In this last posting of yours, you sound more like a disillusioned former conservative than a modern liberal democrat. But before you quarrel with me, let me just share a lil luv with my conservative and liberal friends (that’s assuming a lot) at this site.
Last night I kidded Obama — good naturedly, I hope — about throwing like a “sissy,” and I said my daughter could throw better at 12. Well, tonight, after not having thrown a football with her in several years, Mary and I went to the park. She blew me away with 30-yard, tight spirals. I’ve been waiting for this my whole life. And she ate up my longest passes. An unrivaled joy. I’m telling everyone I know.
Good God, ya’ll. Is it too much to ask to have a Pres who can just rare back and fire one? What’s gonna happen when football season comes? No “Missiles of October,” I guess. I swear to the Infant Jesus of Prague, my daughter could throw better when she was 12.
Hamlet tells Rosencrantz and Guildenstern that since they’re in Denmark, they’re in prison. They say, “Prison? Not to us.” Then, in the relativist’s favorite line, Hamlet says: “Why then ’tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or
bad, but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison.”
That’s just a short putt away from this: “Personal experiences affect the facts that judges CHOOSE to see.” And this: “Our gender and national origins may AND WILL will make a difference in our judging.” This was Judge Sotomayor, in her “wise Latina” lecture, aka, “RAISING THE BAR: LATINO AND LATINA PRESENCE IN THE JUDICIARY AND THE STRUGGLE FOR REPRESENTATION.”
It’s amusing that CNN’s Laura Gomez feels the need to instruct us on the meaning of what Judge Sotomayor said, which was this:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Plain enough. And presumably, pre-meditated. Sotomayor’s words are from her lecture titled, “RAISING THE BAR: LATINO AND LATINA PRESENCE IN THE JUDICIARY AND THE STRUGGLE FOR REPRESENTATION,” which can be found in “La Raza Law Journal.” The very title of her lecture is revealing: She apparently believes that the federal judiciary is the proper place for a “strugggle” for “representation.” Legislatures are that. But the federal judiciary? Coming from a would-be Supreme Court Justice, this is more than a little alarming.
And I haven’t yet touched on her “wise Latina” remark.
Alan points out that in Justice Alito’s confirmation hearings, he sought to ingratiate himself by pointing to his Italian heritage, and confiding that this made him stop and think twice on immigration cases. “When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.” Mild as this is, it’s still ethnic pandering. It’s totally superfluous to think of your Italian (or Puerto Rican) heritage when you think of yourself first as an American judge, with the law of the American people in your hands.
And since no white man can EVER have the experience of a Latina — wise or dim — Judge Sotomayor’s statement that a wise Latina “would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male” is an irredeemably dumb thing to say. Why should we not think that she really thinks this way? And why should we entrust a Supreme Court seat to someone so lacking in tact — tact being a form of wisdom — that she needs someone from CNN to interpret her to us? She’ll get the seat, of course, and in time, we’ll become better instructed in race-based law-making from the bench. We’ll have gotten what we deserve. Don’t believe it? Read Ricci v. Town of New Haven.
Although I disagree with your notion that LYING about having committed adultery is worse than ADULTERY ITSELF, I will concede that lying UNDER OATH about adultery in order to deny a woman her rights in a suit against you is seriously wrong. In fact, it’s criminal.
I agree with EricG that “ANY person who sells themselves to the public as a ‘holy’ person” is foolishly on thin ice. Not the same, though, as to those who campaign for “family values.” The fact that we sin doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t advocate right action, does it? If it did, then no one would have standing to advocate right action.
Relatively few conservatives think the way she does.
BTW, if you want to have some fun with people who think the world is only 6,000 years old, ask them to explain how some visible stars are more than 10,000 light years away. You’ll be amazed at what you hear, if they even understand the question.
But be fair. Such caricatures are almost — not quite, but almost — as bad as citing Charlie Manson as a good example of a liberal.
