Have Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce quietly uncoupled?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A poster above had a good point. She glams it up for the games and that attracts the camera. She could also forbid cameras while she walks in, but she chooses to allow them to photograph her.

When she wants to be under the radar, she is.

She makes people very curious about her next move and has made loads of money from this curiosity she's evoked.

Then, she complains that people follow her everywhere and want to know what she is doing. No one can have it all, I guess--not even a billionaire.

No, Taylor does not complain about that. In fact, there is a posted a video of her a few pages back, where she talks about accepting that as part of fame. If you can prove otherwise, please do. Even in Miss Americana documentary, it shows everyone waiting outside her house and she’s not complaining. She says I recognize this is not normal 😂. The only thing she “complains” about publicly is stalkers, death threats, untrue stories.

She can complain and also accept it. Quote below:


I don't think it's necessarily that paparazzi are taking pictures of me that freaks me out, as much as the fact they're hanging out with you all day.
"I asked to be a singer, I wanted this, so I can kind of understand it when they're waiting outside a radio station or on a red carpet.
"But it gets to be a bit irritating for me when they're waiting for me outside my house, or when I'm on vacation and they're there too."

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-19797669.amp

Thats from 12 years ago when she was 22.

Typical Swiftie.

1. Give me proof.
2. Proof given.
3. The proof doesn’t count! It is from when she was 22!

She doesn’t give interviews these days (except one to Time Magazine) so when would she ever complain? You have to speak to complain. 😂

Of course she complains.

She "speaks" plenty - on her social media, at concerts and awards show acceptances etc. Think of her recent lengthy post on the upcoming election.

I am sure she does not love all the paparazzi all the time. The point is she does not complain in a "woe is me" dramatic and out of touch way and has not got many years. She realizes that being a billionaire pop star comes with tradeoffs and she has an image and persona to project.

How about the "woe is me" over her private plane being tracked?

it's a safety issues. 3 individuals have been arrested for stalkling her (found outside her home)in the past year.

She doesn’t complain, she files lawsuits
https://www.thethings.com/taylor-swift-lawsuits-shake-it-off-sexual-assault-one-dollar/

I’m sure that is just “her team” because swifties are able to split her like a narcissist does;

Good thing= Taylor did it and she oversees all amazing things

Bad thing= her team did it, BUT even so they were completely justified!!!!

+1

OMG did you even read the link you posted PP??
First of all, and perhaps the most important, is that of the 7 lawsuits you post to bolster your claim she doesn't complain, "she just sues people" - she's the defendant in every single one of them, with one resulting in a countersuit by her. Please tell me you understand why that makes your statement idiotic.

Two of them are copyright lawsuits so frivolous more than one person sued on because they had both separately and unrelatedly also come up with the same lyrics, showing that it's more of a turn of phrase than some genius lyric. Yeah, really novel if multiple people come up with it. So she won.

One countersuit on sexual assault, they refer to as a "stunt", where she sued for $1. Yeah, maybe she was complaining there about being sexually assaulted. I'll give you that one.

One where she was 14 years old and incapable of contracting on her own behalf, so obviously that's a team.

I mean, I could keep going, but did you actually read what you posted?

You should keep going too! I did totally flub that link- ha!but if YOU keep reading, in the next post down, I linked to her legal action against the college kid tracking her jet.

I wasn't the one making the point. You were. I read the article you posted. And it did nothing to prove your point.

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.

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?

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).

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???

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.

DP- your posts are wordy, boring and not fun in the least.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A poster above had a good point. She glams it up for the games and that attracts the camera. She could also forbid cameras while she walks in, but she chooses to allow them to photograph her.

When she wants to be under the radar, she is.

She makes people very curious about her next move and has made loads of money from this curiosity she's evoked.

Then, she complains that people follow her everywhere and want to know what she is doing. No one can have it all, I guess--not even a billionaire.

No, Taylor does not complain about that. In fact, there is a posted a video of her a few pages back, where she talks about accepting that as part of fame. If you can prove otherwise, please do. Even in Miss Americana documentary, it shows everyone waiting outside her house and she’s not complaining. She says I recognize this is not normal 😂. The only thing she “complains” about publicly is stalkers, death threats, untrue stories.

