G O O F

Libel is defined as follows:
Main Entry: 1li·bel
Pronunciation: 'lI-b&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, written declaration, from Middle French, from Latin libellus, diminutive of liber book
1 a : a written statement in which a plaintiff in certain courts sets forth the cause of action or the relief sought b archaic : a handbill especially attacking or defaming someone
2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means (3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4) : the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel


Say anything you want - and face the consequences.

My understanding is that the groundrules here include not making unsubstantiated remarks. I believe some satyrical commentary is welcome. But I don't think you can stretch your permissions to include libel.

It's true that a seated president is considered above reproach and that he can be lampooned almost to an extreme.

I'm not so sure that applies to a mere candidate or a senator.

I don't think so. I'm sure a legal expert could clarify.

I understand quite well the basis for this particular decision.

That is the standard applied to all who are "above reproach."

In the case of the Swift Boat crowd it certainly didn't take long to draw a conclusion because we do question sources. In the case of Dan Rather's paper, there is no conclusion. That's because it isn't satyrical. So I suppose there is less pressure to "determine if the article was indeed satire."

In the case of the Swift Boat Vets" it was a case of libel and also not satire.

Pad: Here's a possible explanation: Swifties: Charges based on documented fact. Rather:Lies based on forged documents (these documents are made up. They never existed but they are used to back up a calculated campaign to besmirch our Commander in Chief in a time of war.) See?

Nonsense.

You send like you're defending Nixon for doing Watergate Chuckster. The swifties offer charges based on documented lies.

Their charges did not pass muster.

So far the only claim against Rather is that he "might" be offering faked documents.

I'd rely on the remarks of his colleague from Harvard to get at the truth. Their motto is Veritas, and they generally have a pretty good reputation.

As the Tibetans say: Rogues there are in religious orders. Medicinal plants grow on the same hillsides as poisonous ones.

Our commander in chief shouldn't be offering legal protection to those who would libel his opponent. It is perceived as a dirty trick. It becomes a question of who is fooling or not fooling the public.

I don't claim to have the answer like the neo cons here do.
I'd suggest counting the votes after they have been caste and until then - make a wish!

Speaking of Bush:

I'd rely on the remarks of his colleague from Harvard to get at the truth. Their motto is Veritas, and they generally have a pretty good reputation.

As the Tibetans say: Rogues there are in religious orders. Medicinal plants grow on the same hillsides as poisonous ones.