I can’t comment intelligently on whether the Honduran constitution forbad Zelaya’s doing what the Supreme Court said is forbidden. But it’s a good bet that any Supreme Court has the right to declare it “contempt” when someone directly disobeys its rulings. And contempt of a Supreme Court seems to be an arrestable offense. Zelaya should have followed the law and argued about it in court. To say otherwise is to say that a Supreme Court’s orders are not enforceable. ALL laws worthy of the name “law” are ultimately enforceable ONLY at the point of a gun. That’s what happened here.
I love sarcasm too, but at a certain point, my appetite for an idea or argument from you goes annoyingly unsatisfied. I’m ready for some food. Or are you just crackers? I’ll settle for pizza.
YEARS ago in the early 90s, when I was in law enforcement, I advocated to a certain U.S. Attorney that the immigration laws be enforced against business owners who knowingly hired illegals. To me, it was patently unfair — and patently inefficient to the enforcement of immigration law — that only the illegals were being arrested. (Even at that, incredibly FEW were arrested for illegal immigration.) The answer then, from that U.S. Attorney (as it was again at the end of the ’90s from a different U.S. Attorney), was that illegal immigration wasn’t a priority. The employers insisted on cheap labor; the more generous-hearted liberals didn’t have the moral courage to enforce the law. They thought the law should be enforced only when it felt good. Guess what: I never feels good to send a man back to poverty. So what? Enforcing the law sometimes hurts, personally. But we’re a country of laws. Feeling good and placating local business, however, was what INS and DOJ and Social Security (they have an oar in this too, because of the use of false SSNs) were all about back then.
And look where this disastrous policy has gotten us.
Two Solutions:
1)Deport illegals, starting with the most serious violators. They’ll keep us so busy that we’ll never have to worry about deporting the “tough” cases — those with serious humanitarian concerns. Such cases will be academic.
2) Prosecute employers who make money by illegally hiring illegals. They’re screwing up the labor market with unfairly low wages. Honest employers have a VERY hard time competing with them, and in the end, American workers get screwed. Even in the best of times, this is intolerable. But we’re in terrible economic times. It’s outrageous that corporations and small business owners get rich at the expense of the long-term national good.
Please, once and for all: Stop the race-baiting commentary. As I have said here before, my father’s accent was as thick as Danny Ortega’s and his skin as brown as just about anyone else from Nicaragua, which is where he was from. He was the finest man I ever knew because he loved God and His laws, and was also one of the finest Americans I ever knew because he loved this country and believed in the rule of law. He was no racist. But he did detest — as do his Nicaraguan brothers (my uncles) — the wholesale illegal immigration from Central America or any other country.
So just stop.
You say you’re studying law. Then understand this: Ad hominems are just about the weakest arguments you can make. And among ad hominems, likening your opponent to Hitler or calling him a racist is so downright funny to those who know rational argument when they see it. Do yourself a favor: Never again call someone a racist unless you’re sure of what you’re saying. Take this from someone who squared off against David Duke more than 35 years ago.
What I agree is sickening is the mind-set and language of those who say things like “Get the hell out of my damn country.” It suggests a racism or jingoism that is detestable.
That said, Christianity does not demand that the U.S. open its borders and welcome all who are determined to get here one way or another. Nor does Christianity require the toleration of crime by those who are here illegally.
We are in a very difficult moral situation when it comes to illegals. Most of them are what Jesus called “the least of our brethren” whom we must treat with Christian love, respect, and charity. But Christian love does not require open borders.
please do us all a favor and write three (short, if you can) paragraphs, the first containing settled Honduran law, the second containing fairly undisputed facts, and the last containing your conclusion and the reasons for it.
It’s hilarious to see so many people pronouncing a “coup” when it was the Supreme Court of Honduras who ordered the arrest of Zelaya — a fact which, by the way, went completely unmentioned by CNN on a 5-minute piece yesterday morning. This fact also seems not to have been known by even the more informed lib posters here. Even averagejames, who seems to be up on things, seems not to have known of the Supreme Court’s involvement until Kregg pointed it out.
