WikiLeaks Responds to Absurd Lawsuit — Zings DNC

The Democratic National Committee has filed a multi-million dollar federal lawsuit against WikiLeaks, the Trump campaign and Russia for exposing their plot to rig the Democratic primaries for Hillary Clinton.

On Friday afternoon, WikiLeaks responded to the lawsuit on Twitter.

The lawsuit claims that the Trump campaign worked with Russia and WikiLeaks to bring down Clinton.

“DNC already has a moribund publicity lawsuit which the press has became bored of–hence the need to refile it as a “new” suit before mid-terms. As an accurate publisher of newsworthy information WikiLeaks is constitutionally protected from such suits,” the official WikiLeaks account tweeted.

In a second tweet, they added that the “DNC is suing WikiLeaks for spectacularly revealing that the DNC rigged its primaries on behalf of Hillary Clinton. The DNC was so corrupt that five of its officers, including its president, were forced to resign.”

WikiLeaks also posted the full text of the lawsuit and linked to a Gateway Pundit article in which we covered a previous filing by Trump’s campaign lawyers that explained the publications are protected under the First Amendment — even if they came from Russia. WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange has long maintained that they did not.

In a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed last year against the Trump campaign, Trump’s lawyers argued that WikiLeaks publications meet the requirements for the Bartnicki First Amendment test and are thus protected free speech.

The first part of the case law is that a defendant may not be held liable for a disclosure of stolen information if it deals with “a matter of public concern.” The second portion requires that the publisher cannot have been involved in the theft.

Addressing this portion, Carvin’s filing asserts that there can be “no serious doubt” that the disclosures from WikiLeaks satisfied the “newsworthy” and “public concern” portion of the test. There have not been any credible allegations that WikiLeaks themselves stole or hacked the emails.

In a motion filed in October, lawyer Michael A. Carvin also argued that under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230), “a website that provides a forum where ‘third parties can post information’ is not liable for the third party’s posted information.”

“That is so even when even when the website performs ‘editorial functions’ ‘such as deciding whether to publish,’” the filing contends. “Since WikiLeaks provided a forum for a third party (the unnamed ‘Russian actors’) to publish content developed by that third party (the hacked emails), it cannot be held liable for the publication.”

Carvin went on to argue that this defeats any claim of conspiracy, as a conspiracy is an agreement to commit “an unlawful act.”

“Since WikiLeaks’ posting of emails was not an unlawful act, an alleged agreement that it should publish those emails could not have been a conspiracy,” the filing asserts.

The First Amendment is even more strictly guarded during a political campaign, when it has “its fullest and most urgent application.” According to Citizens United, the First Amendment leaves voters “free to obtain information from diverse sources in order to determine how to cast their votes.”

Following the lawsuit news, WikiLeaks also hurled a dig at Rep. Keith Ellison, the Deputy Chair of the Democratic National Committee .

“Keith, do you think ‘we have a right to lie without being exposed by WikiLeaks’ is really a vote winner?” WikiLeaks asked.


Thanks for sharing!