She can complain and also accept it. Quote below:


I don't think it's necessarily that paparazzi are taking pictures of me that freaks me out, as much as the fact they're hanging out with you all day.
"I asked to be a singer, I wanted this, so I can kind of understand it when they're waiting outside a radio station or on a red carpet.
"But it gets to be a bit irritating for me when they're waiting for me outside my house, or when I'm on vacation and they're there too."

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-19797669.amp

Thats from 12 years ago when she was 22.

Typical Swiftie.

1. Give me proof.
2. Proof given.
3. The proof doesn’t count! It is from when she was 22!

She doesn’t give interviews these days (except one to Time Magazine) so when would she ever complain? You have to speak to complain. 😂

Of course she complains.

She "speaks" plenty - on her social media, at concerts and awards show acceptances etc. Think of her recent lengthy post on the upcoming election.

I am sure she does not love all the paparazzi all the time. The point is she does not complain in a "woe is me" dramatic and out of touch way and has not got many years. She realizes that being a billionaire pop star comes with tradeoffs and she has an image and persona to project.

How about the "woe is me" over her private plane being tracked?

it's a safety issues. 3 individuals have been arrested for stalkling her (found outside her home)in the past year.

She doesn’t complain, she files lawsuits
https://www.thethings.com/taylor-swift-lawsuits-shake-it-off-sexual-assault-one-dollar/

I’m sure that is just “her team” because swifties are able to split her like a narcissist does;

Good thing= Taylor did it and she oversees all amazing things

Bad thing= her team did it, BUT even so they were completely justified!!!!

+1

OMG did you even read the link you posted PP??
First of all, and perhaps the most important, is that of the 7 lawsuits you post to bolster your claim she doesn't complain, "she just sues people" - she's the defendant in every single one of them, with one resulting in a countersuit by her. Please tell me you understand why that makes your statement idiotic.

Two of them are copyright lawsuits so frivolous more than one person sued on because they had both separately and unrelatedly also come up with the same lyrics, showing that it's more of a turn of phrase than some genius lyric. Yeah, really novel if multiple people come up with it. So she won.

One countersuit on sexual assault, they refer to as a "stunt", where she sued for $1. Yeah, maybe she was complaining there about being sexually assaulted. I'll give you that one.

One where she was 14 years old and incapable of contracting on her own behalf, so obviously that's a team.

I mean, I could keep going, but did you actually read what you posted?

You should keep going too! I did totally flub that link- ha!but if YOU keep reading, in the next post down, I linked to her legal action against the college kid tracking her jet.

I wasn't the one making the point. You were. I read the article you posted. And it did nothing to prove your point.

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.

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.

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.

Perhaps your ‘interest in legal issues’ should take you away from the entertainment forum and into other parts of the internet or even DCUM where you can explore your interests and learn some more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A poster above had a good point. She glams it up for the games and that attracts the camera. She could also forbid cameras while she walks in, but she chooses to allow them to photograph her.

When she wants to be under the radar, she is.

She makes people very curious about her next move and has made loads of money from this curiosity she's evoked.

Then, she complains that people follow her everywhere and want to know what she is doing. No one can have it all, I guess--not even a billionaire.

No, Taylor does not complain about that. In fact, there is a posted a video of her a few pages back, where she talks about accepting that as part of fame. If you can prove otherwise, please do. Even in Miss Americana documentary, it shows everyone waiting outside her house and she’s not complaining. She says I recognize this is not normal 😂. The only thing she “complains” about publicly is stalkers, death threats, untrue stories.

She can complain and also accept it. Quote below:


I don't think it's necessarily that paparazzi are taking pictures of me that freaks me out, as much as the fact they're hanging out with you all day.
"I asked to be a singer, I wanted this, so I can kind of understand it when they're waiting outside a radio station or on a red carpet.
"But it gets to be a bit irritating for me when they're waiting for me outside my house, or when I'm on vacation and they're there too."

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-19797669.amp

Thats from 12 years ago when she was 22.

Typical Swiftie.

1. Give me proof.
2. Proof given.
3. The proof doesn’t count! It is from when she was 22!

She doesn’t give interviews these days (except one to Time Magazine) so when would she ever complain? You have to speak to complain. 😂

Of course she complains.

She "speaks" plenty - on her social media, at concerts and awards show acceptances etc. Think of her recent lengthy post on the upcoming election.

I am sure she does not love all the paparazzi all the time. The point is she does not complain in a "woe is me" dramatic and out of touch way and has not got many years. She realizes that being a billionaire pop star comes with tradeoffs and she has an image and persona to project.