C’mon libs, let’s be honest: If Bush had acted in contempt of the Supreme Court, you’d have been the first ones screaming for his arrest. And you’d have been right. Here, Zelaya acts in apparent contempt of the Honduran Supreme Court, and is arrested. But you libs — without really knowing ANYTHING about the Honduran constitution — side with Zelaya. Please explain yourselves.
“Get the hell out of our damn country” is a provocative, mean-spirited way of saying what the people of the U.S. have already said, nicely, through their immigration laws: It is illegal, and a criminal offense, for an alien to be here without documentation.
This illegality is compounded by the fact that virtually every alien here without documentation uses false and fraudulent documents.
Person-by-person forced deportation is made “impractical,” now, only because money-grubbing Republicans wanted cheap labor without giving a damn about our laws, and because many Democrats see hispanics not as people, but as potential votes. To hell with both of them. Enforce the law — with humanity, but enforce it. I know of no comparable-size country that has open borders, or that tolerates identity fraud by those who are in the country illegally while prosecuting its own citizens for the same offense.
Don’t dare call me a racist. My father’s accent was as thick as Danny Ortega’s. And for those whose motive in enforcing the law IS racist, to hell with you too.
The fact that they ALL make a point of saying “ALLEGED” is a real good sign that they know that if they DON’T say “ALLEGED”, they leave themselves open to libel charges.
EricG: I could be wrong, but I think the courts say if someone publishes AS FACT something that damages another, with “reckless disregard of the truth,” then this satisfies the “knowledge” element of libel. If it’s a public official who sues, then he has the burden of proof.
Suppose the New York Times published, AS FACT, that Michael Jackson committed pedophilia with several children, but had no more to go on other than mere rumor. Assume that such an allegation caused Michael Jackson great financial harm. Would the publication of this rumor by the New York Times, KNOWING that it was publishing ONLY on the basis of rumor, be protected under the First Amendment? I honestly don’t know. Why would only a communist say No?
Are you saying it’s not legally possible to commit libel via a blog? Or are you saying that, even if it is possible, only Republicans would assert their legal rights under libel laws?
We both know that non-Republicans DO sue for libel. So if you believe that “Only Republicans could sue someone who [runs] a blog,” then you would have to think that only non-Republicans distinguish between BLOG libel (on the one hand) and libel by the press (or other source) on the other. Why on earth do you think this?
You say: “Only the communists of this nation could possibly think themselves part of this nation and in the same breath try to quash free speech.” You’re right, but your argument begs the question, i.e., did the Alaska blogger engage in free speech, or did she commit libel? Some objective argument, please.
As for myself, I’m still thinking about this one, putting Palin the person (and her political leanings) aside.
I said “I’m pretty sure that if you repeat libel, knowing it’s libelous, you’re liable.”
You said, “You have to prove in a courtroom that this person KNEW it was libelous.” Then we’re in perfect agreement: IF you repeat a libel, KNOWING it’s libelous, then you’re liable.
You said that “if it’s a fact that something’s in the rumor mill, [my] case just flew out the window.”
I simply posed a question. I expressly disclaimed any attempt to make “a case.”
At any rate, I’m pretty sure you’re wrong in stating that “repeating a libel isn’t libelous.” I’m pretty sure that if you repeat libel, knowing it’s libelous, you’re liable.
And, of course, the truth IS a defense. But Alan’s own posting says: “Moore says all she did was report rumors which have been around for years.”
As I said, I’d like to see some objective opinions about this legal question, putting our personal feelings about Palin aside.
The First Amendment rightly goes a LONG way to protect writers against charges they defamed a public official. But does the First Amend. go so far as to protect against libel if the writer publishes, as fact, harmful material that the writer ADMITS is merely “in the rumor mill”? Alan seems to say that the First Amendment does protect such expression, and that the attempt to chill such speech is “muzzling.” I’m not at all sure one way or another. It would be nice to see venom-free opinions on both sides of this.
