[Boot Hill]

"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."

The highlighted portions imply no such thing. What I've been saying (not implying) from the start is that, in my opinion, the Quigley's should not have prevailed in their defamation suit against the ADL. From everything I've read here, the comments by the Quigley's were indeed anti-Semitic.

--Boot Hill

[Bonaparte]

How do you feel about unreasonable search and seizure, BH?

Do you believe that practice should be made legal?

How about peeping toms, BH?

Do you think it's alright to peer into a couple's bedroom window at night?

Don't you wonder what other matters the Quigleys were privately discussing during these illegally intercepted conversations?

How would you feel about your neighbor wiretapping or bugging you and then revealing the substance of your private conversations in press conferences?

Would that be ok with you?

[American_Centurion]

I think they were defamed, because everyone has a reasonable right to private conversation.

Beliefs expressed in privacy, not publicly, may indeed be two-faced (hence why I wouldn't go to dinner with them) but are still private. Making public beliefs that have not been expressed or acted upon publicly is defamation.

This would be no different than outing a homosexual who wanted his/her sexual proclivities to remain private. To publicly expose their practices without consent is defamation when it has a negative effect on their public stature.

Being viewed as anti-semitic has even more of a negative effect on public stature than being homosexual does, hence defamation.