James O'Keefe III vs Twitter (2021)

  • 🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Wyróżnienie
Dyn powiedział(a):
Oh this is gonna get anti-slapped for sure then.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
The real goal here is not to survive an anti-SLAPP or get to discovery like some have hypothesized. The lawsuit is about publicity for Veritas. O'Keefe may lose a couple of grand in attorney's fees, but he's gotten at minimum tens of thousands of dollars in free advertising for his brand by launching this meritless suit.
 
mindlessobserver powiedział(a):
No it was under the new stronger rules and Veritas still prevailed.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
whats new about the rules ?
Edit never mind found
On November 10, 2020, New York updated its anti-SLAPP statutes for the first time in nearly 30 years, bringing the state in line with others that have broadened anti-SLAPP protections. Going forward, the statutes will offer more remedies to those who are forced to defend themselves from meritless lawsuits aimed at intimidating free speech – also known as strategic lawsuits against public participation, or “SLAPPs.”

This development is expected to have an immediate impact on New York litigation, particularly in the defense of libel claims. Media, journalism, and publishing industries centered in New York will be able to make anti-SLAPP motions early in litigation – prior to discovery – which are expected to result in more case dismissals.

The key changes​

New York’s statutory expansion (codified as indicated below) became effective immediately upon enactment.[1] The key changes include:

  • An expanded scope. Anti-SLAPP motions are now available in lawsuits based upon: (1) “any communication in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest”; or (2) “any other lawful conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of free speech in connection with an issue of public interest, or in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition.” For clarity, the term “public interest” must be construed broadly to include anything other than a purely private matter. (N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 76-a(1)(a) & (d)).

    This is perhaps the most important expansion of New York’s protections. Before, the state’s anti-SLAPP laws essentially only helped those who critiqued “a public applicant or permittee.” As a practical matter, that meant these laws had limited utility apart from matters involving land use, construction, or other narrow contexts. Now anyone who publicly comments on any topic of public interest can make use of the anti-SLAPP laws. As a result, most libel suits against media companies will be vulnerable to anti-SLAPP motions.
  • Staying discovery and other proceedings. If a motion to dismiss an action is filed on anti-SLAPP grounds, now “all discovery, pending hearings, and [other] motions” shall be stayed until the motion to dismiss is resolved. Note that there may be an exception to this rule if a litigant can show that targeted discovery is necessary for them to develop their opposition to the motion to dismiss. (N.Y. CPLR 3211(g)(1)). But generally, this change removes one of the weapons most used by libel plaintiffs – harassing and potentially embarrassing discovery intended to force a settlement.
  • Mandating awards of costs and attorneys’ fees. If a court finds that a litigant commenced or continued a SLAPP “without a substantial basis in fact and law” and lacked “a substantial basis for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law” – an award of costs and attorneys’ fees is now mandatory. (N.Y Civ. Rights Law § 70-a(1)(a)). Before, such awards were left to judicial discretion. This is likely to discourage many plaintiffs and contingency lawyers from taking a chance on meritless libel litigation in the hope of forcing monetary settlements.
With these changes, New York has shifted power to those defending themselves from SLAPPs.

The future implications​

Some thirty other jurisdictions have their own anti-SLAPP statutes, which exist in varying strengths.[2] New York is just one of the latest states to modernize.

It remains questionable, however, whether New York’s revised anti-SLAPP statute will be available in federal cases. Recently, the Second Circuit declined to permit a motion under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, holding that it was incompatible with federal motion to dismiss and summary judgment standards. See La Liberte v. Reid, 966 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2020).

Efforts are already under way to overcome this type of barrier – including H.R. 7771, a federal anti-SLAPP bill which is now pending before Congress, and the Uniform Law Commission’s recent proposal of a Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, which could harmonize the varying state-level anti-SLAPP statutes and serve as a model for federal legislation.

Learn more about this development by contacting the authors. https://www.dlapiper.com/en/us/insi...-take-effect-adding-protections-and-remedies/
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
mindlessobserver powiedział(a):
No it was under the new stronger rules and Veritas still prevailed.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
For the moment. It's been appealed on an interlocutory basis. The opinion and order are attached.

The case can be found here.

They've also filed an answer so perhaps the case continues in the meantime.

Also a party can file an anti-SLAPP as a motion to dismiss before discovery or after discovery as a motion for summary judgment. Not sure if opting for one means you can't also try the other.
 

Załączniki

I really do not know where to put this but this showed up on my radar:
Holy...shit.

I cannot even imagine doing this and thinking Yeah this is a great look. I guess it could be intentionally cringe inducing but I kind of have doubts.