Lindsey Graham To Judge Sotomayor: "Do You Think You Have A Temperament Problem"
July 16th, 2009 at 12:27 amEricG
In this last posting of yours, you sound more like a disillusioned former conservative than a modern liberal democrat. But before you quarrel with me, let me just share a lil luv with my conservative and liberal friends (that’s assuming a lot) at this site.
Last night I kidded Obama — good naturedly, I hope — about throwing like a “sissy,” and I said my daughter could throw better at 12. Well, tonight, after not having thrown a football with her in several years, Mary and I went to the park. She blew me away with 30-yard, tight spirals. I’ve been waiting for this my whole life. And she ate up my longest passes. An unrivaled joy. I’m telling everyone I know.
OK, EricG, you were about to say . . .
Love brother,
David, I mean “pizzaman”
Palin On Cap And Trade: Then And Now
July 15th, 2009 at 8:56 amGood God, ya’ll. Is it too much to ask to have a Pres who can just rare back and fire one? What’s gonna happen when football season comes? No “Missiles of October,” I guess. I swear to the Infant Jesus of Prague, my daughter could throw better when she was 12.
pizzaman
Jeff Sessions Once Said He Thought Klan Was Okay Until He Learned They Smoked Pot
July 15th, 2009 at 8:49 amI knew it, dammit, I KNEW it. He throws like a sissy! And he probably practiced those 3-point shots for WEEKS.
pizzaman
GOP Ignored Conservative Nominees Praising Their Own Ethnic Backgrounds
July 15th, 2009 at 6:00 amHamlet tells Rosencrantz and Guildenstern that since they’re in Denmark, they’re in prison. They say, “Prison? Not to us.” Then, in the relativist’s favorite line, Hamlet says: “Why then ’tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or
bad, but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison.”
That’s just a short putt away from this: “Personal experiences affect the facts that judges CHOOSE to see.” And this: “Our gender and national origins may AND WILL will make a difference in our judging.” This was Judge Sotomayor, in her “wise Latina” lecture, aka, “RAISING THE BAR: LATINO AND LATINA PRESENCE IN THE JUDICIARY AND THE STRUGGLE FOR REPRESENTATION.”
pizzaman
GOP Ignored Conservative Nominees Praising Their Own Ethnic Backgrounds
July 15th, 2009 at 4:20 amIt’s amusing that CNN’s Laura Gomez feels the need to instruct us on the meaning of what Judge Sotomayor said, which was this:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Plain enough. And presumably, pre-meditated. Sotomayor’s words are from her lecture titled, “RAISING THE BAR: LATINO AND LATINA PRESENCE IN THE JUDICIARY AND THE STRUGGLE FOR REPRESENTATION,” which can be found in “La Raza Law Journal.” The very title of her lecture is revealing: She apparently believes that the federal judiciary is the proper place for a “strugggle” for “representation.” Legislatures are that. But the federal judiciary? Coming from a would-be Supreme Court Justice, this is more than a little alarming.
And I haven’t yet touched on her “wise Latina” remark.
Alan points out that in Justice Alito’s confirmation hearings, he sought to ingratiate himself by pointing to his Italian heritage, and confiding that this made him stop and think twice on immigration cases. “When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.” Mild as this is, it’s still ethnic pandering. It’s totally superfluous to think of your Italian (or Puerto Rican) heritage when you think of yourself first as an American judge, with the law of the American people in your hands.
And since no white man can EVER have the experience of a Latina — wise or dim — Judge Sotomayor’s statement that a wise Latina “would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male” is an irredeemably dumb thing to say. Why should we not think that she really thinks this way? And why should we entrust a Supreme Court seat to someone so lacking in tact — tact being a form of wisdom — that she needs someone from CNN to interpret her to us? She’ll get the seat, of course, and in time, we’ll become better instructed in race-based law-making from the bench. We’ll have gotten what we deserve. Don’t believe it? Read Ricci v. Town of New Haven.
pizzaman
John Ensign To His Mistress: "I Used You For My Own Pleasure"
July 9th, 2009 at 6:35 pmAlex:
Although I disagree with your notion that LYING about having committed adultery is worse than ADULTERY ITSELF, I will concede that lying UNDER OATH about adultery in order to deny a woman her rights in a suit against you is seriously wrong. In fact, it’s criminal.
