[longtermmemmory]

Rather can't back down. Deception does not have first amendment protection. The producer of the forgeries will not be protected. Under any standard of law, a lie does not get first amendment protection.

[Robert357]

Under any standard of law, a lie does not get first amendment protection.

I'll bet you also feel that a President that lies under oath should be impeached.........

While I agree with you and feel that people and public figures need to act ethically, most of the Democrat I know don't see things that way. They are far more concerned with empathy than with ethics.

This is a culture war and we need to understand that the other side just doesn't care about truth, they only care about winning and gaining power.

[Jeff Chandler]

>>Under any standard of law, a lie does not get first amendment protection.<<

There is a standard under which lies are protected. That is the Standard of Immunity for Democrats.

[N. Beaujon]

Rather can't back down. Deception does not have first amendment protection. The producer of the forgeries will not be protected. Under any standard of law, a lie does not get first amendment protection.

Oh yes they do. They pretty much have virtual cover. Read Anderson vs. Liberty Lobby, re-read NY Times vs. Sullivan. There's no way they'd be liable no matter how deceptive they were, no matter how much their producers or Rather might have known. There are just too many loopholes. I have seen only one case in which they (almost, barely) lost and it is not on point for these set of facts.

I'm telling you the media is out of control and these AWFUL decisions are why.

[N. Beaujon]

The producer of the forgeries will not be protected. Under any standard of law, a lie does not get first amendment protection.

The producer of the forgeries, correct, do not have 1st Am. protection but CBS will never give up thier sources and the only parties who have standing are not going to sue.

Look at it this way, those who have standing to sue:

The FCC
The Killian Family
George W. Bush

That's about it. The Killians can bring a civil suit for defamation, slander but you cant slander the dead and it's a non starter anyway. They can go for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress but intentional wont make it and negligent, you have to show damages. Real damages. (Severe emotional distress, hospitalizations, damage to repuation, business loss, that sort of thing.) The fact that the family had a public forum to refute the charges might mitigate against any damages.

The Bushes are out, they are public figures and DONT want to open that can of worms.

The FCC would look partisan (especially after using Nipplegate to DISTRACT ATTENTION AWAY FROM IRAQ. lol. sorry, had to get that in.)

CBS could sue but that would mean they were taken for fools. How likely is that? None. No way. Not happening. So, who's going to sue? Me, you? I wish the law afforded us such protection against the Dan Rathers of the world but it don't.