Trump first amendment case

[easyrider16]

Here's a fun one:

A New York judge has just dismissed a privacy lawsuit against him over the retweeting of a meme. In what appears to be a first, the judge finds the meme to be “newsworthy.”

The meme in question comes from Logan Cook, who goes by the internet handle “CarpeDonktum.”

Cook found a video of a white toddler running after a black toddler and stuck a chyron reading “breaking news” over it. The captions read, “Terrified Todler [sic] Runs From Racist Baby” and “Racist Baby Probably A Trump Voter.”

The video then fades to black, and reads, “What actually happened.” The toddlers run at each other and embrace. A new caption: “AMERICA IS NOT THE PROBLEM…FAKE NEWS IS. IF YOU SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING. ONLY YOU CAN PREVENT FAKE NEWS DUMPSTER FIRES.”

After Trump tweeted the video, which led Twitter to add a “manipulated video” message, the parents of the toddlers filed suit against both Trump and Cook and alleged that the exploitation of the childrens’ image had violated New York privacy and publicity rights law (N.Y. Civil Rights Law §§50 and 51) and was both an intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ ... 234980939/

So here's my initial reaction - this guy Logan used a video that parents uploaded without his permission. How come the lawyer here didn't bring a copyright claim? If you make a video and upload it, you automatically have a copyright. Someone else can't take your video and alter it and repost it without your permission. It would be a simple matter to sue for copyright violation, here, but the lawyer failed to do that. This sound like bad lawyering to me.

Also, how despicable are you to take videos of someone else's kid and make this kind of parody with it? It's pretty disgusting, and even moreso that Trump retweeted it. But hey, the first amendment protects ugly speech. It does not, however, protect copyright infringement.

Upon further reflection, isn't it strange and sad that we protect property rights to information even against first amendment rights, but we don't protect images of our children with the same degree of legal sanction?

[Fancypants]

Here's a fun one:

A New York judge has just dismissed a privacy lawsuit against him over the retweeting of a meme. In what appears to be a first, the judge finds the meme to be “newsworthy.”

The meme in question comes from Logan Cook, who goes by the internet handle “CarpeDonktum.”

Cook found a video of a white toddler running after a black toddler and stuck a chyron reading “breaking news” over it. The captions read, “Terrified Todler [sic] Runs From Racist Baby” and “Racist Baby Probably A Trump Voter.”

The video then fades to black, and reads, “What actually happened.” The toddlers run at each other and embrace. A new caption: “AMERICA IS NOT THE PROBLEM…FAKE NEWS IS. IF YOU SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING. ONLY YOU CAN PREVENT FAKE NEWS DUMPSTER FIRES.”

After Trump tweeted the video, which led Twitter to add a “manipulated video” message, the parents of the toddlers filed suit against both Trump and Cook and alleged that the exploitation of the childrens’ image had violated New York privacy and publicity rights law (N.Y. Civil Rights Law §§50 and 51) and was both an intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ ... 234980939/

So here's my initial reaction - this guy Logan used a video that parents uploaded without his permission. How come the lawyer here didn't bring a copyright claim? If you make a video and upload it, you automatically have a copyright. Someone else can't take your video and alter it and repost it without your permission. It would be a simple matter to sue for copyright violation, here, but the lawyer failed to do that. This sound like bad lawyering(sp) to me.

Upon further reflection, isn't it strange and sad that we protect property rights to information even against first amendment rights, but we don't protect images of our children with the same degree of legal sanction?

Time too start reading the fine print in all the online "social media" agreements you've signed, I hoping you are not an Attorney or Law Student for that matter because your perspective of the law is extremely misguided.

[easyrider16]

Time too start reading the fine print in all the online "social media" agreements you've signed, I hoping you are not an Attorney or Law Student for that matter because your perspective of the law is extremely misguided.

That so? Perhaps you don't know this, but you don't sacrifice your copyright rights by uploading stuff to social media. Here's a basic article because I suspect what you think you know is quite incorrect.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/pa ... cial-media

I should note that copyright law may not give these folks a claim against Trump for sharing it (there's a fair use argument), but would against the meme creator for money damages and the social media companies for a take down order.

I also find it funny that you trimmed my comments about Trump out of what you quoted above. Does it make you uncomfortable that your hero retweeted such a heinous video? Even the judge who dismissed the suit said it was distasteful.

[Bigjohnski]

The White House admitted to directly contacting Facebook and Twitter to censor people who don’t follow their corrupt narratives.


Fake book is no longer a private company and should be treated as such. Fake book works with the DNC and the current administration*

[easyrider16]

The White House admitted to directly contacting Facebook and Twitter to censor people who don’t follow their corrupt narratives.

If this is true then I condemn it. The government should not be involved in censorship.

Fake book is no longer a private company and should be treated as such. Fake book works with the DNC and the current administration*

I repeat, the government should not be involved in censorship. Leave Facebook alone to regulate their own platform. I don't like that Facebook censors people, but I don't think the government should be involved in deciding what Facebook can and can't publish on their own platform. Let the free market rule and let people find other platforms that are willing to publish their content. There's no shortage of them.