|
First amendment protection is granted to all Americans. In this case, Dominion Voting Systems is a political entity, and having control of nearly 40% of America's voting power, it must absolutely be defensible to highly criticize this corporation or we are no longer a free or democratic nation at all. Lawyers, of course have every right to speak out and call out potential fraudulent or error-prone, or socially hackable voting systems just as any other American. From NYT v Sullivan: "To the contention that the First Amendment did not protect libelous publications, the Court replied that constitutional scrutiny could not be foreclosed by the “label” attached to something. “Like . . . the various other formulae for the repression of expression that have been challenged in this Court, libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment.”1259 “The general proposition,” the Court continued, “that freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the First Amendment has long been settled by our decisions . . . . [W]e consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”1260 Because the advertisement was “an expression of grievance and protest on one of the major public issues of our time, [it] would seem clearly to qualify for the constitutional protection . . . [unless] it forfeits that protection by the falsity of some of its factual statements and by its alleged defamation of respondent.”1261 Erroneous statement is protected, the Court asserted, there being no exception “for any test of truth.” Error is inevitable in any free debate and to place liability upon that score, and especially to place on the speaker the burden of proving truth, would introduce self-censorship and stifle the free expression which the First Amendment protects.1262 Nor would injury to official reputation afford a warrant for repressing otherwise free speech. Public officials are subject to public scrutiny and “[c]riticism of their official conduct does not lose its constitutional protection merely because it is effective criticism and hence diminishes their official reputation.”1263 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/d... |
She did more than criticise though, she made testable claims that she had evidence of fraud, that the machines were in the control of foreign powers and a variety of other things. Some were absurd, but they go beyond either opinion or criticism.
(to my reading, though I am neither a lawyer nor American, and I understand claims about damaging speech are much harder to make stick in the US. It would be hilarious and sad if dominion found a way to sue her in London...)