General Discussion

eppur_se_muova

(37,343 posts) Sun Sep 15, 2024, 09:46 AM Sep 15

DU legal eagles -- isn't there some "Cease and Desist" order that's appropriate for the Springfield situation ?

Couldn't local gov't petition a court to issue an order to tfg and his mini-me to stop spreading provably false, provably dangerous rumors?

And if tfg breaks the law in the process, shouldn't this affect his status of "free on bond awaiting sentencing"?

Not an area I know much about, so I have to ask for wiser counsel.

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

DU legal eagles -- isn't there some "Cease and Desist" order that's appropriate for the Springfield situation ? (Original Post) eppur_se_muova Sep 15 OP

no onenote Sep 15 #1

First amendment says no Fiendish Thingy Sep 15 #2

You just reminded me, I know part of the answer to my own question -- it was answered in Near vs Minnesota. eppur_se_muova Sep 15 #3

I would replace "do have to answer" marybourg Sep 15 #5

Heh, social media platforms are only restricted orthoclad Sep 15 #6

In a sane world, the state GOP threatening to Johonny Sep 15 #4

onenote

(44,387 posts)

1. no

Reply to eppur_se_muova (Original post)

Sun Sep 15, 2024, 09:55 AM

Sep 15

Fiendish Thingy

(18,174 posts)

2. First amendment says no

Reply to eppur_se_muova (Original post)

Sun Sep 15, 2024, 09:58 AM

Sep 15

But social media platforms aren’t restricted by the first amendment.

eppur_se_muova

(37,343 posts)

3. You just reminded me, I know part of the answer to my own question -- it was answered in Near vs Minnesota.

Reply to Fiendish Thingy (Reply #2)

Sun Sep 15, 2024, 10:09 AM

Sep 15

They can't be prevented from saying what they want, but they do have to answer for the consequences, including both criminal and civil charges.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_v._Minnesota