Slog tipper David brought this Techdirt story to us: Seems Ron Paul's campaign filed a lawsuit to discover the identities of some anonymous internet users who made an anti-Huntsman video. (The video was suspected by Paul supporters to be an attempt to sabotage the good name of Paul.)

...a judge has rejected Paul's attempt to unmask the videomakers on the narrow grounds that he failed to state a legitimate claim, since the video was not commercial in nature (necessary for a trademark violation). The judge did not go so far as to get into the First Amendment issues, but made clear that if Paul comes back with an amended suit with an actual claim, then the First Amendment considerations will be covered...There are a number of especially troubling items in terms of how Paul and his camp went about this. First, just trying to unmask anonymous internet speech seems extremely problematic. Second, however, is the way in which he tried to twist trademark law to do so.

I guess anonymously produced internet videos aren't in the Constitution, so it's okay for Ron Paul to go after these folks, then? The Founding Fathers would never post anything anonymously, after all. Ron Paul fans on the Techdirt post are busy making up excuses for their man, or just ignoring the main points of the article entirely:

Ron Paul is definitely not like other politicians. Ron Pauls message is the same as it has always been. The things he's saying now, he also said in 2008 and 1988. Ron Paul is not a politician, he's a doctor who was elected to Congress. Mr. Libertarian himself, Murray Rothbard (RIP), was a close friend of Ron Paul and he endorsed his campaign in 1988. Ron Paul is nothing like other politicians. Ron Paul has never sold out to the establishment and it is very unlikely that he will do so in the future.

This 'ruling', just like this judge is laughable. Not that Paul provides the legal basis for any lawsuits that might be filed - his legal department does that. The fact that it was twisted, just an anything Paul-related reported by the media is twisted, is just more of the same. The Man is doing his best to prevent your from realizing his foot is on your neck. But that's OK - we at least have the satisfaction of knowing if you win your reward will be your continued enslavement.

One small misstep isn't enough to get me to change my opinion of him. My worldview remains firmly intact. Now, if he were to come out in support of invading Iran like the rest of the warmongering chicken-hawks the GOP has put up so far, I'd be gone in a split second.

If the desire for the truth is a sin, Paul is guilty. His campaign was maligned by Huntsman and he wanted to clear his name. If this kind of article is all you have to sling dirt at Paul, It makes me that much happier to be supporting Paul.