- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 10,033
- Reaction score
- 3,905
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Libel/slander does by definition include what was said. The more injurious the words, the more libel the broadcaster. Saying "she's a liar" (even a ****ing liar) isn't nearly as injurious as calling her a whore. Being called a liar can be taken in context (Right v Left) as "normal" rhetoric. Being called a whore (or embezzler, or druggie, or whatever) could be taken seriously, which in turn would mar the character of the person. At least, that's the law as I understand it, which I admit is as amateur as most people here.that sort of discredits the whole liberal argument. It has been a steady tirade of WHAT was said...not who it was said about. Thats why the congresswoman looked so incredibly stupid. So essentially...your take is that it is a 'winning' strategy to excuse calling women sluts whores, ****s, twats, etc, as long as they are public figures. You REALLY want to stick with that? Personally...Id LOVE to see them try and pull it off. As it is...I stand by my offer. Maher and the democrats will look FAR WORSE than Limbaugh.
Rev. Falwell was accused of being not only a drunk but of having sex with his mother. He won three (?) cases before it got to the SCOTUS, where it was overturned. I doubt Falwell would have even bothered if Hustler had limited their slam to "lying bastard" or "pompous asshole".