I agree with EricG that “ANY person who sells themselves to the public as a ‘holy’ person” is foolishly on thin ice. Not the same, though, as to those who campaign for “family values.” The fact that we sin doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t advocate right action, does it? If it did, then no one would have standing to advocate right action.
pizzaman
Arizona State Senator Climate-Change Denier: Earth Is Just 6,000 Years Old
July 9th, 2009 at 1:28 amRelatively few conservatives think the way she does.
BTW, if you want to have some fun with people who think the world is only 6,000 years old, ask them to explain how some visible stars are more than 10,000 light years away. You’ll be amazed at what you hear, if they even understand the question.
But be fair. Such caricatures are almost — not quite, but almost — as bad as citing Charlie Manson as a good example of a liberal.
Arizona State Senator Climate-Change Denier: Earth Is Just 6,000 Years Old
July 9th, 2009 at 1:20 amAnd we thought CONSERVATIVES were fascists. Ha!
Arizona State Senator Climate-Change Denier: Earth Is Just 6,000 Years Old
July 9th, 2009 at 1:18 amFluff: That was a good laugh no matter what side you’re on.
Sen. Jim DeMint: Hondoran Coup Is Same As Peaceful Transition Of Power
July 9th, 2009 at 1:12 amI can’t comment intelligently on whether the Honduran constitution forbad Zelaya’s doing what the Supreme Court said is forbidden. But it’s a good bet that any Supreme Court has the right to declare it “contempt” when someone directly disobeys its rulings. And contempt of a Supreme Court seems to be an arrestable offense. Zelaya should have followed the law and argued about it in court. To say otherwise is to say that a Supreme Court’s orders are not enforceable. ALL laws worthy of the name “law” are ultimately enforceable ONLY at the point of a gun. That’s what happened here.
Sen. Jim DeMint: Hondoran Coup Is Same As Peaceful Transition Of Power
July 9th, 2009 at 1:02 amTDro319 says “You may want to ask Bush and Cheney about their knowledge on Honduras law. Lord knows they don’t know too much about U.S. constitution.
That’s my point! Not having an informed basis for making legal judgments can be disastrous.
Joe The Plumber On Illegal Immigrants: "Get Them The Hell Out Of Our Damn Country"
July 8th, 2009 at 6:23 pmVegasLib:
I love sarcasm too, but at a certain point, my appetite for an idea or argument from you goes annoyingly unsatisfied. I’m ready for some food. Or are you just crackers? I’ll settle for pizza.
pizzaman
Joe The Plumber On Illegal Immigrants: "Get Them The Hell Out Of Our Damn Country"
July 8th, 2009 at 6:15 pmflap and average james
YEARS ago in the early 90s, when I was in law enforcement, I advocated to a certain U.S. Attorney that the immigration laws be enforced against business owners who knowingly hired illegals. To me, it was patently unfair — and patently inefficient to the enforcement of immigration law — that only the illegals were being arrested. (Even at that, incredibly FEW were arrested for illegal immigration.) The answer then, from that U.S. Attorney (as it was again at the end of the ’90s from a different U.S. Attorney), was that illegal immigration wasn’t a priority. The employers insisted on cheap labor; the more generous-hearted liberals didn’t have the moral courage to enforce the law. They thought the law should be enforced only when it felt good. Guess what: I never feels good to send a man back to poverty. So what? Enforcing the law sometimes hurts, personally. But we’re a country of laws. Feeling good and placating local business, however, was what INS and DOJ and Social Security (they have an oar in this too, because of the use of false SSNs) were all about back then.
And look where this disastrous policy has gotten us.
