To: Blood of Tyrants
Libel isn't protected by the First Amendment. Is that what Kerry's Lawyers are alleging? I just think it's unprecedented for a political candidate to threaten legal action to suppress an ad.
It's probably bad tactics, since it only draws attention to the ad. I doubt they could ever prove libel, since the ads would have to be clearly untrue. Kerry will get a ton of free defense from the mainstream media, regardless. There will be hit pieces attacking the "Republican Attack Machine" and "debunking" allegations in the ad, all gratis.
To: Lonesome in Massachussets
Exactly. Its very difficult for a public figure to demonstrate libel or slander. There's a very high bar for it. Ariel Sharon had a case against Time Magazine back in the mid-80s for dishonest reporting over Sabra and Chatilla and even the jury didn't grant him monetary damages. The Kerry/Edwards campaign has to prove what is about their Golden Boy is reckless and in deliberate disregard of the truth. If its really libel, they SHOULD sue. On the other hand, if even an iota of the charges have some factual basis, they would have been better off ignoring the whole thing...
298 posted on
08/05/2004 12:56:25 PM PDT by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: Lonesome in Massachussets
What other type of "warning" would they have?
309 posted on
08/05/2004 12:59:00 PM PDT by
Blood of Tyrants
(Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn't be, in its eyes, a slave.)
To: Lonesome in Massachussets
P.S. As another Frepers surmised, it is also a way to give cover to liberal station managers a reason for denying their request to buy ad time.
316 posted on
08/05/2004 1:00:08 PM PDT by
Blood of Tyrants
(Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn't be, in its eyes, a slave.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson