Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: malakhi
Obviously the Florida courts disagreed with you.

Obviously wrong, the 2DCA stated he was conflicted which is why the order to dehydrate TS to death came from the state. There's no debate here, that is what happened. If you deny it, you slip from spin to something a bit more pejorative.

Please do me the courtesy of not imputing beliefs to me. I think I have a little better idea of what I think than you do.

I'm not imputing anything, I'm taking you at your word. You have made it more than clear that you support the State ordered dehydration of TS, a severely disabled woman. Why deny it?

Slander and libel are torts, whether it comes from you or from someone like Hannity.

And truth is an absolute defense to either. Which is why you are in no position to sue anybody who claims you support the state ordered death by dehydration of severely disabled citizens like TS.

The difference between you and Hannity is that you are tiptoeing around the edges, posting anonymously, to a small audience, and you likely have little in the way of assets to make an action against you worthwhile. Hannity is a whole different ballgame.

I don't post anonymously. I post under my real name. I say what I mean and I stand behind what I say and if you think you can intimidate me into shutting up with your libel and slander bs you better think again pal.

But that doesn't mean that explicitly calling someone else a murderer is not libel. Slander and libel are NOT protected speech, and pointing it out when someone skirts either one is not "squelching debate".

Nobody slandered or libeled anybody, you used in an effort to squelch debate because you had nothing else left. It didn't and won't wok with me. Try somebody else.

Slander and libel laws are fascist? Who knew?

This is simply a strawman false assertion you conjured up because, well, you had nowhere else to go.

I could just as easily say that your throwing around terms like "fascist" is an attempt to "squelch debate".

You could but then you'd be lying.

767 posted on 06/16/2005 10:25:22 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 759 | View Replies ]


To: jwalsh07
Obviously wrong, the 2DCA stated he was conflicted which is why the order to dehydrate TS to death came from the state.

MS himself requested that the court make that decision, no?

You have made it more than clear that you support the State ordered dehydration of TS

The state of Florida does not require a written advance directive. The court ruled, and was upheld at every level, that TERRI'S WISHES were NOT to live under those conditions. Following her wishes in this matter does not constitute "state-ordered death".

Which is why you are in no position to sue anybody who claims you support the state ordered death by dehydration of severely disabled citizens like TS.

You expressed an (erroneous) opinion, not a statement of fact.

I say what I mean and I stand behind what I say and if you think you can intimidate me into shutting up with your libel and slander bs you better think again pal.

Go right ahead. And I'll respond as I choose.

Nobody slandered or libeled anybody, you used in an effort to squelch debate because you had nothing else left.

Wrong again. Don't stop, you're on quite a roll here.

You could but then you'd be lying.

785 posted on 06/16/2005 10:49:13 AM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 767 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson