deadelephant98 said:

---

Good question and point taken.

The first protects you from the government censoring your speech. You are afforded no protection from a private citizen or non-governmental company censoring your speech.

It can get ugly at times, but that is the price of free speech.

---

Yup, which is why it is important that the right people are in charge of social media, since they control so much of the public forum now,

It was a great think Elon purchased Twitter for this very reason. Need more people like him in charge of these companies.

CBS entirely ignored the suit tonight on their main broadcast. Typical fake news.

Toptierag2018 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

The problem for Trump will be proving some kind of actual damage from the interview. There is no question that CBS saying "We are interviewing the Vice President and giving you the answers" and then giving you answers that she did not say in response to a specific question, and using it to make money by selling advertising during the show is deceptive and fraudulent. But I don't think Trump can demonstrate actual damage unless he can say that their deceptive and fraudulent actions turned the interview into a free campaign advertisement.

---

He doesn't care about the damages. It is about de-legitimizing CBS.

---

If he can't show actual damage the case gets thrown out in summary judgement and he loses the chance to delegitimize them. I think his actual goal is to force the media to cover the story of CBS's fraud by forcing them to cover his lawsuit. At some point, the chance to delegitimize their opponents will be too much for the other MSM outlets to resist, even if they know they are helping Trump in the process.

Toptierag2018 said:

---

deadelephant98 said:

---

Good question and point taken.

The first protects you from the government censoring your speech. You are afforded no protection from a private citizen or non-governmental company censoring your speech.

It can get ugly at times, but that is the price of free speech.

---

Yup, which is why it is important that the right people are in charge of social media, since they control so much of the public forum now,

It was a great think Elon purchased Twitter for this very reason. Need more people like him in charge of these companies.

---

Couldn't agree with any poster on any individual post more.

4stringAg said:

---

The major networks in this country need a massive come uppance to force their political reporting back to the middle. The Norah O'Donnell segment on Trump's garbage truck moment was insanely biased.

---

What do you mean? Any inaccuracies were surely "inadvertent". Wink wink.

That's what kills me about the leftist reporting. It's so openly biased. Comedian cracks a "racist" joke. But Biden clearly calls half of America garbage, and it was inadvertent.

Total bull****

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Whatever this lawsuit is, it's not a Deceptive Trade Practices Act lawsuit as some of you are saying. That's a state statute to protect individual consumers and small businesses from product defects and bad services.

---

Dude, read the complaint. Every element of this lawsuit is couched in the DTPA.

Quote:

---

This action is brought pursuant to the DTPA and its relevant provisions, Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code 17.46(a), 17.46(b), 17.50(a)(1), and 17.50(b).

President Trump is a "consumer" within the meaning of the DTPA, since he is an individual who sought and received CBS's broadcast services. Moreover, as the leading presidential candidate, President Trump will be evaluated by the Texas electorate and the electorate in all stateson November 5, 2024. As such, President Trump stands in the shoes of each Texas voter entitled to the honest services expected from CBS-owned and affiliated television stations in Texas.

---

This thing has a snowball's chance in hell of being successful. It's a PR move, as always. The damages claimed basically boils down to "CBS deceptively portrayed Kamala as intelligent when she's really not thereby depriving President Trump and all Texans a chance to see how dumb she really is."

Oh, and as to how they arrived at the $10B figure, it's in a footnote at the end:

Quote:

---

CBS's distortion of the 60 Minutes Interview damaged President Trump's fundraising and support values by several billions of dollars, particularly in Texas.

---

LOL.

Communist Broadcast System

I smell a new campaign slogan.


We are going to build a wall and CBS will pay for it!

dreyOO said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

The major networks in this country need a massive come uppance to force their political reporting back to the middle. The Norah O'Donnell segment on Trump's garbage truck moment was insanely biased.

---

What do you mean? Any inaccuracies were surely "inadvertent". Wink wink.

That's what kills me about the leftist reporting. It's so openly biased. Comedian cracks a "racist" joke. But Biden clearly calls half of America garbage, and it was inadvertent.

Total bull****

---

I don't think anyone is supposed to mention that again. He was clearly just talking about the comedian and didn't literally call anyone who supports Trump "deplorable" - I'm sorry - I mean "Hitler" - dang-it, sorry, typo - I meant "garbage."

It's like Obama said a few days ago: "How did things get so divisive?"

nortex97 said:

---

For those who don't know, the Texas deceptive trade practices act is incredibly powerful.

---

Used to be, got gutted by tort reform.

Toptierag2018 said:

---

deadelephant98 said:

---

Good question and point taken.

The first protects you from the government censoring your speech. You are afforded no protection from a private citizen or non-governmental company censoring your speech.

It can get ugly at times, but that is the price of free speech.

---

Yup, which is why it is important that the right people are in charge of social media, since they control so much of the public forum now,

It was a great think Elon purchased Twitter for this very reason. Need more people like him in charge of these companies.