How about the "woe is me" over her private plane being tracked?

it's a safety issues. 3 individuals have been arrested for stalkling her (found outside her home)in the past year.

She doesn’t complain, she files lawsuits
https://www.thethings.com/taylor-swift-lawsuits-shake-it-off-sexual-assault-one-dollar/

I’m sure that is just “her team” because swifties are able to split her like a narcissist does;

Good thing= Taylor did it and she oversees all amazing things

Bad thing= her team did it, BUT even so they were completely justified!!!!

+1

OMG did you even read the link you posted PP??
First of all, and perhaps the most important, is that of the 7 lawsuits you post to bolster your claim she doesn't complain, "she just sues people" - she's the defendant in every single one of them, with one resulting in a countersuit by her. Please tell me you understand why that makes your statement idiotic.

Two of them are copyright lawsuits so frivolous more than one person sued on because they had both separately and unrelatedly also come up with the same lyrics, showing that it's more of a turn of phrase than some genius lyric. Yeah, really novel if multiple people come up with it. So she won.

One countersuit on sexual assault, they refer to as a "stunt", where she sued for $1. Yeah, maybe she was complaining there about being sexually assaulted. I'll give you that one.

One where she was 14 years old and incapable of contracting on her own behalf, so obviously that's a team.

I mean, I could keep going, but did you actually read what you posted?

You should keep going too! I did totally flub that link- ha!but if YOU keep reading, in the next post down, I linked to her legal action against the college kid tracking her jet.

I wasn't the one making the point. You were. I read the article you posted. And it did nothing to prove your point.

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.

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?

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).

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???

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.

A nonprofit funded by "publicly raised money" is irrelevant in this context. You know it. I know it. It's just a nonprofit, but nice try to act like they're connected to any government action. I know the blogger didn't hire the ACLU; I know what pro bono means. I know what a non-profit attorney is. (See below)

None of this makes Taylor Swift's attorneys threatening legal action based on defamation a threat to free speech. Again, I ask you, do you believe that the cause of action of defamation still exists?? Do you think it's somehow self-regulating?

The bolded is factually incorrect. You absolutely can tell a journalist to retract a published opinion if it amounts to defamation which is what they alleged. For crying out loud, you don't think a public figure can allege defamation when they're compared to Adolf Hitler? When the entire blog post was attempting to connect Taylor Swift to white supremacy? GMAFB. That's not "idolizing" Taylor Swift to suggest that she's within her rights to demand that it be taken down, or face the court to determine whether it's defamation.

-- Also an attorney. A non-profit attorney. Would you look at that....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A poster above had a good point. She glams it up for the games and that attracts the camera. She could also forbid cameras while she walks in, but she chooses to allow them to photograph her.

When she wants to be under the radar, she is.

She makes people very curious about her next move and has made loads of money from this curiosity she's evoked.

Then, she complains that people follow her everywhere and want to know what she is doing. No one can have it all, I guess--not even a billionaire.

No, Taylor does not complain about that. In fact, there is a posted a video of her a few pages back, where she talks about accepting that as part of fame. If you can prove otherwise, please do. Even in Miss Americana documentary, it shows everyone waiting outside her house and she’s not complaining. She says I recognize this is not normal 😂. The only thing she “complains” about publicly is stalkers, death threats, untrue stories.

She can complain and also accept it. Quote below:


I don't think it's necessarily that paparazzi are taking pictures of me that freaks me out, as much as the fact they're hanging out with you all day.
"I asked to be a singer, I wanted this, so I can kind of understand it when they're waiting outside a radio station or on a red carpet.
"But it gets to be a bit irritating for me when they're waiting for me outside my house, or when I'm on vacation and they're there too."

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-19797669.amp

Thats from 12 years ago when she was 22.

Typical Swiftie.

1. Give me proof.
2. Proof given.
3. The proof doesn’t count! It is from when she was 22!

She doesn’t give interviews these days (except one to Time Magazine) so when would she ever complain? You have to speak to complain. 😂

Of course she complains.

She "speaks" plenty - on her social media, at concerts and awards show acceptances etc. Think of her recent lengthy post on the upcoming election.

I am sure she does not love all the paparazzi all the time. The point is she does not complain in a "woe is me" dramatic and out of touch way and has not got many years. She realizes that being a billionaire pop star comes with tradeoffs and she has an image and persona to project.

