stuckincincy Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 We have letters from lawyers urging the media to stop broadcasting ads. We have efforts to pressure the book publisher to stop. If lies and slander exist, why doesn't the Kerry campaign or their sycophants go to court and sue for slander and libel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 We have letters from lawyers urging the media to stop broadcasting ads. We have efforts to pressure the book publisher to stop. If lies and slander exist, why doesn't the Kerry campaign or their sycophants go to court and sue for slander and libel? 4949[/snapback] I don't think either side wants to run up their legal costs so early in the election. Better to save their money until mid-November, when they start challenging all the election results in the courts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 SHUDDER. You just KNOW its coming, especially if Bush wins. 4956[/snapback] Wonder what the over/under's going to be for election-related lawsuits in November. Anyone want to take a guess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted August 23, 2004 Author Share Posted August 23, 2004 I don't think either side wants to run up their legal costs so early in the election. Better to save their money until mid-November, when they start challenging all the election results in the courts... 4951[/snapback] I trust this is sarcasm. And shame on you for trying a change-of-subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 I trust this is sarcasm. And shame on you for trying a change-of-subject. 4962[/snapback] Yes, it was sarcasm. However, there was not NEARLY as much sarcasm in it as I would have liked. The Diebold machines, regardless of their technical quailty, could potentially face two legal challenges (security, and lack of a paper trail) in each state. I would not be surprised at all if elements of both parties were already preparing for the post-election legal circus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted August 23, 2004 Author Share Posted August 23, 2004 Yes, it was sarcasm. However, there was not NEARLY as much sarcasm in it as I would have liked. The Diebold machines, regardless of their technical quailty, could potentially face two legal challenges (security, and lack of a paper trail) in each state. I would not be surprised at all if elements of both parties were already preparing for the post-election legal circus. 4968[/snapback] Understood...but have a comment on entering a libel suit by Kerry, DNC, or whomever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Understood...but have a comment on entering a libel suit by Kerry, DNC, or whomever? 4979[/snapback] Probably counterproductive. Just serves to keep the attention focused on the Swift Boat ads and such, while making Kerry and his team look like a bunch of pussies for having to run to the courts over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 A famous Supreme Court libel case, Sullivan v. NY Times answered your question. The Supreme Court noted that "we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." They went on to write that "erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate," and that therefore libel law must accommodate a certain amount of falsehood "if the freedoms of expression are to have the 'breathing space' " that they need to survive. A public official can win a libel lawsuit under the First Amendment only if he can prove that the author acted with "actual malice," where proof of "actual malice" is defined as proof that the statement was made with "knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." That's a REALLY tough standard to meet, which is why few public figures file libel suits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted August 23, 2004 Author Share Posted August 23, 2004 The discovery process would be interesting. Seems to me they would want to demonstrate beyond doubt that Kerry is telling the truth. Gosh, maybe his complete medical and service records would be subpoened. But yes, a settlement of this issue would put focus on Kerry's legislative record. Can't have that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 We have letters from lawyers urging the media to stop broadcasting ads. We have efforts to pressure the book publisher to stop. If lies and slander exist, why doesn't the Kerry campaign or their sycophants go to court and sue for slander and libel? 4949[/snapback] Under US law, you can lie about a "public person". Such lies are not actionable which is why the Enquirer, Fox News and even Michael Moore can say whatever they want. Next moronic question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 And now, Barnes and Nobles is catching hell from both sides because they sold out. Democrats say they are promoting the Bush agenda for selling it, Republicans say they are repressing it as they sold out. You guys...(shakes head) I'm going to go work on my fallout shelter for awhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 And now, Barnes and Nobles is catching hell from both sides because they sold out. Democrats say they are promoting the Bush agenda for selling it, Republicans say they are repressing it as they sold out. You guys...(shakes head) I'm going to go work on my fallout shelter for awhile. 5566[/snapback] In Old Town? Yeah wait until the tide comes in, your bomb shelter will be flooded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 In Old Town? Yeah wait until the tide comes in, your bomb shelter will be flooded. 5578[/snapback] Thanks. another chance to use the doh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Thanks. another chance to use the doh 5594[/snapback] You also had a chance to use this one: :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 You also had a chance to use this one: :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: 5602[/snapback] No, if you have ever been to Alexandria you would understand. During high tides, the town floods. If there is any kind of bad weather forget it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted August 24, 2004 Author Share Posted August 24, 2004 Under US law, you can lie about a "public person". Such lies are not actionable which is why the Enquirer, Fox News and even Michael Moore can say whatever they want. Next moronic question? 5450[/snapback] Under all circumstances? By the way, why use a phrase like "Next moronic question?"? Certainly, If you were to pose a question about my former field, chemistry, I would not finish it with a personal belittlement - in most cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Under all circumstances? By the way, why use a phrase like "Next moronic question?"? Certainly, If you were to pose a question about my former field, chemistry, I would not finish it with a personal belittlement - in most cases. 5703[/snapback] I think most of the time, public figures don't sue because it's not worth the hassle. Carol Burnett once sued the Inquirer, and won. I believe that you would have to prove malice. But I'm not a lawyer, so not sure. However, these tabloids do keep lawyers on staff. So they must serve a purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 By the way, why use a phrase like "Next moronic question?"? Certainly, If you were to pose a question about my former field, chemistry, I would not finish it with a personal belittlement - in most cases. 5703[/snapback] I agree. I think people tend to take their cues from the moderators. You know, if they're calling people idiots and morons, everybody figures well, hell, that must be the coin of the realm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 I agree. I think people tend to take their cues from the moderators. You know, if they're calling people idiots and morons, everybody figures well, hell, that must be the coin of the realm. 5968[/snapback] I'm flattered that you think I wield that kind of power. However, the fact that you DO think I wield that kind of power just further proves what an idiot you actually are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 I'm flattered that you think I wield that kind of power. However, the fact that you DO think I wield that kind of power just further proves what an idiot you actually are. 5972[/snapback] See there you go again. Like I said, as a mod, you should be kinder and genler. You should think of new ways of calling him an idiot but making him feel good about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.