The Thin-Skinned Ms. Wendy Davis

I'm predicting that Ms. Wendy will get creamed here in Texas. The little lady apparently isn't so much in to "freedom of speech" and "free press" and is quite too "thin-skinned" for the real world of politics. I'd forgotten about this.....until it recently appeared in the news again. And what's funny is the Appeals Court slapped her down good in their 3-0 decision, saying that they “cannot conclude a person of ordinary intelligence would perceive the statements as defamatory.”

The Texas Tribune recently noted that Wendy Davis sued the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in 1997 for publishing an editorial critical of Davis’ negative campaign tactics.

Wendy Davis’ libel lawsuit in the 116th District Court in Dallas (Case #DC-97-03532, Wendy Davis vs. Star-Telegram Operating, Inc., et al) could literally be used as a case study in over-litigation – the case was filed by a failed political candidate seeking damages for psychological pain caused by negative news coverage of her own campaign tactics and was thrown out in a summary judgment.

Thin skin much?

During her failed 1996 City Council campaign bid, Davis was the subject of negative news coverage in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, including an editorial which criticized her negative campaign tactics. Subsequent to her electoral loss, Davis filed a libel lawsuit against the paper, and parent companies The Walt Disney Co. and ABC Inc., to attempt to obtain an award for damages.

In her suit, Davis claimed that the Fort Worth Star-Telegram’s editorial had damaged her mental health and infringed upon her “right to pursue public office.”


"Wendy Davis lost that race, and a few months later, she sued the Star-Telegram.

Just a few months after her suit was first filed, Davis’ libel claim against the newspaper was unceremoniously thrown out by the Court – as Judge Martin Richter granted a summary judgment against Davis without hearing any testimony. Rather than moving on, Wendy Davis appealed the case to a higher court.In 2000, nearly four years after her loss, Texas’ 5th Court of Appeals rejected Davis’ claim that she was libeled by the Star-Telegram during her 1996 campaign for city council. Rubbing salt in the wound, the court wrote in its 3-0 decision that they “cannot conclude a person of ordinary intelligence would perceive the statements as defamatory.”

Wendy Davis pressed forward ever still with her libel case, appealing to the Texas Supreme Court, which declined to hear her case.

“It was a remarkable theory that Ms. Davis was advancing – that this newspaper could not comment on the various issues of her campaign, and that it could not express its opinion as to which candidate it preferred,” said Charles Babcock, the newspaper’s attorney. “If Ms. Davis’s theories had been correct, there would have been a serious chill on the media to report on campaigns.”

Indeed. Wendy Davis’ anti-1st Amendment libel lawsuit helped to clog up the Texas court system for more than four years and demonstrated that she is severely out of touch with not only Texans but the U.S. Constitution itself. Texas doesn’t need a thin-skinned, liberal trial lawyer who is antagonistic toward freedom of speech. Wendy Davis is wrong for Texas."

http://therealwendy.com/wendy-davis-sued-hometown-newspaper/?gclid=CNXLgYjnuLwCFdHm7AodlyQAAQ

 

I don't think the great state of Texas would ever let her come close in election! She is nuts. The left wants Texas to turn blue and if it ever does (not likely) the republic will go with it. Texas is one of the last safe havens of Freedom. God Bless Texas!

 

This story is 20 years old.

 

Not 20. We don't live in 2020 right?

The woman spent FOUR years trying to push this through. I think its relevant to help understand her charactor.

 

The abortion reactionaries are going to hand Texas to Ms Davis
as certainly as Republican incompetence handed Obama his second term.
And that's the way it is -


Moi

No
and
God Bless Sam Houston
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1OHIiy9XzY
The Alamo was sacrifice, San Jacinto was military genius​

 

Clearly something damaged her mental health at some point.

 

Many libs believe suing in court is a job. She's just looking for her payday with as little of effort as possible. It's what they do.

 

Well, I for one believe Infanticide Barbie when she claimed to be mentally ill. It's obvious she still is.

 

Democrats aren't going to turn Texas blue by fielding candidates like Davis. They're going to have to step up their game.

- - - Updated - - -

Left wing hissy-fit

 

If I got this right any against her gets sued?

 

Minor detail, in another thread the right is discussing Bill Clintons affair with Elizabeth Hurley, even though the source of the story has said he made it up while he was high, and many are still waiting for a birth certificate from Kenya to show up......

 

Apparently, Wendy Davis has thin skin because she doesn't like to be repeatedly called a "whore" or a "slut". She should just lie down and take her beating, I suppose.

Sorry right-wingers, but having a stage doesn't give you the moral right to verbally assault somebody in such a vicious manner.

 

Umnn she sued for libel over reporting of her seedy campaign strategy, not being called a slut or a whore. Please attempt a slight grasp.

 

Wendy Davis is explained by the fact that liberals don't distinguish morality from politics. They believe their political positions to be moral imperatives and expressions of their superior morality. This is why freedom of speech and the First Amendment mean so little to them: they are no more tolerant of conservatism than we might be of child prostitution. They see opinions differing from theirs as not merely wrong, but wicked. That gives them license, and even a duty, to silence their opposition. And of course to speak their own opinions without opposition, as Ms. Davis seeks. Look at any debate between left and right on any issue and you will find angry liberals seeking ways to prevent their opponents from speaking at all. Conservatives don't do that because they see political issues as pragmatic questions of what works best. This zealotry of the left is both a strength and a weakness. It adds a commitment and energy to the left that the right usually can't muster. But it makes the left a threat to the core values of the civil society in the United States. In succeeding, the left would destroy the very country it claims to care for.

 

Destruction is the stated intent. Some will deny it some are honest enough to admit it.

 

Agreed.

 

And who specifically called her that? Names and a link, please. Remember, this was back when she was running for city council that she sued the newspaper and Disney.......

 

Neither party has a monopoly on mean-spirited invective. You know that. Maybe you think your party's invective is justified, which is why you don't find it offensive. But hatred and abuse are always wrong. I remember George Bush called a "war criminal" and being compared to Hitler. I remember it said by Democrats that Dick Cheney acted in office to profit his former employer. I remember Sarah Palin being accused of responsibility for Gabby Gifford's shooting because she once did a campaign ad "targeting" Democrats with a bull's eye(!) Any of these vile accusations brought contempt on those who made them. The list of Democrats' invective is virtually endless, so best not go sniffing for Republicans who do the same.