Two Solutions:
1)Deport illegals, starting with the most serious violators. They’ll keep us so busy that we’ll never have to worry about deporting the “tough” cases — those with serious humanitarian concerns. Such cases will be academic.
2) Prosecute employers who make money by illegally hiring illegals. They’re screwing up the labor market with unfairly low wages. Honest employers have a VERY hard time competing with them, and in the end, American workers get screwed. Even in the best of times, this is intolerable. But we’re in terrible economic times. It’s outrageous that corporations and small business owners get rich at the expense of the long-term national good.
pizzaman
Joe The Plumber On Illegal Immigrants: "Get Them The Hell Out Of Our Damn Country"
July 8th, 2009 at 5:44 pmEricG:
Please, once and for all: Stop the race-baiting commentary. As I have said here before, my father’s accent was as thick as Danny Ortega’s and his skin as brown as just about anyone else from Nicaragua, which is where he was from. He was the finest man I ever knew because he loved God and His laws, and was also one of the finest Americans I ever knew because he loved this country and believed in the rule of law. He was no racist. But he did detest — as do his Nicaraguan brothers (my uncles) — the wholesale illegal immigration from Central America or any other country.
So just stop.
You say you’re studying law. Then understand this: Ad hominems are just about the weakest arguments you can make. And among ad hominems, likening your opponent to Hitler or calling him a racist is so downright funny to those who know rational argument when they see it. Do yourself a favor: Never again call someone a racist unless you’re sure of what you’re saying. Take this from someone who squared off against David Duke more than 35 years ago.
pizzaman
Joe The Plumber On Illegal Immigrants: "Get Them The Hell Out Of Our Damn Country"
July 8th, 2009 at 5:25 pmaverage james:
What I agree is sickening is the mind-set and language of those who say things like “Get the hell out of my damn country.” It suggests a racism or jingoism that is detestable.
That said, Christianity does not demand that the U.S. open its borders and welcome all who are determined to get here one way or another. Nor does Christianity require the toleration of crime by those who are here illegally.
We are in a very difficult moral situation when it comes to illegals. Most of them are what Jesus called “the least of our brethren” whom we must treat with Christian love, respect, and charity. But Christian love does not require open borders.
pizzaman
Sen. Jim DeMint: Hondoran Coup Is Same As Peaceful Transition Of Power
July 8th, 2009 at 5:08 pmaverage james:
please do us all a favor and write three (short, if you can) paragraphs, the first containing settled Honduran law, the second containing fairly undisputed facts, and the last containing your conclusion and the reasons for it.
Sen. Jim DeMint: Hondoran Coup Is Same As Peaceful Transition Of Power
July 8th, 2009 at 4:58 pmIt’s hilarious to see so many people pronouncing a “coup” when it was the Supreme Court of Honduras who ordered the arrest of Zelaya — a fact which, by the way, went completely unmentioned by CNN on a 5-minute piece yesterday morning. This fact also seems not to have been known by even the more informed lib posters here. Even averagejames, who seems to be up on things, seems not to have known of the Supreme Court’s involvement until Kregg pointed it out.
C’mon libs, let’s be honest: If Bush had acted in contempt of the Supreme Court, you’d have been the first ones screaming for his arrest. And you’d have been right. Here, Zelaya acts in apparent contempt of the Honduran Supreme Court, and is arrested. But you libs — without really knowing ANYTHING about the Honduran constitution — side with Zelaya. Please explain yourselves.
Joe The Plumber On Illegal Immigrants: "Get Them The Hell Out Of Our Damn Country"
July 7th, 2009 at 1:52 am“Get the hell out of our damn country” is a provocative, mean-spirited way of saying what the people of the U.S. have already said, nicely, through their immigration laws: It is illegal, and a criminal offense, for an alien to be here without documentation.
This illegality is compounded by the fact that virtually every alien here without documentation uses false and fraudulent documents.
