To the editor: Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Tulare) often shows ignorance and disdain for the U.S. Constitution, and now he’s done it again. His frivolous lawsuit against parody accounts on Twitter that ridiculed his politics clearly violates well-established 1st Amendment law.
In 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court, in an 8-0 ruling, threw out a lawsuit filed by Jerry Falwell against Hustler magazine for publishing a parody characterizing him as an incestuous drunk.
In the majority opinion that Nunes should have studied before he filed his meritless lawsuit, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that “at the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern.”
Stephen F. Rohde, Los Angeles
The writer is a constitutional lawyer.
To the editor: If Nunes’ defamation lawsuit against Twitter and certain individuals proceeds, do Hillary Clinton, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Burbank), among a plethora of others, get to sue Trump over “crooked Hillary,” “little Marco” and “shifty Schiff”?
Bruce N. Miller, Playa del Rey