[exmarine]

Making a false statment about another person is wrong. However, assessing a person's actions in light of absolute moral principles is absolutely essential for a Christian, and I will do this till the day I die. If someone commits an evil act, I will scream it from the rooftops. However, I have every right to state that an act is a crime even if that person has not been charged with a crime, if absolute moral principles so dictate.

Let me ask you a question: The Nazi doctors in WW II said that "they were just following orders" when they put to death all of the disabled, mentally ill and retarded and homosexuals, etc. etc. The doctor who surgically removed the feeding tube - is he also just following orders? What is the moral difference between the Nazi doctors and the doctor who removed the feeding tube? If there is a difference, what is it? This is a moral question as is the attempted starvation/dehydration death of Terri Shiavo.

I am not a lawyer, but I know that public domain is applicable to copyright law.

[lugsoul]

First. My statement that repeated publication of a false statement can be defamation is exactly correct. You can call it BS all you want, but don't rely on that for your defense, cause it ain't one.

Second, if it is evil, you should follow your own advice and call it that. For example, stating that a judge took a bribe when you have zero knowledge that it has occurred would obviously be "bearing false witness," would it not?

Third, as far as your moral comparison goes, I have an easy time distinguishing between a doctor who kills a person and a doctor who stops trying to save a person. If there were no such difference, we'd have a CPR marathon going on all over the country with no end in sight.