Ah yes, when you get your corrupt buddies in government to investigate journalists for publishing things you don't like. Free speech absolutism indeed.
Tellingly, your comment offers no value judgement on the contents of the suit.
This case is worth watching, IMO, as it’s 1) a judgement on whether there was journalistic malpractice (is the suit valid?) and 2) an investigation into the finance trail of these sorts of campaigns (whether good or bad).
Perhaps there’s a chilling effect on other journalists, but I don’t think so. If X is wrong, it’d be too easy to drain them of cash.
Then it matters even more, because it shouldn't be that they can effectively ban anyone they dislike. So let them feel the lone stars strike. YEEEHAAW!
They tried to, by limiting outreach, which they felt they had lost, via the same channel. Channel gave the bird. They feel stirred. There is a feedback loop in action. Which stirs up even more shady things to emerge. Which is satisfying, because once emerged, for all to be seen, there is no denying, that one side is unclean.
In case not, I think by these people you accuse them of putting them all into one basket, because of heritage, ethnicity, race, whatnot. Which isn't the case, IMO. What shouldn't be the case either, is that some people/entities which have an intersecting set with some group should be sacroscant because of said intersection. That doesn't work for me.
Edit: In this context, I think what's happening now, is that someone who is percieved as impertinent arriviste by certain established elements, gives a shit about that sacrosanctness. Which enrages them. Which is good. Because they deserve to whiplashed hard. Like their whiny groupies.
Are you aware that there is no such thing as “journalistic malpractice”? And that any attempt to create such a thing to strip first amendment rights and allow retaliation by the government is a doomsday scenario for free press?
The lawsuit funded by Peter Thiel with the intention of bankrupting Gawker? That case was about invasion of privacy and emotional distress, and Gawker settled. The case said nothing about a supposed "journalistic malpractice"
There's no merit to the suit. MediaMatters reporting was accurate. The claim that "it was accurate, but lacked context", would open a flood gate of anti-journalistic suits.
They've filed it in the "conservative cases do well here!" fifth circuit, but it's hard to see how this passes any defamation test.
It occurs to me that I may have misinterpreted GGP's post, but if he's talking about the Texas Attorney General bringing some kind of claim on behalf of Texas, filing suit outside of Texas would be improper venue.
(If talking about the X lawsuit, which I didn't even realize existed until just now, that's a tangential matter to the OP.)
People seem to be kind of talking about both on the same thread. Seems kind of bad that government officials are cooperating so closely with a private business to take on the "enemies" of said business that people are conflating the two.
Because he claimed to have it and can expect to be told to show it. Because it is rather easy to gather this type of proof from the logs produced by X' servers. This combination - the claim to have the proof and the fact that it is easy to produce it - makes it unlikely that his claim of being able to prove his case is false.
