UCANSEE2 wrote: “But, others have just as much of a right to sue the hell out of you for what you say, if it is slanderous or libelous.”
Agree. I did not know Fred Phelps’ church was being libelous or slanderous. However, someone recently posted the signs also attacked our troops as baby killers. I can see how this could be considered slander, but all it takes is proof that one of our bombs killed one baby and Fred wins. As I understand it, libel and slander are typically very difficult to prove.
Again, let me stress I don’t like Fred Phelps or his so-called “church.” I’m taking a lot of hits here simply for discussing the legal ramifications. Emotionally, I’d love to hammer the guy, but that’s got absolutely nothing to do with the legality of the case.
“As I understand it, libel and slander are typically very difficult to prove.”
Not Defamation or Libel per se:
“All states except Arizona, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee recognize that some categories of statements are considered to be defamatory per se, such that people making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove that the statement was defamatory. In the common law tradition, damages for such statements are presumed and do not have to be proven. Traditionally, these per se defamatory statements include:
Allegations or imputations “injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession”
Allegations or imputations “of loathsome disease” (historically leprosy and sexually transmitted disease, now also including mental illness)
Allegations or imputations of “unchastity” (usually only in unmarried people and sometimes only in women)
Allegations or imputations of criminal activity (sometimes only crimes of moral turpitude)”
And:
“libel per se, means “by itself” or “on the face of it.” The reader or viewer does not have to interpret or study in order to understand the libel per se because it is obvious or evident. Libel per se is the more serious of the two types, and persons libeled in this manner do not have to prove that they suffered damage to their reputations, monetary loss or other injury. Libel per se can support a lawsuit in itself.”
Then you have:
“libel per quod, means “because of circumstance” or “by means of circumstance.” In libel per quod, the statements, words or phrases involved maybe harmless in themselves, but become libelous because of attached circumstances.”