[season_bug]

To dirtboy from season_bug: You must show first to me the "threshhod" handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court which you said was not crossed when you falsely accused the president in public of having a syphilis. You must support your contention first against my warning AC that drastic actions/measures may be taken if that libelous statement is not removed. AC understood it well, and it was removed. I don't think the left-leaning editorial staff has a poor IQ in heeding the warning and complied.

But you bravely claim that the defamation in question does not cross the "threshhold" for libel. What "threshhold"?

If you are just imagining this "threshhold" you are saying, then you will just be wasting my time.

So again, I return you to my previous posting:

To dirtboy from season_bug: Falsely accusing the president in public that he has syphilis is not crossing that threshhold? Do you know that it goes beyond his person and crossed the boundary line down to his family ... his wife, children and grandchildren, that they two were infected of syphilis that the president have. You mentioned "threshhold" not once but twice. What threshhod are you talking about? Show me a Supreme Court declared "threshhold" in defamation jurisprudence that you alone seem to know, and then show me a defamation case launched by an out of control radical offender that the president has a syphilis which you said does not cross that threshhold ... then I will thank you in advance for enriching my legal research and court files.

season_bug

[dirtboy]

Once again, please show a successful libel suit by a sitting president. Second, you have no idea whether AC pulled the article because of your threat of legal action. Third, you have no standing to file a libel suit in behalf of a third party without their consent. And fourth, as a poster noted in NY Times v. Sullivan, there is a higher threshhold for public figures. And fifth, political speech typically has a high level of legal protection.