News
Devin Nunes sues Twitter and parody accounts because he’s totally not a snowflake
Derp derp I can haz lawsuit?
Just a heads up, if you buy something through our links, we may get a small share of the sale. It’s one of the ways we keep the lights on here. Click here for more.
Devin Nunes, un-ironically the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, is joining the President in being a giant, triggered snowflake unable to absorb any sort of parody or criticism. Forgetting that his job is literally to serve the public, Nunes is suing Twitter and several of its users — including two parody accounts — because his little feelings are hurt.
Nunes is seeking more than $250 million in the complaint, filed Monday. It’s a ridiculous amount of money from a round-headed doofus who clearly doesn’t understand the First Amendment and the basis of free speech. The complaint attempts to make him not sound like a spineless shiteater, but fails to really make a strong case for defamation and is probably just an attention grab.
Aside from Twitter itself, the accounts named in the lawsuit are Devin Nunes’ Cow, which swelled from 1.2K followers to well over 65K when this news broke, @DevinNunesMom, which has been suspended for the moment, and political communications strategist Liz Mair, who is a real person and looking to raise money for her possible defense and the Swamp Accountability Project, which is something.
All three accounts are accused of pretty much shitting on Nunes’ credibility and making him feel bad.
The complaint also delves into the inane
Not only is the base complaint ridiculous but goes on to reference possible Democratic donor involvement and something about the “full scope of the conspiracy” as if these parody accounts are part of some grand scheme to discredit Nunes, who no-one really gives two shits about enough to secretly fund discrediting.
Twitter and Mair turned down comment requests from other outlets, so I didn’t even bother reaching out. Basically, it feels very much like a strange attention grab from Nunes, as suing a social media network because one thinks it is “shadow-banning” or silencing conservative voices and allowing parody accounts to shit all over a public figure is just flat out a bad look. There is no way Nunes will be able to prove actual malice, a needed piece of any successful defamation case.
The complaint argues that Nunes was left with no choice but to attempt a lawsuit.
Nunes has no adequate remedy at law. Without Court intervention and an injunction, Nunes will suffer actual and irreparable injury to his property interests and personal rights by the mere fact that Defendants’ defamatory tweets can be retweeted and republished forever by third-parties.
That’s the great thing about free speech, we have the freedom to call out blustering, enabling morons for their misdeeds and actions that act against the betterment of humanity. Nunes’ unwavering support for initiatives that enable GOP programs that benefit the rich and harm the general public are reason enough to drag this guy, especially through parody accounts. As for Mair, she rightfully took Nunes to task for his possible involvement in some sort of scandal, of which there is no current proof, but if the constant flow of GOP operatives into prison have shown, there probably is.
Mair released a statement, taking Nunes to task for his view on the law surrounding free speech.
A formal response to Rep. Nunes’ pleading is forthcoming, but suffice it to say that I have a very different view on the applicable law (including the First Amendment) than Rep. Nunes. Beyond that, I am disinclined to discuss the details of the lawsuit itself, since I am a defendant in it.
I will say that as a libertarian Republican, I personally hold very dear the principles of the First Amendment. I also believe that like every Member of Congress, Rep. Nunes has sworn an oath to support and defend the US Constitution, including the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment, and that as a public official, it is entirely proper and correct that his actions, political committee expenditures, voting record and conduct be subject to public scrutiny and debate. That goes to the very core of what the Framers intended the First Amendment to protect.
Considering how much vile hate speech most Twitter users endure on a daily basis, this complaint is nothing short of tone deaf and privileged. It’ll get thrown out before a jury even gets a whiff of it. I can’t imagine even a Trump appointed judge will allow a free speech challenge like this, against a tech company based on the concept, to continue. Nunes is a goddamn snowflake. Buckle up sweetheart, you’re up for re-election in 2020.
Surprised by how Nunes is reacting or does this seem par for the course? Let us know down below in the comments or carry the discussion over to our Twitter or Facebook.
Editors’ Recommendations:
- President Donald Trump thinks self-driving cars are dumb and “will never work”
- The Internet Archive is trying to save all your Google+ posts
- WhatsApp’s co-founder is urging folks to delete Facebook (again)
- Myspace just lost all the files you uploaded between 2003 and 2015
- Apple announces new iPad Air and iPad Mini in a *gasp* press release
Follow us on Flipboard, Google News, or Apple News
