A defamation case is inherently a question deeply rooted in first amendment rights. You can't really comment about project veritas suing the NYT without it having something to do with first amendment rights.

Literally the entire point of my comment was that the NYT's claims have nothing to do with Project Veritas. Thus the comment itself has nothing to do with Project Veritas.

Your comment was about the defamation case. You said:

> the NYT argued in front of a judge that what is on its front page should be understood to be opinion and not fact, even when it appears in the form of facts

That's a comment about the defamation case. The NYT was arguing the bounds of its 1A rights before the judge. When the person responded talking about the NYT arguing it's 1A rights, that's what they were talking about.

Then you asked what your comment had anything do to with 1A rights, and I pointed out that a comment about the defamation case is inherently about 1A rights.

So...it doesn't really matter that your commend had nothing to do with Project Veritas because the rest of the comment chain in response also has nothing to do with it.

My comment had nothing to do with the trial either. The trial is completely irrelevant. 1A is completely irrelevant because it only applies to the gov't. Free speech is completely irrelevant because I'm not suggesting or talking about something NYT is or is not allowed to do or say. None of this shit is relevant. You are just gishgalloping.

I quoted your comment above. It was literally a comment about the argument the NYT made before a judge in the defamation case.

You can say your comment wasn't about that topic if you want, but it's just doesn't seem accurate to me. I'm not "gishgalloping", I'm just explaining to you why people are reacting as if you commented on the defamation case.

Anyway, I think we're way out in the weeds and this discussion probably isn't productive so I'll drop it. I'm sorry if I didn't understand what you were trying to say.