How about the "woe is me" over her private plane being tracked?

it's a safety issues. 3 individuals have been arrested for stalkling her (found outside her home)in the past year.

She doesn’t complain, she files lawsuits
https://www.thethings.com/taylor-swift-lawsuits-shake-it-off-sexual-assault-one-dollar/

I’m sure that is just “her team” because swifties are able to split her like a narcissist does;

Good thing= Taylor did it and she oversees all amazing things

Bad thing= her team did it, BUT even so they were completely justified!!!!

+1

OMG did you even read the link you posted PP??
First of all, and perhaps the most important, is that of the 7 lawsuits you post to bolster your claim she doesn't complain, "she just sues people" - she's the defendant in every single one of them, with one resulting in a countersuit by her. Please tell me you understand why that makes your statement idiotic.

Two of them are copyright lawsuits so frivolous more than one person sued on because they had both separately and unrelatedly also come up with the same lyrics, showing that it's more of a turn of phrase than some genius lyric. Yeah, really novel if multiple people come up with it. So she won.

One countersuit on sexual assault, they refer to as a "stunt", where she sued for $1. Yeah, maybe she was complaining there about being sexually assaulted. I'll give you that one.

One where she was 14 years old and incapable of contracting on her own behalf, so obviously that's a team.

I mean, I could keep going, but did you actually read what you posted?

You should keep going too! I did totally flub that link- ha!but if YOU keep reading, in the next post down, I linked to her legal action against the college kid tracking her jet.

I wasn't the one making the point. You were. I read the article you posted. And it did nothing to prove your point.

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.

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?

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).

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???

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.

A nonprofit funded by "publicly raised money" is irrelevant in this context. You know it. I know it. It's just a nonprofit, but nice try to act like they're connected to any government action. I know the blogger didn't hire the ACLU; I know what pro bono means. I know what a non-profit attorney is. (See below)

None of this makes Taylor Swift's attorneys threatening legal action based on defamation a threat to free speech. Again, I ask you, do you believe that the cause of action of defamation still exists?? Do you think it's somehow self-regulating?

The bolded is factually incorrect. You absolutely can tell a journalist to retract a published opinion if it amounts to defamation which is what they alleged. For crying out loud, you don't think a public figure can allege defamation when they're compared to Adolf Hitler? When the entire blog post was attempting to connect Taylor Swift to white supremacy? GMAFB. That's not "idolizing" Taylor Swift to suggest that she's within her rights to demand that it be taken down, or face the court to determine whether it's defamation.

-- Also an attorney. A non-profit attorney. Would you look at that....

not an attorney here, but
1.great that you are but there is no way to know if you are really and anonymously anyone can be anything
2. It has taken you several posts to be coherent and not just ragey if this is the same person
3 thenACLU absolutely is the bulwark for free speech in our county. You know it and I do to. They have been involved in virtually every free speech case.
4 there are many instances of Taylor’s people going after people who don’t agree with her. There is a pattern. She went after the college kid about the jet, the guitar teacher from stating she taught him because she needed to keep the narrative that she was self taught, this blogger, Etsy makers.

5 here is the result of this particular stand off:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/i-faced-down-taylor-swifts-legal-wrathand-won

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A poster above had a good point. She glams it up for the games and that attracts the camera. She could also forbid cameras while she walks in, but she chooses to allow them to photograph her.

When she wants to be under the radar, she is.

She makes people very curious about her next move and has made loads of money from this curiosity she's evoked.

Then, she complains that people follow her everywhere and want to know what she is doing. No one can have it all, I guess--not even a billionaire.

No, Taylor does not complain about that. In fact, there is a posted a video of her a few pages back, where she talks about accepting that as part of fame. If you can prove otherwise, please do. Even in Miss Americana documentary, it shows everyone waiting outside her house and she’s not complaining. She says I recognize this is not normal 😂. The only thing she “complains” about publicly is stalkers, death threats, untrue stories.

She can complain and also accept it. Quote below:


I don't think it's necessarily that paparazzi are taking pictures of me that freaks me out, as much as the fact they're hanging out with you all day.
"I asked to be a singer, I wanted this, so I can kind of understand it when they're waiting outside a radio station or on a red carpet.
"But it gets to be a bit irritating for me when they're waiting for me outside my house, or when I'm on vacation and they're there too."

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-19797669.amp

Thats from 12 years ago when she was 22.

Typical Swiftie.

