Thanks yes, I get that. Healthy protection for freedom by a capable government is, however, perishable, particularly when a large group of people not only work to undermine voting system integrity, but simultaneously make a disgusting mockery of being concerned about that system. That is exactly what the Republicans have done. It is, in my view, a historically evil thing they have done.

Still, the removal of Dobbs from the set of toxic irrational voices pounding away at our brains here in the US is a major and swift accomplishment of one of the lawsuits, (even if the lawyers never win any money), and it has me wondering about whether any of those other voices are vulnerable.

This is in conjunction with the mission I've been on to bring attention to that "other billionaire" who has been platforming those toxic voices. Everyone already knows about Rupert Murdoch and his outrageous relentless assault on clear thinking in the US, but the other billionaire, who is less well known, who also seems to be providing a firm steady platform for the toxic commentary, is John Malone, of Liberty Media, which has a strong stake in iHeartMedia.

From what little I can see so far (I haven't been much part of the efforts), as long as extraordinarily wealthy individuals and corporations decide to platform these sorts of voices, it appears to be extremely difficult to protest the platforming of them. Activists can work diligently for years and still not take them down or reduce their volume. Beck, for example, was I thought finally largely gone due to a notable activist effort years ago, ..... but no, he is still somehow there, with a big loud megaphone, platformed (it would appear) by Mr. Malone, and company.

Reading one of the stories, it claimed that Dobbs's show, even though it had good ratings, was apparently not well-supported by advertisers (the show did not make money, according to the article) because of the impact of the activists on the advertiser decisions. Yet, Fox still apparently chose to carry the show. So, to me this speaks to not only the difficulty of addressing the damage these voices are doing, but also, arguably, to the power of this type of lawsuit (even if only for the moment).

I don't know - is that the reason? I mean, I haven't heard about any lawsuits of this type even directly against any of those personalities. So, is that because:
a) they simply didn't say anything wrong in this area?
b) Or whatever they did or did not say was borderline enough to make the lawsuit more difficult and so it needs to wait, or perhaps never be brought?
c) somehow the legal teams have overlooked the statements of those personalities?

Someone mentioned not listening to them, and I don't listen to them either, but I have in recent days tried to figure out where some of them stood in general on insurrection, and indeed at least some of them have been awful, as a general theme .... Limbaugh for example. So, the question then is begged whether he or any of the others went with a "stop the steal" type of theme, and if so, did they imply or state the voting machines were a part of the issue.

Other points that seem worth making

• other than the voting machine companies, I wonder who else should sue, if only as a matter of principle.

• As to Limbaugh, I'm wondering if he might have allowed himself a bit more leeway than usual because he is apparently dying.

In any event, I am wondering which folks gave voice to arguably legally actionable artguably defamatory statements, and then from there, if the corporation that platformed them (or just aggregated them) doesn't have enough of a connection, then I suppose this will become apparent.

@kmaz I think we're gonna see a lot of things we haven't seen in the legal system before. Especially as it relates to internet and podcast content.