[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.

[Boot Hill]

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

For me, the charge of defamation falls flat for one simple reason -- the ADL charge of anti-Semitism appears to be true! The remarks attributed to the Quigley's were clearly anti-Semitic. The issue of invasion of privacy is a side issue to deciding whether a defamation occurred or not.

--Boot Hill