Traditional First Amendment jurisprudence is that you can say some awfully outrageous things and still walk with impunity. The reverse side of this doubtless helps such outfits as FR itself. But still, there’s a point when you got to wonder if it’s more than dedication to an abstract philosophy, if there’s blind malice and hate going on. The same kind of thing that liberals are quick to slime folks like Rush Limbaugh for, sometimes only on hearsay. Except for liberals it’s true.
[[Traditional First Amendment jurisprudence is that you can say some awfully outrageous things and still walk with impunity]]
But you can’t falsely ruin someone’s reputation to the point that they suffer financial damage, nor can you say false thigns that lead to fears for safety by the individual-
[[But still, there’s a point when you got to wonder if it’s more than dedication to an abstract philosophy, if there’s blind malice and hate going on.]]
I don’t wodner at all- I see it seethign just beneath the surfaces of all those racists that railroaded george right from day one- there was NO objective reporting on this case- there was however a blatant attempt to cover up the FACTS to make it look like soemthign it was not in the hopes that it woudl hurt an innocent man- and that’s exactly what happened, and that is racist- When you wish for harm, and plot harm agaisnt a person simply because he is one color or anather- I’d say that that is pretty clear racism and intent to harm- hopefulyl his lawyer can make the case that the reporting waqs meant to harm george in such aq way that it woudl incite people to harm him or murder him- the evidence is pretty clear that that is exactly what happened when the NBP’ers stepped in and issued a death warrent agaisnt him- The reportign was doen with extreme prejudice and malice
Somewhere between proven malice and "reckless disregard of the truth" creates a semi-truck sized target on the NBC peacock's butt, if I recall the guidelines on suits like this. It wasn't even reckless. It was selective and intentional, in order to make him sound like a bigot. I think they have a problem.
I will once again point out that when the First Amendment was written dueling was legal.
That provided a strong check on lying as some misty morn you could find yourself being legally shot at by the person you smeared.
The First Amendment just means that you can not be arrested and put in jail for saying stuff. Your fellow citizen on the other hand could demand satisfaction.