It is public political discourse of an essential nature to the functioning of a democratic republic, regarding the character of a candidate and his eligibility for office, without which such type of discussion, inquiry and consideration voters would be not prepared and informed. So that even if it should by occasioned idle or rude movement move into slander or libel, by the first amendment we would still be protected.
It’s funny how people will wrap false, defamatory speculations around the 1st amendment when challenged, rather than defend the claims themselves. The claim that Barack was born anywhere but Honolulu is a bizarre and false claim with no basis in fact.
“Speculation can be slander, still Stanley is dead”
One good reason to be circumspect in making accusations against her. Do not speak ill of the dead, as they say. she is not running for office and cannot defend herself against wild claims. This makes the calims against her doubly troubling. Would you like it if we decided to call your grandfather a theif and murderer just to fit a pet theory of ours.
“this particular line of speculation is not slander at all.” Circular logic.
“It is public political discourse of an essential nature to the functioning of a democratic republic, regarding the character of a candidate and his eligibility for office,”
Why not go for broke: Speculate Barack Obama is the love child of Sidney Poitier and Marilyn Monroe, and there’s a big conspiracy to hide this. Then go around saying it is absolutely essential that we stop discussing issues, ideology and Barack’s character, and instead delve into the various theories of the Sidney-Marilyn love child. And anyone questioning the sanity of this pursuit-of-the-absurd is an enemy of democratic debate.
Feh.
“without which such type of discussion, inquiry and consideration voters would be not prepared and informed.”
This is not inquiry, it is wild and baseless speculation. Voters are better informed when not misinformed by phony conspiracy theories that have no basis in fact.
“So that even if it should by occasioned idle or rude movement move into slander or libel, by the first amendment we would still be protected. “
Constitutionally-protected stupid is as stupid does. Just because you have the right to say something, doesnt make it any less irresponsible.
The “we dont need evidence to make accusations” line of thinking stunk when Tom Foley tried it on Republicans for his trumped up Iran-Contra fishing expedition, and it stinks now. Its a wild-ass goose-chase. Put up (a scrap of evidence) or shut up, is a far better and more logical approach.