No, you were careful to tiptoe around the issue without being explicit.
But speaking of doubt, there is little doubt in my mind that you support state ordered killings by unusual methods of the severely disabled. Perhaps you have the balls to claim that is libelous and take me to court?
You are flat-out wrong, but I won't take you to court for expressing your (uninformed and erroneous) opinion.
Right, the first amendment doesn't apply to those you disagree with.
Slander and libel are not protected speech.
I tiptoed around nothing. there is no evidence to assert that MS haarmed his widfe. There is plenty of evidence that he was conflcited and should have been removed as guardian to be replaced by next of kin, not the state.
You are flat-out wrong, but I won't take you to court for expressing your (uninformed and erroneous) opinion.
The opinion is informed and the truth. I simply described the TS case where the state ordered a severely disabled woman death by an unusual method, starvation and dehydration. You support it, the shoe fits perfectly and the evidence is rife throughout these threads.
Slander and libel are not protected speech.
The invoking of slander and libel on these threads by people who do not understand that they are terms in law that have specific meaning is simply an effort to squelch debate. Kind of a fascist thing.