if you accept and confuse slander as freedom of speech
Posted By: () on 2009-06-18
In Reply to: The 1st Amendment - for your reading
I would not like to socialize with you.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
- Obama - the poster-boy for wimps everywhere
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
It is not slander. It is freedom of speech
Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation.Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:
- A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
- The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
- If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
- Damage to the plaintiff.
A defense recognized in most jurisdictions is "opinion". If the person makes a statement of opinion as opposed to fact, the statement may not support a cause of action for defamation. Whether a statement is viewed as an expression of fact or opinion can depend upon context - that is, whether or not the person making the statement would be perceived by the community as being in a position to know whether or not it is true
Example: A defense similar to opinion is "fair comment on a matter of public interest". If the mayor of a town is involved in a corruption scandal, expressing the opinion that you believe the allegations are true is not likely to support a cause of action for defamation.
Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.
I.E., what the poster stated was freedom of speech, not slander, libel or defamation of character. It is a known fact that O hung around with not-so-nice people until he ran for President. Is that slander? Nope.
The poster was giving an opinion. That is freedom of speech. If it was slander, O would have be having a lot of lawsuits on his hands towards all the people who have ever stated anything against him, which would probably be around 250,000,000....including me...out of 300,000,000 people living in the USA.
freedom of speech excludes and stops at slander and foul language...sm
You are slandering the President of the United States out of ignorance, shame on you!
Where is this written in the Constitution that it is allowed to grossly insult the President?
Even if I disagree with the decisions of the President, I would NEVER slander him.
I am an independent, not a liberal, and I never slandered Bush, although I very much disagreed with him.
Therefore there are presidential elections set every 4 years, when we can elect another President, but we are disrespecting ourselves by slandering the President the majority of the population voted.
And you are calling yourselves
American citizens?
What a hypocrisy.
You are insulting the incumbent President of the United States of America and it is not even PROVEN that he made mistakes up until now. That you disagree with him, does not make it a mistakes from O's side. Or do you want to say that you are better qualified to be the President of the United States?
Can you all look into the future, like Nostradamus?
Freedom of speech, LOL
Freedom of speech? To get up there and state you believe A WHOLE SOCIETY OF PEOPLE, A WHOLE ETHNICITY OF PEOPLE OUGHT TO BE ABORTED? Yet, you people jump all over Cindy Sheehan when she rags on Bush, LOL..You jump all over anti war people when we scream..STOP THIS WAR..But NOW you are stating freedom of speech..LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL..Better to shut up now about Bennett, cause you sure are looking silly..
Ah, yes. Freedom of speech.
I remember it well.
It was a cute joke. In case any of you missed it before it was removed from the board, one of the many places it can be found is http://www.justpetehere.com/2004/11/george_bush_pas.html.
Better do it quickly, though, because this post is sure to be removed as soon as the Cons start whining again.
freedom of speech
Check out the St. Pete Times, Sunday, 11/13/05, The Perspective, article by Robin Blummer. Sorry I don't have the link but it is easy to find. Talk about scary. By the way, I see that there are a number of comments to posts listed on the board but they are not available to see. Is this a new policy...we know people read or responded but we can't see what the response is?
do you or do you not believe in freedom of speech....
and do you or do you not believe in the right of people to have opinions different from those and voice them? Is someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read my posts? You might be more comfortable in Russia where it is the policy of the counry to control thought that does not agree with the party line.
Freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is freedom to all.
When watching TV if there is something I don't like I change the channel. I would suggest you do the same on this board instead of trying to silence those you don't agree with.
Keep on postin sam - you must be hitting home if there are those who want to silence you.
So is freedom of speech.
If the lady wants to talk about religion, so what? It's not like she's gonna get into office and make us all abide by her religion - Pa-leeeze!!!
Freedom of Speech? Think Again.
Hyscience
freedom of speech
Hillary said that Bill always was a hard dog to keep on the porch. So what. At least we weren't embroiled in an unjustified war, we had a SURPLUS in the treasury and the whole country wasn't going to the dogs. I believe in the 1st amendment - she can say whatever she wants. Take some cojones to talk about propriety................look at dubya and turd blossom.
Who's denying her freedom of speech.sm
What you guys want is for her freedom of speech to go unanswered. Since she is an army mom then we should worship her and allow her to dump on us because of our beliefs.
If she wants praise and high-fives she should be posting on the conservative board.
