Originally posted by darthmixThat's it. I'm done. I said earlier that arguing over the definition was pointless since it WASN'T an issue in the case, but you insisted.
Oh, please. Your own link shows that there's no basis for comparing what the Westboro folks did to slander or libel. The definition in that link deals entirely with slander in its spoken form; It says that the key legal elements of slander are falsity and malice - the intent to propagate a factually untrue statement - neither of which are demonstrably pres ...[text shortened]... wrong in the way that matters to this thread? Because you yourself have proven that your are.
We're through here, I'll waste no more time on you since you appear to be insane.
Originally posted by darthmixWhich I later followed up by saying:
You also said...
Originally posted by Sam The Sham
[b]Yes, slander and defamation was indeed one of the issues, by being there at the time of the burial ceremony with their anti-homo demonstration and signs...
So, thanks for proving yourself wrong again.[/b]
Slander may be spoken or implied, by words, actions, or gestures. Look it up. But we're getting off track here anyway, since it wasn't part of the case to begin with.
You really are nuts.
Knock off the ad-homs. Anyway, the point was that nothing the Westboro folks did comes anywere near any legal standard of slander. A false statement must actually be made; it's not enough for you to decide that it's implied. It can be made through gestures, as in sign language, but it has to actually be made as a statement.
Do you now admit that what the Westboro folks did is clearly not slander under US law? Because that's the only sense in which this discussion is relevant to this thread.
Originally posted by darthmixI am absolutely sure that the Second Amendment can be construed to mean that i have the right to make these portesters brains look like regurgitated whale s**t. I just need the right lawyer.
Knock off the ad-homs. Anyway, the point was that nothing the Westboro folks did comes anywere near any legal standard of slander. A false statement must actually be made; it's not enough for you to decide that it's implied. It can be made through gestures, as in sign language, but it has to actually be made as a statement.
Do you now admit that what the ...[text shortened]... er US law? Because that's the only sense in which this discussion is relevant to this thread.
These protesters have gone over the line and there will now be a Fed law about calling anybody gay, whether they are or are not. With Rights come responsibility. And trust me, the gov't would just love to take more rights away. Thank you...you beautiful loving religious protesters. I could just love you to death.
So, if i protested the protesters and held up a sign saying that Jesus was a fag what do you think the protesters would do. That''s right and i'd be arrested for inciting a riot.
GRANNY.
Originally posted by smw6869No, you'd be protected by the National Guard if necessary.
I am absolutely sure that the Second Amendment can be construed to mean that i have the right to make these portesters brains look like regurgitated whale s**t. I just need the right lawyer.
These protesters have gone over the line and there will now be a Fed law about calling anybody gay, whether they are or are not. With Rights come responsibility. And ...[text shortened]... the protesters would do. That''s right and i'd be arrested for inciting a riot.
GRANNY.
Oops. Well once they come back from Iraq anyway.
1 edit
Originally posted by smw6869What kind of religion is this?
Wha? Why aren't they protesting at the White House or Pentagon? And, yes, they did claim that the soldiers were gay. What kind of religion is this? When they don't pay the fine they'll go to jail and get it from behind.
Granny.
Evangelical good old boy aggressively political Protestants.
Maybe people will start to understand why I dislike that subset of Christians so much.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNo he wouldn't. They don't generally get called in until something has already happened.
No, you'd be protected by the National Guard if necessary.
Oops. Well once they come back from Iraq anyway.
And that includes the ones that aren't in Iraq. Like the ones tending to issues relating to California wildfires and such.
Originally posted by Sam The ShamDefamation and slander were certainly not one of the issues. In the US, you cannot slander or defame the dead.
Yes, slander and defamation was indeed one of the issues, by being there at the time of the burial ceremony with their anti-homo demonstration and signs, chanting "death to fags", etc. they were indeed giving the inference that the soldier was gay to all those passing by. Can't hide behind the 1st amendment on that one.
Thank you for pointing that out granny.
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, thank you Marauder, read a few more posts after that and you'll see I corrected myself and said that they weren't. You're as bad as dartmix.
Defamation and slander were certainly not one of the issues. In the US, you cannot slander or defame the dead.
Originally posted by Sam The ShamNeither of you gave the actual reason why it was impossible for defamation and slander to be an issue in the case. I thought I'd educate the forum a bit. You would think someone who claims to be a teacher would welcome such information rather than acting like a petulant child.
Yes, thank you Marauder, read a few more posts after that and you'll see I corrected myself and said that they weren't. You're as bad as dartmix.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder"You can't slander the dead".....you got that out of a Hollywood movie. Actually, some states do allow for it if it's shortly after their death , and all states allow recovery if the slander/defamation is such that it hurts the deceased's estate.
Neither of you gave the actual reason why it was impossible for defamation and slander to be an issue in the case. I thought I'd educate the forum a bit. You would think someone who claims to be a teacher would welcome such information rather than acting like a petulant child.
Once again, marauder, you are proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
http://injury-law.freeadvice.com/libel_and_slander/dead_person_slander.htm