Posted on 08/21/2009 10:39:30 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg
On one hand, I agree that this appears to be an assault on privacy. On the other hand, I think that if you’re not willing to say something to a person’s face, maybe you should just shut up (not you, but in general).
A big problem with the Internet is a lack of civility that we normally observe in f-2-f interpersonal relations. Anonymity allows that better than anything else.
Tough to get a conviction based on definition of skank IMO.
Definitions of skank on the Web:
* filth: any substance considered disgustingly foul or unpleasant
* dance the skank
* a rhythmic dance to reggae music performed by bending forward and extending the hands while bending the knees
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Nope.
At least not according to present law. They're Public Figures. That was the USSC ruling in Fallwell v. Flint.
Not that i agree, i do remember something about equal protection under the law once upon a time. Guess it only applies to select individuals.
I just meant considering the deeds in their lives, it’d be hard to say anything malicious that would actually impune their character. There isn’t much lower that they could go.
Have to tell you that the fact that the two individuals you named are ELECTED to national political office scares the hell out of me.
Why is it that regardless of party, the American Electorate continues to reelect career politicians to represent us, when they would NOT trust the same individuals to babysit their children?
Truly frightening.
I don’t have any problems with this ruling. Either the statement is true, in which case the writer has an absolute defense, or it’s false, in which case it is libel per se.
The first thing the defense would need to do is to set up a video deposition of the lady in question. Her past, if any, is going to be an open book. Either she’s going to turn out to be as pure as the driven snow, or she’s looking for publicity - any publicity.
Not totally accurate - you could defame them, but for public figures the falsehood that constitutes the defamation must be either made maliciously or with reckless disregard for the truth. For nonpublic figures, the malicious/reckless disregard standard does not apply. So it’s a higher burden of proof if you’re a public figure.
Laz, you must have the hairiest palms on God’s Green Earth.
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. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.