Deck of Weasles, (only missing clinton.)

Newsmax.com ^

[oreolady]

Am html challenged, so will post link, this is funny.

[Only1choice____Freedom]

>>"This is called satire, and it is a protected form of free speech. The celibrities (as public figures) are acceptable targets of this type of satire."


That's not their defination of Free Speech.

They may sue anyway. Or at least try to get the web site off the Internet.

[ex-Texan]

I am aware of that possibility too but did not want to give ammunition to the other side.

[Dr._Joseph_Warren]

Don't forget Billy boy!

[Dr._Joseph_Warren]

And then there are the three blind dikes.

Before the face lift.................................After the face lift................................... After the face fall!!

[Dahoser]

Go see the deck of weasles, has the anti-war villains, except they left out the worst, clinton.

Actually, his card is in there, but it's stuck together with Barbra Streisand's card.

[Paul Ross]

Who is Chrissie Hynes???! I never heard of her...

[No Truce With Kings]

"It looks 'pretty coool' but there may be fallout to deal with because they are calling Americans 'weasels' because they exercized their Constitutional right of free political speech."

Exactly what law are the manufacturers of this deck breaking by calling someone a weasel? Or do you buy into the left's argument that First Amendment rights belong only to those on the left that blame America first?

Sorry, the First Amendment protects *my* right to call these people weasels, just as it protects their right to make weasely statements about the United States.

[Paul Ross]

While a law suit is always possible to the excessively litigous, the defenses in this case would be slam dunk. Under New York Times v. Sullivan, these cards are all legitimate uses. The individuals are public figures and have made themselves so expressly on the war issue. This would defeat a claim of misappropriation of personnae. Parody would be an almost complete defense in its own right. And in this particular case, not even necessary, as indeed, as noted by others, the defense of truth would defeat any assertion of defamation. And I think NewsMax has a deep enough pocketed backer to take on the deck of weasels. So I guess I wouldn't worry too much.

[NoCalEyes]

BUMP

[ex-Texan]

You are correct about NYT v. Sullivan in that a plaintiff must prove 'reckless disregard' for the truth or falsity of the defamatory allegation.

I had in mind another type of case based on other less obvious allegations. 'Nuff said. Very creative lawyering nearly always finds a way. Once got a settlement from a State Bar after I sued them for defamation of a non-lawyer client who was accused of practising law without a license.

Know all about the law of defamation and related torts.

[Paul Ross]

And where's Scott Ritter??!

[Paul Ross]

And where's Scott Ritter??!

[bmwcyle]

Don't forget drunk and wife beater.

[Publius6961]

BUMP

[Angelwood]

This is such a great cartoon -- and it ties into the column today in the Washington Times written by Wesley Pruden. His last paragraph says:

Twenty-seven of the 42 men who have been president have worn their country's colors, and all but one of the 11 presidents since World War II have worn the khaki. We must excuse the lone exception, since his pants were usually around his ankles and nobody could see what color they were.

Oh how Bill Clinton must love his legacy: BILL CLINTON - WE HAVE YOU SURROUNDED - DROP THE CIGAR - STEP AWAY FROM THE INTERN - AND COME OUT - WITH YOUR PANTS - UP!

[k2blader]

Classic.

[bmwcyle]

How did we survive those eight years?

[taildragger]

Oreo,

Newsmax should sell these and send the proceeds to educate the children of our fallen service men and women in Iraq.

That would be a win win. Educate the kids and drive the liberals on the cards nuts.

[SerpentDove]