Cowntdown is on imho.
 

Useful_Mistake powiedział(a):
  • Project Veritas founder and CEO, James O’Keefe, just won his first major legal victory in a lawsuit against Twitter.
  • A Manhattan federal court ruled to “remand” -- or allow the case to be brought back down from federal to state level.
  • Twitter’s presumed objective was to transfer this case to the federal level so they could litigate in a friendly California court instead of the New York State Supreme Court. California federal courts routinely dismiss cases against Big Tech companies.
  • Twitter attorney, Amer Ahmed, argued that O’Keefe would seek over $75,000 in damages to “punish” the Big Tech company for defamation, suggesting this as the reason for the case to be elevated to the federal level.
  • O’Keefe is not seeking over $75,000 in damages because this case is about justice, not money.
  • O’Keefe is suing Twitter and intends to depose their executives to discover why the Big Tech company permanently suspended his account and defamed him.
  • O’Keefe was permanently suspended from Twitter in April 2021 after launching the explosive #ExposeCNN videos, where CNN technical director, Charlie Chester, admitted his network promotes propaganda and a political agenda.
  • Twitter’s reasoning for the permanent suspension was that O’Keefe “operated fake accounts.” That allegation is false and defamatory.

Project Veritas released a new video today updating the public on the first O’Keefe v. Twitter lawsuit victory that took place, where a Manhattan federal court ruled to “remand” the case back from the federal level to the state level.

O’Keefe filed a lawsuit against Twitter in April 2021 after the Big Tech company permanently suspended his account alleging he “operated fake accounts” on the platform – a defamatory statement with no grounds in reality.

The permanent suspension conveniently took place during the same week that Project Veritas had exposed CNN’s technical director Charlie Chester -- leading to viral videos on the platform.

In their legal response, Twitter was presumably exploring a way to transfer the lawsuit to a California federal court given their track record of dismissing cases against Big Tech companies. However, a Manhattan federal court did not find Twitter’s demand to hold water and ordered the case remanded back to the New York State Supreme Court.

Twitter’s lawyer, Amer Ahmed, made the argument that O’Keefe would seek over $75,000 in damages to “punish” Twitter, assuming that O’Keefe is looking for money instead of justice. Ahmed was convinced that this would guarantee the case transfer to a California federal court.

The Twitter attorney quickly learned that O’Keefe does not prioritize monetary gain over the pursuit of justice, thereby undermining the basis to move the lawsuit to federal court.

O’Keefe is looking forward to the opportunity of conducting discovery on Twitter and finding out who were the responsible parties within the Big Tech company involved in the decision to suspend his account and issue the defamatory reasoning for doing so.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and other executives may be deposed in this case and forced to answer for the defamation perpetrated against O’Keefe.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
 
mindlessobserver powiedział(a):
Oh now that IS clever. The 75,000 dollars rule is usually used to kick things out of federal court. This is the first time I have seen it used strategically to keep a case in State Court, i.e, alleging no monetary damage in excess of 75,000 dollars. So long as O'Keefe sticks to that Twitter can't get this out of State court.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
This still doesnt mean he has a case.
 
mindlessobserver powiedział(a):
Oh now that IS clever. The 75,000 dollars rule is usually used to kick things out of federal court. This is the first time I have seen it used strategically to keep a case in State Court, i.e, alleging no monetary damage in excess of 75,000 dollars. So long as O'Keefe sticks to that Twitter can't get this out of State court.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
DragoonSierra powiedział(a):
This still doesnt mean he has a case.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
They can also still move to remove this to California state court: Damages in excess of $75,000 are a requirement for removal based on federal diversity rules but this clause from Twitter's ToS:
All disputes related to these Terms or the Services will be brought solely in the federal or state courts located in San Francisco County, California, United States, and you consent to personal jurisdiction and waive any objection as to inconvenient forum.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
Was not raised in the initial defense (assuming the clickbait, legally illiterate bullet points are accurate) and could still be used to dismiss in New York. Hell the bullet points specifically said this was a PR stunt and a fishing expedition!

O'Keefe has also just limited any damages to $75,000 in total: The removal was turned down because Twitter's claim of damages over that amount was speculative, not because there was an exact amount he was requesting. If he even tries to get anything over that Twitter has every right to try again to have it removed to federal court and he'll have little recourse if he does. This seems a lot like winning the battle to lose the war to me.
 
Wyróżnienie
Musisz się zalogować lub zarejestrować, aby odpowiedzieć.
Wstecz
Top Na dole