[dead]

Wrongo. Reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity gets you there too.

There is enough evidence in print (true or false) to lead one to speculate reasonably in the case of Michael Shiavo. It is not the job of any free citizen to independently check out every story they read in print.

You can no more be sued for calling Schiavo a murderer than you can be sued for calling Clinton a rapist.

[Bikers4Bush]

And he's definately a rapist.

[dirtboy]

You can no more be sued for calling Schiavo a murderer than you can be sued for calling Clinton a rapist.

Part of it would depend upon whether Shiavo can be deemed to have become a public figure yet by the court.

[connectthedots]

You can no more be sued for calling Schiavo a murderer than you can be sued for calling Clinton a rapist.

I would disagree. On the other hand, if someone were to call Schiavo a murderer it would likely be a defense that because the story has gained such notoriety most people would know that he didn't actually 'murder' his wife and the such language would be rhetorical in nature. This would be much like calling an abortionist a murderer. In addition, political speach enjoys the broadest of protections outside of the legislative or judicial process and comments related to the Schaivo case could readily be construed a plitical in nature.