I guess if Trump jumps off a bridge you'll gladly go follow him.
I ain't going anywhere, Idiots like you running interference are the reason were in this mess. Notice how you had to bring up "racism" as the only defense to the evidence i laid out. You're no better than a liberal.
So in short, Fuck you.
Your arguing that it has been in use which it obviously has or we wouldn't be having this discussion. Thats why I titled this post "abolish defamation lawsuits"
Im saying it SHOULDNT be used, either we have free speech or we don't, the line should be drawn where every other line in drawn, when you start infringing on other people's rights.
If I threaten to kill someone I'm infringing on someone else's rights to life, maybe I'm mistaken is there a right that you are protected from someone saying mean things about you?
Do you agree with Smartmatic being able to sue Rudy and Sidney for billions of dollars and force them into bankruptcy for simply repeating the shady shit they were doing?
If Rudy and Sydney lose these cases + Alex Jones being sued by chobani then anyone can be bankrupted for speaking out against anything else. Even if they win the case they'll be bankrupted in lawyers fee's.
How can you support that? Its obviously going to be used against us as a way to abridge the first amendment
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech"
also has libel laws
Its a travesty libel laws exist, its an even bigger tragedy people like you will say they somehow don't violate the first amendment when it clearly "abridges" it.
You'll say "but some court in 1804 said its okay to sue someone who said bad things about you" but won't acknowledge the contradictory nature of said action.
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech"
a·bridge /əˈbrij/ verb 1. shorten (a piece of writing) without losing the sense.
LAW curtail (a right or privilege).
cur·tail /kərˈtāl/ verb reduce in extent or quantity; impose a restriction on
Boy id sure say libel laws impose a restriction on the freedom of speech. So by definition libel laws violate the first amendment, strictly by definition on its face.
Just because some judge in 1804 who severely lacked foresight ruled with you doesn't change the definitions. Its a bullshit law by definition, you can't twist the words around theyre stated plain as day.
"Im going to kill you"
"This guy is a crook"
One is a threat on another man's right to life and the other is saying mean things about someone. You lumping the two in together is frankly ridiculous regardless of what the kangaroo courts have ruled in the past.
Free speech is supposed to be unregulated to the point of infringing on another man's rights. "The Truth" has been an absolute defense against libel since even before the revolution.
Look, knowingly slandering someone or something is bad but you must be able to see that these defamation suits will be abused and used as a way to "abridge" the first.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The term “defamation” means any action or other proceeding for defamation, libel, slander, or similar claim alleging that forms of speech are false, have caused damage to reputation or emotional distress, have presented any person in a false light, or have resulted in criticism, dishonor, or condemnation of any person.
You're going to tell me these don't contradict each other?
Its the equivalent of letting the red headed stepchild invite 10 of their latino friends over to the house you built, paid for and continue to pay the mortgage for and then suddenly them saying "this isn't your house, its all of our house," and then they never leave and eventually make you eat at the kiddie table.