---

We need more multi-billionaires. I'm trying Tops. But I'm not there yet.

SA68AG said:

---

BigFred said:

---

How did he arrive at 10 billion?

---

He asked Judge Engoron.

---

Well played.

How much did the MAGA hat kid get paid?

Pretty sure he said he would direct the justice department to enforce our nations laws.

But if you see Trumps enemies as unlawful in their actions, that's a you thing

Im Gipper said:

---

BREAKING: Trump sues CBS News for $10 billion alleging 'deceptive doctoring' of Harris' '60 Minutes' interview https://t.co/X21BUZ8c3F

— Fox News (@FoxNews) October 31, 2024

Northern District of Texas for deceptive trade practices.

What do you want to bet it's in Amarillo?


This is the way. Win or lose.

---

I was a die hard DeSantis guy, but I have to admit I've missed Trump giving the left pure hell on a daily basis. I hope this costs them a fortune in legal fees and hopefully fines/judgements.

Correction said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

For those who don't know, the Texas deceptive trade practices act is incredibly powerful.

---

Used to be, got gutted by tort reform.

---

how was dtpa gutted by tort reform?

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

Quote:

---

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

---

Bill of Rights, Amendment number 1

---

LOL. You are a clown

If he wins, what does he actually collect? $1?

hbc07 said:

---

Correction said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

For those who don't know, the Texas deceptive trade practices act is incredibly powerful.

---

Used to be, got gutted by tort reform.

---

how was dtpa gutted by tort reform?

---

It didn't. He's conflating med mal with DTPA. Med mal suits often added DTPA counts for the treble damages it could afford. When med mal damage caps (for punitives) was passed, there was no longer any point.

(Disclaimer: Veyr good friends with top lawyers at med and legal malpractice firms before the caps lock went into effect. Asked how their business was going after that. Said they had fewer cases they accepted because the math for them had changed.)

MelvinUdall said:

---

I would have preferred if he would have not done this, because this falls in line with, not in my opinion, but it will be framed how Trump will govern, as the Dems have said he will, going after his enemies.

---

He has a duty to do just that.

Correction said:

---

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Whatever this lawsuit is, it's not a Deceptive Trade Practices Act lawsuit as some of you are saying. That's a state statute to protect individual consumers and small businesses from product defects and bad services.

---

Dude, read the complaint. Every element of this lawsuit is couched in the DTPA.

Quote:

---

This action is brought pursuant to the DTPA and its relevant provisions, Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code 17.46(a), 17.46(b), 17.50(a)(1), and 17.50(b).

President Trump is a "consumer" within the meaning of the DTPA, since he is an individual who sought and received CBS's broadcast services. Moreover, as the leading presidential candidate, President Trump will be evaluated by the Texas electorate and the electorate in all stateson November 5, 2024. As such, President Trump stands in the shoes of each Texas voter entitled to the honest services expected from CBS-owned and affiliated television stations in Texas.

---

This thing has a snowball's chance in hell of being successful. It's a PR move, as always. The damages claimed basically boils down to "CBS deceptively portrayed Kamala as intelligent when she's really not thereby depriving President Trump and all Texans a chance to see how dumb she really is."

Oh, and as to how they arrived at the $10B figure, it's in a footnote at the end:

Quote:

---

CBS's distortion of the 60 Minutes Interview damaged President Trump's fundraising and support values by several billions of dollars, particularly in Texas.

---

LOL.

---

I stand somewhat corrected. Hes going to get 12b6-ed out of court because it's not a valid DTPA claim. I'd like to read the presuit demand letter itemizing his damages. LOL.

CBS furnaces working overtime about right now

aggiehawg said:

---

hbc07 said:

---

Correction said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

For those who don't know, the Texas deceptive trade practices act is incredibly powerful.

---

Used to be, got gutted by tort reform.

---

how was dtpa gutted by tort reform?

---

It didn't. He's conflating med mal with DTPA. Med mal suits often added DTPA counts for the treble damages it could afford. When med mal damage caps (for punitives) was passed, there was no longer any point.

(Disclaimer: Veyr good friends with top lawyers at med and legal malpractice firms before the caps lock went into effect. Asked how their business was going after that. Said they had fewer cases they accepted because the math for them had changed.)

---

Please don't speak for me.

The '95 legislature made a lot of defendant-friendly changes to DTPA, significantly limiting areas and capping the amount in controversy to which it applies, raising the standard of culpability to get treble damages, and making it much easier for defendants to require mediation. That's in addition to general caps on punitive damages which applied to all areas of litigation.

One of the worst changes, and thank god they finally sunset this, was the establishment of the industry-appointed Residential Construction Commission to handle construction defect disputes. For the first decade of the 2000's, you could no longer sue a shoddy homebuilder without first going the drawn-out, pointless inspection and mediation process before the board, which almost never resulted in an actual resolution.

