Our last look

For the last column of the year, a second review of some of the less serious legal doings of the often seriously awful 2020:

• First, an update: back in 2018 I recounted how Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY) and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R- CA) got themselves into serious legal trouble over one of the oldest motives in the book: money. In Collins’ case, he passed along “insider” information about an Australian biotech firm in which he was both a large stockholder and a member of the board of directors. Specifically, Collins learned that that a drug on which the company pinned its market viability had failed a clinical trial. ( Notice how we’re all a lot better informed about what “clinical trials” are, these days?)

Anyway, although Collins himself apparently never profited, his action was still illegal, because it allowed several folks, including his son, to dump 2 million shares of stock before the information about the drug became public. Collins, after being indicted for his conduct, at first tried to withdraw from his re- election campaign, then — realizing that it was too late to take his name off the ballot — “reactivated” his campaign.

Meanwhile, Rep. Hunter of San Diego was caught spending campaign funds on such personal expenses as an Italian vacation, private school tuition, and most notoriously, flying his family’s pet rabbit cross- country (presumably NOT on United Airlines). Hunter nevertheless campaigned for re- election. And proving that perhaps the American people are not ready for self-government, both Collins and Hunter were re-elected that November. Both of them then pleaded guilty to felony charges and resigned their not-so-hardwon seats.

Naturally, just days ago, President Trump — himself with one foot out the door and the other on a banana peel — granted full pardons to them both last Tuesday.

• Speaking of questionable moves by Pres. Trump, he has threatened to veto the National Defense Authorization Act ( NDAA), one of those huge pieces of legislation that, among other things, sets forth policies relating to the Defense Department. It does not, however, include a repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, something that President Trump demanded. Section 230 is a law protecting Internet providers, such as Twitter and Facebook, from liability for content on their sites that was created by someone else.

This section of the CDA, as it is known, gives purveyors of electronic media greater protection than that enjoyed by the traditional print press. After all, if you’re a newspaper or magazine, you’re liable for what gets printed in your publication. But if you create a website and let other folks post stuff there, then even if it’s defamatory, thanks to Sec. 230, the creator of the website isn’t liable for that content.

There are perhaps good reasons for this. After all, newsprint is expensive, and no one can simply demand to have, e.g., a letter to the editor printed; editors and publishers in that medium act as “gatekeepers.” Electronic sites, on the other hand, can simply throw open a forum to let anyone post what they want — the analogy is closer to an (endless) wall in the public square, where anyone can post a handbill or broadside.

And why is Pres. Trump threatening to make the NDAA his first veto — one that, given the margins by which the bill passed both houses of Congress, is almost certain to be overridden? Well, perhaps what happened back in June to his frequent ally, California Rep. Devin Nunes, helps explain.

Like Pres. Trump, who has spent four years getting endless criticism and even ridicule, Rep. Nunes was mocked by two Twitter accounts that, thanks to Nunes’ complaints about them, gave them a lot of notoriety that they might not otherwise have received. (This is sometimes referred to as the “Streisand effect,” after Barbra Streisand’s attempt to “censor” photos on a public website of her sizeable bluff-top house made those photos far better known than they had been before.)

Nunes was mocked by Twitter accounts entitled “Devin Nunes’ Cow” and another entitled “Devin Nunes’ Mom.” So he sued Twitter trying to learn the identities of the people behind the accounts. For good measure, he sought millions of dollars in damages.

Most politicians who sue for defamation have the good sense to do so in small claims court — but not Rep. Nunes. His Twitter lawsuit was dismissed in June by a state court in Virginia. A separate lawsuit against Esquire Magazine was all but dismissed by an Iowa court in September.

And now Pres. Trump, proving that like Rep. Nunes some politicians never learn, may make a fruitless gesture against Sec. 230 by getting the only veto of his presidency overridden.

If he does so, it’s a fitting end to 2020.