inherently a question deeply rooted in first amendment rights. You can't really comment about project veritas suing the NYT without it having something to do with first amendment rights.
Literally the entire point of my comment was that the NYT's claims have nothing to do with Project Veritas. Thus the comment itself has nothing to do with Project Veritas.
Your comment was about the defamation case. You said:
> the NYT argued in front of a judge that what is on its front page should be understood to be opinion and not fact, even when it appears in the form of facts
That's a comment about the defamation case. The NYT was arguing the bounds of its 1A rights before the judge. When the person responded talking about the NYT arguing it's 1A rights, that's what they were talking about.
Then you asked what your comment had anything do to with 1A rights, and I pointed out that a comment about the defamation case is inherently about 1A rights.
So...it doesn't really matter that your commend had nothing to do with Project Veritas because the rest of the comment chain in response also has nothing to do with it.
My comment had nothing to do with the trial either. The trial is completely irrelevant. 1A is completely irrelevant because it only applies to the gov't. Free speech is completely irrelevant because I'm not suggesting or talking about something NYT is or is not allowed to do or say. None of this shit is relevant. You are just gishgalloping.
I quoted your comment above. It was literally a comment about the argument the NYT made before a judge in the defamation case.
You can say your comment wasn't about that topic if you want, but it's just doesn't seem accurate to me. I'm not "gishgalloping", I'm just explaining to you why people are reacting as if you commented on the defamation case.
Anyway, I think we're way out in the weeds and this discussion probably isn't productive so I'll drop it. I'm sorry if I didn't understand what you were trying to say.
