Orly Taitz is always good for a silly. Here’s a screen shot of her latest article:
I wouldn’t take the time to show this trivial typo, particularly as it will probably be fixed quickly (I left a comment), but the topic itself is interesting to folks like me who blog on public matters. The appellate decision in the case of Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox held that under the First Amendment:
[L]iability for a defamatory blog post involving a matter of public concern cannot be imposed without proof of fault and actual damages.
I would point out that the extension of the protections set out by the Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan to non-institutional speech is not new, but it is new for the Ninth Circuit where Taitz practices law. The landmark Times case arose out of reporting on the Civil Rights Movement in the 60’s.
Orly is not and has never been in danger of any kind of sanctions for her lunatic blog rantings; rather, she’s about to experience some rather severe sanctions for her abuse of the judicial process. Both of these results are as they should be. Now, if only the State Bar of California would do something about her…
If anyone needs fist amendment rights extended to them, its her.
Right in her stupid, racist, hate spewing face.
Except that some of her blog rantings aimed at court officials could perhaps put her at risk. To accuse the court reporter of deliberately falsifying the record (and of treason, of course) could result in actual damage, depending on how that’s defined. The only thing that might work in Orly’s favor is that no-one with a pulse actually believes anything she says.
Dr. Taitz does not write, she vomits words ……
Remember, in RWNJ world, if you criticize Orly, it’s “infringing upon her First Amendment rights”.
If, OTOH, you say anything remotely liberal, it’s obviously not covered by the First Amendment but should land you in jail on the spot.
That’s Constitution 101 for you, in the (fascist) world that birthers and other wingnuts dream up.
Actually N.Y. Times v Sullivan arose out of an ad placed in the Times by civil rights advocates, not reporting on civil rights. But it is far more significant for the latter because there’s much more reporting than advertising regarding political issues.
I totally missed “Fist” and thought you were referring to “rulling”… Taitzism…