Person-by-person forced deportation is made “impractical,” now, only because money-grubbing Republicans wanted cheap labor without giving a damn about our laws, and because many Democrats see hispanics not as people, but as potential votes. To hell with both of them. Enforce the law — with humanity, but enforce it. I know of no comparable-size country that has open borders, or that tolerates identity fraud by those who are in the country illegally while prosecuting its own citizens for the same offense.
Don’t dare call me a racist. My father’s accent was as thick as Danny Ortega’s. And for those whose motive in enforcing the law IS racist, to hell with you too.
pizzaman
Shannyn Moore Will Not Be Muzzled
July 6th, 2009 at 11:51 pmThe fact that they ALL make a point of saying “ALLEGED” is a real good sign that they know that if they DON’T say “ALLEGED”, they leave themselves open to libel charges.
Shannyn Moore Will Not Be Muzzled
July 6th, 2009 at 10:28 pmEricG: I could be wrong, but I think the courts say if someone publishes AS FACT something that damages another, with “reckless disregard of the truth,” then this satisfies the “knowledge” element of libel. If it’s a public official who sues, then he has the burden of proof.
pizzaman
Shannyn Moore Will Not Be Muzzled
July 6th, 2009 at 9:07 pmSuppose the New York Times published, AS FACT, that Michael Jackson committed pedophilia with several children, but had no more to go on other than mere rumor. Assume that such an allegation caused Michael Jackson great financial harm. Would the publication of this rumor by the New York Times, KNOWING that it was publishing ONLY on the basis of rumor, be protected under the First Amendment? I honestly don’t know. Why would only a communist say No?
Shannyn Moore Will Not Be Muzzled
July 6th, 2009 at 8:59 pmEricG:
Are you saying it’s not legally possible to commit libel via a blog? Or are you saying that, even if it is possible, only Republicans would assert their legal rights under libel laws?
We both know that non-Republicans DO sue for libel. So if you believe that “Only Republicans could sue someone who [runs] a blog,” then you would have to think that only non-Republicans distinguish between BLOG libel (on the one hand) and libel by the press (or other source) on the other. Why on earth do you think this?
You say: “Only the communists of this nation could possibly think themselves part of this nation and in the same breath try to quash free speech.” You’re right, but your argument begs the question, i.e., did the Alaska blogger engage in free speech, or did she commit libel? Some objective argument, please.
As for myself, I’m still thinking about this one, putting Palin the person (and her political leanings) aside.
pizzaman
Shannyn Moore Will Not Be Muzzled
July 6th, 2009 at 8:46 pmEricG:
I said “I’m pretty sure that if you repeat libel, knowing it’s libelous, you’re liable.”
You said, “You have to prove in a courtroom that this person KNEW it was libelous.” Then we’re in perfect agreement: IF you repeat a libel, KNOWING it’s libelous, then you’re liable.
Shannyn Moore Will Not Be Muzzled
July 6th, 2009 at 6:00 pmRocky:
You said that “if it’s a fact that something’s in the rumor mill, [my] case just flew out the window.”
I simply posed a question. I expressly disclaimed any attempt to make “a case.”
At any rate, I’m pretty sure you’re wrong in stating that “repeating a libel isn’t libelous.” I’m pretty sure that if you repeat libel, knowing it’s libelous, you’re liable.
And, of course, the truth IS a defense. But Alan’s own posting says: “Moore says all she did was report rumors which have been around for years.”
As I said, I’d like to see some objective opinions about this legal question, putting our personal feelings about Palin aside.
pizzaman
Shannyn Moore Will Not Be Muzzled
July 6th, 2009 at 4:44 pmThe First Amendment rightly goes a LONG way to protect writers against charges they defamed a public official. But does the First Amend. go so far as to protect against libel if the writer publishes, as fact, harmful material that the writer ADMITS is merely “in the rumor mill”? Alan seems to say that the First Amendment does protect such expression, and that the attempt to chill such speech is “muzzling.” I’m not at all sure one way or another. It would be nice to see venom-free opinions on both sides of this.
pizzaman