Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by rich23
Obama would have to prove defamation of character to prove libel.
OK I am being nitpicking, but I hope I'm being nice about this. I do agree with your point below, a lot, but I'll come back to that. But I do have
to deal with the sentence above, I'm sorry, it's just the way I am. The first thing is that your statement is rather tautologous. Libel is a
sub-set of defamation. I don't know how it works in the US, but over here what happens is that the plaintiff's lawyers decide on whether they have
a shot at convincing a jury that a particular passage is defamatory. The defendent can offer justification (it's true and accurate reporting) or
that it's not defamatory, or other options I frankly can't remember.
I did't see anything terribly defamatory in the article, not that I was looking for it: if you did, please quote it. On a strategic level I think it
would be a mistake for Obama to even acknowledge it.
Funny how the Bush family completely ignore all the (if untrue) highly defamatory things David Icke and others say about them. It's actually not
just funny, it's bizarre
. Almost suspicious, one might say.
This is another matter entirely. It's a storm in a teacup. Find me a passage that might be considered defamatory, I'll be interested.
Also, people are immune from liability for stating untrue statements about elected representatives the last time I checked.
I could go and do some checking about how the system works over here but... no. Too lazy right now.
To me the U2U wasn't the worrying part. I could handle someone drawing my attention to something. It was the fact the U2U asked us to dig an
article stating the whole of Alex Jones and Charlie Sheen's interview was a hoax without stipulating that the fictional interview was still highly
relevant and loaded with facts.
To me, that omission is entirely symptomatic of the pitchfork-clutching mentality that seizes people here from time to time. I personally think it
was a mistake getting involved so precipitately, maybe at all, and it was certainly not handled judiciously.
I'm also unimpressed with Skeptic Overlord's attempt to spin the U2U into something it was not.
he didn't read the U2U
before attempting to summarise its contents. And, like Alex Jones, he hasn't acknowledged this disconnect or apologised for it. Instead, he
nit-picked me about it being a U2U not an email. Fine, I got my terminology wrong, but I think we both knew which document we were talking about.
If I were the mob mentality type, I could start a thread saying, Skeptic Overlord lies about email, sorry, U2U! BUUUURN HIM!
I could make
the same arguments about Skeptic Overlord's evasion on the subject as he has about Jones: if he was going to comment about the email,
shouldn't he have read it beforehand? And if he did, then he was trying to LIE and SPIN his way out of the situation! And then completely ignores
But I think Septic Overlord (they tease him about it, you know*) is a busy guy and tried to put a nice face on the situation because we're all nice
people here, right? Unfortunately the wording of the email (damn, I do keep calling it that) doesn't agree, and he doesn't want to acknowledge
that, which is ok too. One would hope for better and might expect worse.
But the irony of his behaving in a similar way to AJ is pretty interesting.
I think my current thinking can be summed up as this:
If the 9/11 truth movement is important to you, then you should know that divisiveness and in-fighting are mortal enemies. Keep a sense of
proportion. If you're attacking AJ, then don't hide behind the pretence of defending any movement for truth, because you're doing more harm than
*small print disclaimer: I have no idea whether they do, it's just an obvious joke with no ill intent. OK?
Edited to fix tags
[edit on 9-9-2009 by rich23]