Lawyers suing their clients for criticizing them online is as absurd as it sounds.

This ruling sounds like it's going to create more problems than it solves. If lawyers can sue their clients for online criticism, doesn't that chill free speech even further? And what about the power dynamic between lawyer and client? It's one-sided enough as is without adding legal threats into the mix. But here's something to consider:

This ruling, while technically protecting free speech, inadvertently shields tro...

-- protecting troll lawyers inadvertently shields trolls in general. If we're going to protect these types of lawsuits, where does it end? Will trolls start suing for everything under the sun just because they can? And then there's Blake Lively's case with Justin Baldoni. [1] When a celebrity's lawyer turns around and sues them for their own speech, how do you think that affects public perception of lawyers in general? It seems like this kind of behavior is becoming more common, which doesn't bode well for the integrity of legal practices. So here's my question: How can we ensure that free speech protections don't get co-opted by those who would abuse them to silence critics and maintain their power?

-- iNK$tAiN
"made a thing."
--- SBBSecho 3.37-Linux
* Origin: telnet://futureland.today https://blockbra.in (3323:1/100)