Posted on 01/22/2020 6:13:04 AM PST by yesthatjallen
“There is a much higher legal threshhold for slander and libel with public figures, as it should be.”
Agreed, there is a higher standard, but you cannot make stuff up, like HRC did about Tulsi with impunity.
That being said many public figures do not sue because it is just not worth it.
Tulsi is still hanging in while others have dropped out for lack of money. Filing a lawsuit, particularly one against Hillary Clinton, is an expensive proposition. Whose pocketbook is funding Tulsi Gabbard.
In today’s world, the key to understanding a politician is knowing who owns the politician.
You go girl!!! Oh wait, she’ll be found expired on a park bench!
LOL! One of the few things Hitlary would be right about!
Tulsi did not kill herself!
Just thought that needed to be put out there.
I wish her great success in this but I also don’t trust her anymore than Hitlary.
Bingo! These kinds of suits need to be brought more frequently, until such time as NYT v Sullivan is overturned or limited. The Rats are out of control and need to be reigned in. Simply being a public figure should not be carte blanche to outright lies that DO damage the claimant.
I was going to post the same thing.
Wish Trump would sue but I am assuming he can’t because he is POTUS? The amount of slander,libel, defamation that guy gets on a daily basis is unreal.
What made the multiple felon who is above the law go after Tulsi in the first place? Did Tulsi fail to kiss the ring?
Antonin Scalia pointed out that the (unanimous) Warren Court holding in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan that". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”is bogus.Justice Scalia pointed out that there was no bill of rights in the unamended Constitution because the Ninth and Tenth Amendments
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.andThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.were implicit in that document. And also because the rights of the people were nowhere comprehensively enumerated (courts are after all still sorting that out 2&frac2; centuries later) and to assay to do so in a noncontroversial way would have been a fool’s errand.Scalia added that the first eight amendments enumerate only those rights which historically had been abused by tyrants.
Scalia’s point was that freedom of speech and of the press already existed before the ratification of the First Amendment - and so did limitations such as laws against pornography. And, crucially, the wording of the First Amendment was crafted not to modify those limitations. That is what “the freedom of speech, or of the press” meant to the people who ratified the First Amendment. And nobody thought that the First Amendment modified libel law, from the Eighteenth Century all the way to the 1964 diktat of the Warren Court in Sullivan.
Sullivan blatantly violates the Ninth Amendment. Mr. Sullivan himself was not a Republican but a “Democrat.” The scare quotes signify that no present-day Democrat would associate with him, because he was a racist southern Democrat. But that nomenclature confusion aside, the reality is that Sullivan only affects conservatives - “liberals” don’t get libeled, for the simple reason that nobody whom the press is inclined to libel would ever be called “liberal” by the journalism cartel.
Kabuki
Thursday, it figures.
I could never get the hang of Thursdays.
In the simplest: ordinarily defamation requires a showing that the person who uttered a false statement about another person due, at Least, to negligence as to whether it is true or not. In New York Times v Sullivan SCOTUS set a new standard, as applied to public figures, that the statement must be made maliciously, with knowledge that it is false, or reckless disregard as to whether it’s true or not. There’s no proper basis for such a standard and essentially allows just about anything to be said about a public figure
People are already tweeting #TulsiDidntKillHerself.
Correct. Carol Burnett is one of the few celebrities to prevail when she sued the National Enquirer. But the odds of a public figure winning such a suit are maybe 1 in 1000. You have to prove the claim is demonstrably false, that the accused knew it to be demonstrably false and recklessly asserted it any way (in some cases, with intent to harm) and the odds of doing so in court are astonishingly high plus most regular people don't have the money for a drawn-out trial at which discovery may prove more damaging to their careers than the accused.
Either way its defamatory and Gabbard should be applauded for taking that evil bitch to court.
You go girl. Sue the pantsuit off her.
—
Just no pictures, please.
“Hope she sues her pant suits off.”
Hopefully, we will all get advance warning.
“Unfortunately, her lawsuit is stupid.”
Doesn’t matter. The lawsuit is a smear in return and may actually cause the witch some trouble.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.