It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
The original post said that Clinton attacked Pepe and you even said that deeming the cartoon a hate-symbol is how it was attacked so, there is a point to be made about what constitutes an attack and if one can be carried out on a non-physical character.
Whether Clinton got it right or wrong makes no difference to the claim so that is, in fact, no big deal.
ETA: What is an attack and whether the non-physical (words) can even be part of an attack seems to be something you make a big deal about in many of the threads where you defend unpopular causes.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I don't care if Hillary attacks Pepe.
I was only pointing out that she did attack Pepe. Pepe is a cartoon, remember.
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: crazyewok
Yeah.....there is a little thing called the 1st Amendment
Maybe Trump should read the constitution before he opens his big fat stupid orange mouth.
The first amendment does not protect a person from being sued for smearing with false accusations. Maybe you should read it.
here is some help for you:
Statements made about a public person (political candidates, governmental officeholder, movie star, author, celebrity, sports hero, etc.) are usually exempt, even if they are untrue and harmful. However, if they were made with malice – with hate, dislike, intent and/or desire to harm and with reckless disregard for the truth – the public person may have a cause of action. This was determined by the U.S. Supreme Court and has been re-interpreted various times.