Originally posted by Ahabstar
reply to post by rich23
Just that it causes harm to the one defamed, not necessarily illegal actions nor loss of income from my understanding, although those are the easiest to prove.
You're conflating two different issues here: the subject of damages is settled after it's settled whether or not a person has been defamed. People in UK courts have sued for libel and won the case but were awarded derisory damages of a penny.
I didn't say it was necessarily illegal. The word "or" would have been in there somewhere. But to accuse someone of a criminal offence is deemed defamatory of itself. The issue of whether a person suffered harm from the defamation is another matter. Defendants in libel cases have the burden of proof: they must prove that the reporting was accurate.
The recent case of Richard "Dirty Des" Desmond provides a look at the way things can go in real life. It's also rather entertaining. The link may not last long, so read now, people.
The part about Obama being a fan of Charlie Sheen's show would be enough (or the entire "interview" if it was stated as a cause for scoring lower on Obama's popularity polls) as it could be considered an incidental contributing cause should Obama not be re-elected in 2012.
I seriously doubt it would have any such effect. I think it's a storm in a teacup (which ATS is helping to stir) and doesn't really have anywhere to go without people pushing it along. I see it as just another example of AJ's hopelessly sloppy and annoying approach to things.
Actually, part of what drives me to put this thread up is just my sense of proportion about it. Alex Jones just blew it again, but in a relatively minor way. Get over it people. Yes, tell people it's not a real interview. That's what Springer, earlier in the thread, said was the purpose of the U2U (I called it an email, sorry Springer... but from my point of view that was picking nits). This is not something that the U2U wording itself supports, but let it pass.
Just let's NOT be the angry villagers with brands and pitchforks about this. It's so weird, Ialmost never go to Infowars.com, I hate his bombast and I think he's a liablity.
But I always seem to end up defending him. From mob mentality. That's the thing that gets me. You always wind up feeling for Frankenstein's creation in the end, and why? Because people can be pretty unpleasant.
I realise I'm whistling into the wind here, of course. Everyone's getting worked up into a lather of self-righteousness about this, and if there's anything worse than an angry mob with pitchforks and firebrands, it's a self-righteous angry mob with ptichforks and firebrands.
And one of the deep lures of self-righteousness is that it saves one all the fuss and bother of having to think any more about whatever it is that's getting your goat.
