[jwalsh07]

If you get time, read this case from the ninth circuit. It covers a lot of ground but is informative to this blue collar.

[Torie]

Good case. I just speed read it. Defamation suits won't go far, when it is clear from the context that the asserter really doesn't know anything more about the underlying facts than anybody else in the public square, or those underlying facts are understood, and someone has just gone off the deap end, with nutty conclusions or assertions. Common sense is a gift. Some have it, and some don't. As like one ex poster likes to continually say about himself for reasons best known to himself, I at least in this area have the gift, as do you. :)

I might add, that as a practical matter most of the nuts, or near nutters, and fanactical practitioners of hyperbole, are judgment proof. That little faclet does act even in litigation happy America, as a prophylactic to enriching members of my profession even more.

[mrsmith]

Well that's encouraging.

Here we talk as if we're among friends (or friendly enemies) and I think that is a problem for applying libel/slander laws because our statements are not merely just spoken before a small group but are written " for the whole world to see".

Malice is easily shown- heck it is trumpeted; and people go to great lengths to sound as if they are speaking authoritatively whether they are or not.

I foresee lots of lawyers making bucks before a balance between personal property (reputation) and free speech is found in this new form of communication.