[Boot Hill]

American_Centurion:   "I say so what if they are [anti-Semitic]. Being anti-semitic isn't grounds to bring charges or sue someone anymore than wearing pink shirts is."

And if I were arguing such, you might have a point. But since I haven't argued that, your point is irrelevant to what I've been posting regarding the reasonableness of the charge of defamation by the Quigley's against the ADL.

--Boot Hill

[American_Centurion]

You claimed that the Quigleys "skated on a technicality". That implies that you believe that they should have been publicly proclaimed anti-semitic, and sued and maybe charged with a hate crime.

I have read later posts where you explained "hate crime laws suck", so I understand that you weren't implying they should have been charged. Still that doesn't reconcile your anti-freedom statement that "the Quigleys are anti-semitic and skated on a technicality".

They can say any darn thing they want in private (phone conversations have a reasonable expectation of privacy) and there isn't a think anyone can do about it.

IMO the taping of the conversations doesn't bother me one way or the other (regarding the timing of the law), even if the tapes were admissible the Quigleys didn't do anything that makes them civilly or criminally liable.

[VaGunGuy]

Somehow I can't help but think that ADL's attorneys made similar arguments before the court, with an end result that they received massive judicial smackies.