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Correction said:

---

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Whatever this lawsuit is, it's not a Deceptive Trade Practices Act lawsuit as some of you are saying. That's a state statute to protect individual consumers and small businesses from product defects and bad services.

---

Dude, read the complaint. Every element of this lawsuit is couched in the DTPA.

Quote:

---

This action is brought pursuant to the DTPA and its relevant provisions, Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code 17.46(a), 17.46(b), 17.50(a)(1), and 17.50(b).

President Trump is a "consumer" within the meaning of the DTPA, since he is an individual who sought and received CBS's broadcast services. Moreover, as the leading presidential candidate, President Trump will be evaluated by the Texas electorate and the electorate in all stateson November 5, 2024. As such, President Trump stands in the shoes of each Texas voter entitled to the honest services expected from CBS-owned and affiliated television stations in Texas.

---

This thing has a snowball's chance in hell of being successful. It's a PR move, as always. The damages claimed basically boils down to "CBS deceptively portrayed Kamala as intelligent when she's really not thereby depriving President Trump and all Texans a chance to see how dumb she really is."

Oh, and as to how they arrived at the $10B figure, it's in a footnote at the end:

Quote:

---

CBS's distortion of the 60 Minutes Interview damaged President Trump's fundraising and support values by several billions of dollars, particularly in Texas.

---

LOL.

---

I stand somewhat corrected. Hes going to get 12b6-ed out of court because it's not a valid DTPA claim.

---

Not in Judge Kacsmaryk's court. There's a reason they venue-shopped this to Amarillo. It'll have to wait until it gets to an appeals court before getting tossed.

ttu_85 said:

---

Awesome burn down lyin' legacy media from West Texas. This would be fantastic.

---

Oh no! This will start a debate about whether Amarillo is in west Texas or not.

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

Quote:

---

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

---

Bill of Rights, Amendment number 1

---

This isn't just about free speech. Dems manipulated the long standing equal time rule regarding networks time and content as they promote, or not, political candidates. The Obama administration got the fairness doctrine removed from the equal time rule in 2011, so now networks can legally make up whatever they want about a candidate (as you see daily) and don't have to portray truths in political interviews, documentaries, and the like. Just part of the democrats playbook.

Edit to add: the equal time rule and fairness doctrine were added in order to protect free speech. The rational, or a large part of it, was that the American people are entitled to truth and equal discovery regarding the election of those who would/could hold office with the power to amend constitutional rights.

You are mixed up there.

Conservatives got the fairness doctrine removed under Reagan. It's revocation is the #1 reason talk radio took off for conservatives.

Obama just happened to be in office later when it was removed from regulations.


Fairness doctrine is different from equal time wfuch requires candidates be given equal access to network airtime. You can't sell commercials to Harris but refuse to sell to Trump

BMX Bandit said:

---

You are mixed up there.

Conservatives got the fairness doctrine removed under Reagan. It's revocation is the #1 reason talk radio took off for conservatives.

Obama just happened to be in office later when it was removed from regulations.


Fairness doctrine is different from equal time wfuch requires candidates be given equal access to network airtime. You can't sell commercials to Harris but refuse to sell to Trump

---

Yes… thanks…

Raiderjay said:

---

he should have sued for 100 Decitrillion like Putin......

---

Yeah, but they are suing for 100 Decitrillion Rubles. So, that is like $85 bucks. So Trumps suit is much much biggger!!!!

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

Quote:

---

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

---

Bill of Rights, Amendment number 1

---

You have ZERO understanding of the first amendment . There's a shocker

Civil lawyers in Amarillo rn.

Toptierag2018 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

The problem for Trump will be proving some kind of actual damage from the interview. There is no question that CBS saying "We are interviewing the Vice President and giving you the answers" and then giving you answers that she did not say in response to a specific question, and using it to make money by selling advertising during the show is deceptive and fraudulent. But I don't think Trump can demonstrate actual damage unless he can say that their deceptive and fraudulent actions turned the interview into a free campaign advertisement.

---

He doesn't care about the damages. It is about de-legitimizing CBS.

---

Yep. It's about bringing light to and exposing CBS for their complete BS. Judging by the Beta Brigade's posts on this thread, they're going to need a double soy shot tonight!

Quote:

---

The question posed is whether the first amendment applies. Is Trump the Us Government trying to quash free speech? If not, the first doesn't apply. I've never understood why this is such a hard concept for people to grasp.

---

This is incredibly wrong as to the relevancy of first amendment in this case.


No one is claiming Trump violated CBS's first amendment rights. Your analysis makes no sense.

The first amendment "applies" here because it's a defense CBS can use to escape having a judgment entered against it by this Court.

Thst does not mean they will be successful on that defense, but that's the relevant issue as the first amendment is concerned.