Did something happen to the "atheism" thread?

Calling it slanderous assumes that Snood is a bad person, a person of deserved ill-repute.

Sententa: Apparently, Layman/Snood is also delusional

Being deluded is not morally suspect, nor is it criminal. To allege that it is a slanderous term is playing fast and loose with the language

Merriam Webster: "the act of making a false spoken statement that causes people to have a bad opinion of someone...

Most states recognize slander per se, where certain statements are so damaging the actual damage does not have to be proved. Generally, per se statements include false oral accusations about...mental illness...

Hardly a good tactic to win a court case .

Law it doesnt matter if it is false...It might very well be true but be found to have its main cause is to damage a reputation

truth is an absolute defense

I think you understand the logic, you cant go around damaging people for no reason, regardless if its true .

Is there an easy way for you to check

. If you believe you are have been "defamed," to prove it you usually have to show there's been a statement that is all of the following:
•published
•false
•injurious
•unprivileged

Thanks Argy . It seems in the USA only public figures are protected by the 'malice intent' aspect .

The "public figure" doctrine announced by the Supreme Court in Curtis Publishing v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 87 S. Ct. 1975, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1094 (1967), held that prominent public persons had to prove actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of whether a statement is true or false) on the part of the news media in order to prevail in a libel lawsuit.

In 1964, the Court changed the direction of libel law dramatically with its decision in new york times v. sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964). For the first time, the Court placed some libelous speech under the protection of the First Amendment. The plaintiff, a police official, had claimed that false allegations about him were published in the New York Times, and he sued the newspaper for libel. The Court balanced the plaintiff's interest in preserving his reputation against the public's interest in freedom of expression in the area of political debate. The Court wrote that "libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment." Therefore, in order to protect the free flow of ideas in the political arena, the law requires that a public official who alleges libel must prove actual malice in order to recover damages. The First Amendment protects open and robust debate on public issues even when such debate includes "vehement, caustic, unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."

Actually does that contradict what you said about false statements ?

Both of these are from your Ref, Argy .

I was editing whilst you were replying...