1. Give me proof.
2. Proof given.
3. The proof doesn’t count! It is from when she was 22!

She doesn’t give interviews these days (except one to Time Magazine) so when would she ever complain? You have to speak to complain. 😂

Of course she complains.

She "speaks" plenty - on her social media, at concerts and awards show acceptances etc. Think of her recent lengthy post on the upcoming election.

I am sure she does not love all the paparazzi all the time. The point is she does not complain in a "woe is me" dramatic and out of touch way and has not got many years. She realizes that being a billionaire pop star comes with tradeoffs and she has an image and persona to project.

How about the "woe is me" over her private plane being tracked?

it's a safety issues. 3 individuals have been arrested for stalkling her (found outside her home)in the past year.

She doesn’t complain, she files lawsuits
https://www.thethings.com/taylor-swift-lawsuits-shake-it-off-sexual-assault-one-dollar/

I’m sure that is just “her team” because swifties are able to split her like a narcissist does;

Good thing= Taylor did it and she oversees all amazing things

Bad thing= her team did it, BUT even so they were completely justified!!!!

+1

OMG did you even read the link you posted PP??
First of all, and perhaps the most important, is that of the 7 lawsuits you post to bolster your claim she doesn't complain, "she just sues people" - she's the defendant in every single one of them, with one resulting in a countersuit by her. Please tell me you understand why that makes your statement idiotic.

Two of them are copyright lawsuits so frivolous more than one person sued on because they had both separately and unrelatedly also come up with the same lyrics, showing that it's more of a turn of phrase than some genius lyric. Yeah, really novel if multiple people come up with it. So she won.

One countersuit on sexual assault, they refer to as a "stunt", where she sued for $1. Yeah, maybe she was complaining there about being sexually assaulted. I'll give you that one.

One where she was 14 years old and incapable of contracting on her own behalf, so obviously that's a team.

I mean, I could keep going, but did you actually read what you posted?

You should keep going too! I did totally flub that link- ha!but if YOU keep reading, in the next post down, I linked to her legal action against the college kid tracking her jet.

I wasn't the one making the point. You were. I read the article you posted. And it did nothing to prove your point.

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.

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?

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).

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???

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.

A nonprofit funded by "publicly raised money" is irrelevant in this context. You know it. I know it. It's just a nonprofit, but nice try to act like they're connected to any government action. I know the blogger didn't hire the ACLU; I know what pro bono means. I know what a non-profit attorney is. (See below)

None of this makes Taylor Swift's attorneys threatening legal action based on defamation a threat to free speech. Again, I ask you, do you believe that the cause of action of defamation still exists?? Do you think it's somehow self-regulating?

The bolded is factually incorrect. You absolutely can tell a journalist to retract a published opinion if it amounts to defamation which is what they alleged. For crying out loud, you don't think a public figure can allege defamation when they're compared to Adolf Hitler? When the entire blog post was attempting to connect Taylor Swift to white supremacy? GMAFB. That's not "idolizing" Taylor Swift to suggest that she's within her rights to demand that it be taken down, or face the court to determine whether it's defamation.

-- Also an attorney. A non-profit attorney. Would you look at that....

not an attorney here, but
1.great that you are but there is no way to know if you are really and anonymously anyone can be anything
2. It has taken you several posts to be coherent and not just ragey if this is the same person
3 thenACLU absolutely is the bulwark for free speech in our county. You know it and I do to. They have been involved in virtually every free speech case.
4 there are many instances of Taylor’s people going after people who don’t agree with her. There is a pattern. She went after the college kid about the jet, the guitar teacher from stating she taught him because she needed to keep the narrative that she was self taught, this blogger, Etsy makers.

5 here is the result of this particular stand off:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/i-faced-down-taylor-swifts-legal-wrathand-won

Free speech is the most misunderstood aspect of our Constitution. Where the government action starts and stops is so often misrepresented it makes my head hurt.
My point has been throughout that defamation is still real. That can be true, AND the ACLU can be the preeminent advocates for it. But just because the ACLU is involved doesn't mean it's a foregone conclusion that it's a free speech infringement. They make allegations just as any other attorney does. They aren't attorney "plus." They're attorneys with an agenda. One I happen to agree with, but that's neither here nor there, and it doesn't negate defamation. It just doesn't.
I would have loved to see that case actually litigated.

[Anonymous]

**preeminent advocates for free speech**