Its called freedom of speech
Hey, neocons, its called freedom of speech..part of our Constitution. Dont like it, dont read the posts, dont come on the liberal board to cause trouble..stay where you are safe on your own board..
Right on...freedom of speech...how dare we have that right
you included, of course.
Called freedom of speech....
both sides here have posted letters and blogs from private citizens. There are a lot of true things in the letter as well. Just to be fair.
Good for you - freedom speech
That's what I say! I'm not wild about Rush, and I can only take so much of Sean, but I do like a lot of conservatives who tell it like it is. Absolutely love Michael Savage (even though he is independent). I will also listen to Alan Colmes, Keith Olberman, and Rachel Maddow. I listen to them all and make my own decisions based on what I hear. I don't go with the party line telling me what I'm supposed to think and how I'm supposed to vote.
It's called Freedom of Speech. sm
and if you don't care what she has to say, then don't waste YOUR time responding. Enjoy your popcorn!!
it is called freedom of speech - nm
nm
The first amendment is freedom of speech. You are the one squelching it. sm
I said I agreed that I was not respecting the rules. YOU are not respecting freedom of speech. Obviously and easy to prove. However, I will from this point forward respect the rules and not post here. Anyway, I am not a conservative. I was just making a point. That has nothing to do with politics. It's too bad you must label everything when someone proves you wrong
thank you for the ringing endorsement for freedom of speech....
yet another reason why I would never vote for a Democrat.
So basically it's a freedom of speech thing?
That's a scary thought! It would be illegal to say you're against people who are pedophiles? Because according to this bill (if this is what it means) they have the same rights as gay people.
So basically it's a freedom of speech thing?
That's a scary thought! It would be illegal to say you're against people who are pedophiles? Because according to this bill (if this is what it means) they have the same rights as gay people.
Political correctness stifles freedom of speech. nm
spoken like a true freedom of speech liberal....NOT.
nm
Bible verses would be freedom of speech - common sense!
xx
True freedom of religion if you are Christian, or freedom to Islam,Buddhist, Hindu, Jew, agnostic, a
all are religious beliefs, and if you are looking for true FREEDOM, all must be tolerated, understood, and welcomed. cannot put parameters on FREEDOM
No need to confuse
...valid criticism with "bashing." I think the conservatives have been a little too sensitive to criticism of any kind over the past five years. Just on observation, they seem to feel that ANY criticism of the President is a personal attack on them and they often respond as if that was the intention all along. How they can support some of the policies coming out of Washington, I have no idea - what is the problem with simply saying "I'm not sure I like this particular policy" or "maybe Bush isn't doing the right thing on this one." But they can't! It seems to be all or nothing - sticking to the priciple of support rather than to the reality of what is going on.
You must confuse me with somebody else because I never
called names.
Mr.TechSupport's language is just inappropriate. I think he should write poems or just stick to dry, technical support.
Why can't he find a middle way?
Either too flowery or too dry!
And he should let go of sarcasm, irony, feeling superior etc......
Now, now...don't confuse them with FACTS.
They don't like facts. 
Now, now...don't confuse them with FACTS.
They don't like facts.
It's much easier to just invent situations to fit their imaginations, kinda like the REAL "Bush Doctrine."
Don't confuse them with reasoning.
You've given REASONS why you're glad Bush is out and Obama is in.
They don't understand REASON and common sense. It's something scary and foreign to them. So they call it cult worship. This very thinking is something that will get Obama killed, and when it does, each of these morons on this board will have blood on their hands.
Nobody can reason with these people. I'm personally tired of visiting this board and being brought down by all the UN-American posts I see.
I'm interested in having a better life. All visiting this board does is show me enormous ignorance concentrated into one little site. There are other sites where people make sense.
This site is starting to become too toxic and hazardous to my health. I'll check back in a month or so, and if no common decency has returned, then there's no point in my coming back here any more.
Don't confuse Ignorance
.
Now, let us not confuse people with facts. LOL.
Not true, the "liberals" confuse Democrats often
Many southerners and midwestern folks feel that Hollywood and both coasts have hijacked the Democrats and thus alienated them. There's a whole country in between that doesn't relate. What is grossly underestimated is the vast majority of us that are not either liberals or conservatives, but just Americans scratching our heads in puzzlement at the limited choices.
When we get our own board, we'll leave ya'll alone on both sides.
