Scroll down to the bottom of the page and read the statement again. Nevermind, I'll post it.
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......blah, blah blah.
Granted, that statement doesn't give posters blanket immunity from libel lawsuits, but it is worded a tad stronger than the fragmented excerpt you quoted and could possibly resonate well with a jury basically sympathetic to free speech.
Schiavo might possibly be sufficiently vindictive to file a couple of harrassing lawsuits against the most vituperative FReepers if he can find a law firm willing to risk representing him on a contingency basis in such a long shot suit, but I seriously doubt anyone is in peril of losing a home or livilihood over this minor tempest in an internet teapot.
I predict with a fair amount of confidence that common sense will prevail on both sides of the controversy, and if not, on the part of the courts. This is after all only an internet political forum, and these sites are well known for almost comical outburts of temporary emotional excess which are only taken seriously by those unfamiliar with the genre. It's not like someone bought a quarter page in the NY Times to make unfounded accusations. As for my opinion of my own vulnerability to litigation, I can only say I expect to sleep the unworried sleep of a guileless infant tonight.
That is exactly what the ACLU does. Now, I saw a lot of freepers wanting to sue the town council that labeled FR a hate site. IN FACT, they are being sued. Now, if you take that and put the Terrie threads and some of the comments made on them in the context of that suit, how would the lawyers for the city council use those comments in their defense?
I might be more concerned, if at all, with that "Spiritual Suing" [deleted] of an attorney of his. Or, since he has authored a published book, is he now fair game to be considered a public figure?