If George Jones is still alive but John Smith is purposefully seeking to have George's respirator turned off - and the case is widely reported in the news and all three branches of government have taken action on the issue - then you can post "John Smith is a murdering SOB" on a forum that notes on every page that all posts are opinions of the authors - without fear of losing any defamation claim.
I'd like to add ---
The only things that I fear, are God, my parents' and our forebears' trust that we preserve the liberty that they have sacrificed for us and our children, and that without a thoughtful effort to maintain the foundations of our liberty, we will be compelled by sloppy, self-important, and self-absorbed government officials and their servitude, to settle the matter on the field of battle --- because government is failing to adhere to the limits set forth lawfully by the people.
I'm not worried, but given the obvious malice (fervor) of many posters, and their attempts to sound authoritative whether they are or not I'd like to see the dispute between property (reputation) and free speech on the internet addressed by the courts.
Since actual malice requires more than the mere publication of a falsity...
If I'm reading that correctly, it would seem to me that if a person believes that someone is trying to commit a heinous act, and thus expresses an opinion as to his character, based on that belief, that there would be no malice involved, since "malice" would inherently require that the speaker know that his statements were false.
So, if this is correct, if you believe that Joe Blow is trying to steal your neighbor's car, and you say "Joe Blow is trying to be a car thief", you cannot be acting out of malice, even if Joe Blow is not trying to steal the car.
To be acting out of malice (if I understand this correctly), you would have to know that he is not trying to steal the car, and then make the claim even though you know it's false.
Is my understanding correct?
I actully wrote a letter to the editor to one of our local papers on this subject awhile back and it addressed the thin-skinnes of liberals, progressives and moderates whenever people say anything negative about them, just because it makes them feel uncomfortable, they always go to some judge that they buy off and scream defamation and that judge awards them excessive amount of money in damages.
This clearly makes a case for tort reform and why we need to vote those who are influenced by these ambulance chasers in 2004. Including a certain Senator from Alabama who voted with the ambulance chasers against ending a filibuster on the tort reform vote in the Senate.
Our first amendment like it or not gives people the right to address issues of public importance affecting them. No civil liability judgements or threats thereof or placing liens on homes is going to stop conservatives or christians from addressing issues of public importance or engaging in political activity related to these issues. No conservative or christian is going to allow himself or herself to be pushed into accepting any liability just because his or her speech or political activity causes certain protected individuals disconfort.
Yes some people have been made to feel uncomfortable by people's expressing opinions or engaging in political activity but uncomfortable does not qualify as actionable just because some liberal, progressive or moderate egghead or ambulance chaser or idiot in black robes says so.
There are plenty of places where people have the opportunity to address issues of public importance and engage in political acitivity. No one intenret message board or talkradio station or other soapbox owns exculsivity to this platform.
It all boils down to if you don't like what is being said or being done where you are, go pack your bags and move somplace else. The one thing America doesn't need or want right now is some Political Correct goof ball playing speech and thought police.
Regards.