Replies

To dirtboy: Yours: Once again, please show a successful libel suit by a sitting president. Mine: No way if you cannot show a "threshold" you said you have in a Supreme Court decision where a president of the United States was defamed in a case but was dismissed because it was found as you said that it did not go beyond the "threshold" you are talking about. You must listen carefully to what you are reading in this conversation. Don't continue anymore if you do not understand what you need to show to me to back up your claim. You are wasting my time.

Yours: Second, you have no idea whether AC pulled the article because of your threat of legal action.

Mine: I know ... do you? I sent them an ultimatum, and you read a caption of it. They backed out! How about you, did you know why they backed out after receiving a "warning"? If you think you know better than I do why the libelous lines were removed after they received a warning, show me. They "truncated" the article to escape a libel suit. You didn't read it well first before you made your original tall claim against what I have written and read by millions of readers.

Yours: If Third, you have no standing to file a libel suit in behalf of a third party without their consent. Mine: Wrong. You don't understand what you are against. Read the background one more time. You might know better and understand before you make this comment. And just to call attention to your rush judgment ... how did you know that "consent" was not given?

Yours: 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. Mine: Did you know what the case NY Times v. Sullivan is all about? Ouch ...! Never mind. Just go back to the "threshold" that you claim you have which I have just described for you in the first paragraph so that you can understand it well and then show it to me. Then read again the dicta of the Sullivan case and tell me if there is even a shade of comparison with the "threshold" above-described that you are supposed to show to me, otherwise this legalistic discussion you brought up is just becoming more and more pretentious and itis wasting my time.

season_bug P.S. The spelling of "threshold" has just been corrected accordingly. Now show it to me as above-described.

No way if you cannot show a "threshold" you said you have in a Supreme Court decision where a president of the United States was defamed in a case but was dismissed because it was found as you said that it did not go beyond the "threshold" you are talking about.

Please show where a president, during your career, even filed a libel suit.

Mine: Wrong. You don't understand what you are against.

I'm up against a legend in his own mind. THAT is clear.

Read the background one more time.

Instead of claiming, why don't you show precedent where you can have standing to file a libel suit on behalf of a third party without their consent. You keep asking me to prove negatives. You need to prove a positive.

Mine: I know ... do you? I sent them an ultimatum, and you read a caption of it. They backed out!

You have no idea if your 'ultimatum' caused it. Once again, since you have a 35 year legal career, I'm sure you can cite legal precedent for filing a libel suit for someone without their consent. Until you can do that, you are just blowing smoke out your arse.