You confuse federal and local govt
Each state is supposed to govern themselves, not the federal government. Actually, it is unconstitutional for the federal government to even dictate laws to any state, which is why many states have now declared sovereignty from the federal government; they see the writing on the wall.
Taxes taken in by the states are supposed to be decided upon by the state how to use that money, including schools, law enforcement, etc..... NOT the federal government.
And yes, you would be able to defend yourself from foreign invaders because that is ALL the federal government is supposed to oversee in the first place, a strong military to defend our country against foreign invasion, which is a joke, considering they can't even defend our Mexico/US border!!!
You don't seem to understand that your government was NEVER to dictate to states what they do with their money, even if given money by the federal government; states are supposed to decide themselves how to best use the money..... federal government only says we'll give you the money but YOU have to do with it what we tell you to.
That is BIG brother mentality and it was never to be.......unfortunately, it is now worse than ever!!!
"kill him" speech is not acceptable free speech - it is against the law - nm
x
Actually ANY slander is despicable, also in our
daily life.
and let's NOT forget personal slander
You all have directly slandered MT, and it shouldn't be tolerated in any form.
I'll hand your bog back to you and step aside.
Declawed here, but your sophmoric slander
#
Another rightwing slander group. Is that all you got? nm
x
Another leftwing slander group. Is that all you got?- sm
You have no proof whatsoever to back any of this up.
This is about as good as when they said she banned books from the library and one of those books was Harry Potter. What the leftwing forgot to remember was Harry Potter hadn't even been written yet when they said she banned it.
The leftwingers are in a frenzy to try and trash McCain & Palin because it's not looking to great for Obama and Biden. If Obama and Biden were so great and "everyone" wanted him as president he would be soaring ahead in the polls. But he's not. He's neck and neck and depending on which poll you read he's either ahead or behind by just a few points.
Does your Bible also teach you to lie and slander
You are misinformed about Islam and the Quran and the speech you use here is hateful. The Quran does not teach hate....people teach hate. Got it?
Opine away, but when spreading vicious slander,
nm
Presenting 2 sides to a story is not slander.
Returning insults lobbed in the absence of substance when faced with uncontestable fact is hardly defamatory. Show some respect and engage in the points of debate and you just might get the same in return. If not, response in kind will hardly be basis for removing me from the board. You should know very well by now just how hot things can get around the kitchen tables in Palestine.
because slander is the 1st stage of violence and abuse...sm
the next step is physical abuse, the next is murder.
As it happens so often.
Drew the sophomoric slander straight from you....your own words....
nm
I was talking about the slander that is going on on this board! Wake up, Patty!..nm
nm
Not tolerant of people who mislead and slander, invent fiction and then say it's true.
Okay...I will accept that....
but Cindy McCain did not deal. The laws that McCain wanted tighted up was on dealers...any dealers. As part of that he also called for more government funding of rehabilitation programs for all users (which would affect the lower income people, obviously higher income people can avoid their own rehab). I have no problem with tougher laws on dealers...be they poor, rich, white, black, or polka-dotted. Cindy McCain did not deal...she was a user, addicted to prescription meds. Like a bunch of other Americans...you read about it most every day, especially celebrities. Patrick Kennedy was hooked on prescription drugs. Just like Cindy McCain. Has his father at some point voted for tougher drug laws? I don't know, but I doubt he is opposed to it at the dealer level.
That is why I don't understand all the hooplah about McCain going after people for doing the same thing his wife did. I can't find any documentation that says he did.
That's all I am saying.
okay. I will accept that
site as a valid news organization.
If you want to accept............ sm
a blog over a news source, that is your choice.
accept the aid, Bush
Frankly, Im ashamed of America. We can send as many troops and spend as much money as Bush wants for war, war, war but when it comes to people who through no fault of their own are homeless, displaced, starving, hot, sweaty, thirsty, just about at ropes end..nope, cant help them..or hang on, we will get around to ya, sometime. Any compassionate person would accept aid from other countries, including leftist countries, who we take oil from. Bush, instead of flying over, should be down there walking around..9/11, he is flying in a plane, the people are the targets on the ground and the heros on the ground, Katrina, he is flying in a plane, the people are the targets on the ground and the heros on the ground. When it gets down to it, if the money to shore up the levees was not cut and used for war and Haliburton, the money would have went to New Orleans so they could insure their citizens safety and the continuation of their beautiful town.
|
