Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Yes, I linked poorly. I sent the correct link just after I when I reposted if you go back into the thread. Or you can read the links I posted recently. Just because I mislinked doesn’t mean she isn’t pretty aggressive with lawsuits. She has had the ACLU writing her lawyers for attacking people exercising free speech. Either way it shows that Taylor has a great team of lawyers. |
| I suspect the September 30 date was created as they knew she had to get back to her tour and get back into shape. |
She’s aggressive with protecting her brand. As anyone should be. I simply don’t care if she threatens to sue, which is all most of what you posted referred to, not actual lawsuits. I liken it to trademark infringement- if you don’t crack down you lose actual legal standing. Why shouldn’t she protect herself and her brand? And why is she the only one people harp on? You think people leave Beyoncé alone out of the goodness of their hearts? |
You should care if she is threatening free speech. Beyoncé”s fans don’t uphold her as the second coming of a female Christ the way Taylor fans do. They also don’t pretend Beyoncé is a victim to all things. We aren’t “picking on” Taylor as much as pointing out she isn’t perfect. She complains and attempts to stomp on free speech especially when there is criticism of her. Enjoy her music and stop treating her like an idol. |
Omg give me a break with “stomping on free speech” bs. Do you know what actual infringement of free speech is?? Spoiler- it’s not a pop star wanting privacy from paparazzi and using our civil court system. SMDH. |
Infringement of free speech happens when the ACLU sends cease and desist letters because you are infringing on someone’s free speech. Just like Taylor and her lawyers received. https://www.aclunc.org/news/taylor-swift-attempts-silence-critic-aclu-fires-back |
It actually doesn’t. Where is there government interference? So let me get this straight. The ACLU, *private actor attorneys*, are allowed to send cease and desist letters in your opinion, but Taylor Swift lawyers, *private actor attorneys*, aren’t allowed to claim defamation and send cease and desist letters? Is that your position? Is the blogger still operating? Were they shut down and/or jailed? Or simply asked to stop publishing falsehoods? I know that line of “alternative facts” has gotten quite blurry, but people are still allowed to sue for defamation and it not be a free speech infringement. You understand that, right? Defamation still exists. And the ACLU is made up of private attorneys. You get all this right? |
The ACLU is a group of lawyers that protect free speech (on both sides) more than any other entity in our government. Taylor has a history of attempting to bully dissenters legally and then backing down if she is stood up to because the law doesn’t support her and her team knows it. She tries anyway. Ironically, you say she isn’t a bully and just a victim of “defamation.” This is your answer to why people “pick” on Taylor. You don’t like the answer I gave, but I’m going to stand by it. We will have to agree to disagree about the function and role of the ACLU in our government and Taylor’s attempts to silence critics. |
Oof. This is such a weird and naive take. The reason the ACLU intervened is that Taylor's lawyers sent a cease and desist that threatened legal action -- that's the the potential government interference and that's why the ACLU took it on. You can't go around threatening lawsuits against any journalist who criticizes you because that's using a government mechanism to suppress free speech AND free press. ACLU attorneys are not "private attorneys." It's a non-profit and the attorneys are supported by publicly-raised money. That blogger is not paying the ACLU for intervening. Also the blogger was not asked to stop publishing falsehoods. The blogger published an opinion about the embrace of Swift by certain alt-right groups and called for Swift to openly denounce these groups (rather than quietly profit from them). None of that is a falsehood or even an accusation against Swift. It was an opinion piece based on factual information about Swift's fanbase. The cease and desist letter not only threatened lawsuit but demanded the blogger retract the piece. They were trying to silence the blogger's opinion -- you can't do that. You can't be a billionaire and have everyone like you and agree with everything you do. Trying to use your wealth and popularity to silence critics is not okay and luckily we have mechanisms in this country to prevent people from doing it (they don't always work unfortunately). |
+1 what is that PP talking about!? |
Quote me directly where I said she wasn't a bully and that she's just a victim of defamation. While you're at it, quote me where I referred to her as my idol in any way. Do you tend to put words into people's mouths all the time or just here? I'm conversing about legal issues that I find interesting, not "Taylor Swift." Do you believe that defamation exists as a cause of action? For anyone? How do you propose someone exert that but through legal channels? Some legal actions survive, some don't, but that's the nature of our legal system. |
| Is there any chance she’s pregnant and that’s why she’s not making many public appearances? The public appearances she makes might be strategic so that she can hide a pregnancy. |
Holy. Crap. I'm not even going to touch the amount of misinformation in this post. I just... can't with you people. This is why we are in the state we are in this country. People are so uneducated. OK, I can't. I have to address the raging wild elephant in the room. A nonprofit is a not a government entity, despite being paid for with tax dollars. OK, phew, I said it. You actually CAN try to silence an opinion. From one private entity to another. That's allowed. Hello??? Is this thing on??? |
No….she’s busy! She’s been in the studio, filming a new music video and doing rehearsals. Remember these concerts are 3hrs straight of nonstop singing and choreography. It takes intense training. |
PP here. I'm a lawyer. And you are the one who is uneducated here. I did not say the ACLU is a government entity nor that it was paid for with tax dollars as neither of those things are true. What I said is that it's a non-profit funded by "publicly-raised" money. Which means donations. The blogger in question did not hire the ACLU as you would hire a law firm. The ACLU took the case on a pro-bono basis (this means they work without payment) because it has a mission to defend free speech. So its attorneys are neither government attorneys nor private attorneys. They are non-profit attorneys. Try to keep up. There are some ways you can try to silence an opinion -- that's true. For instance you could voice your own opinion and try to dissuade people from agreeing with another person's opinion. You can also limit the expression of certain opinions in private spaces -- employers and home owners can refuse to allow people to express certain opinions at work or in their homes. What you cannot do is tell a journalist (and a blogger qualifies) that they must retract their published opinion or face an unfounded lawsuit. In this case the lawsuit would be unfounded because there is nothing defamatory in the blogger's opinion piece -- it focuses on the actions of alt-right groups in embracing Swift not on Swift herself. That's an intimidation tactic using the civil courts to attempt to silence the press and it's unconstitutional. The "wild raging elephant in the room" is that you don't know what you are talking about but... go on. This is fun. |