Discussion:
Silly Goose says he's going to "look at" the libel laws
(too old to reply)
super70s
2018-01-11 20:58:35 UTC
Permalink
Boy is he going to be disappointed when he finds out there are no
pictures and graphs. Not to mention his name is nowhere to be found in
them.

Anyway he can "look at" them all he wants but he won't be able to change
them just because someone wrote mean things about him and it wasn't in
bad faith.
Rudy Canoza
2018-01-11 22:04:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by super70s
Boy is he going to be disappointed when he finds out there are no
pictures and graphs. Not to mention his name is nowhere to be found in
them.
Anyway he can "look at" them all he wants but he won't be able to change
them just because someone wrote mean things about him and it wasn't in
bad faith.
There are no federal laws on libel, and there aren't going to be any.
Some lawyer will tell that fuckwit Trumpchev there's nothing for him to
"look at".
Mr. B1ack
2018-01-11 22:52:48 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 14:58:35 -0600, super70s
Post by super70s
Boy is he going to be disappointed when he finds out there are no
pictures and graphs. Not to mention his name is nowhere to be found in
them.
Anyway he can "look at" them all he wants but he won't be able to change
them just because someone wrote mean things about him and it wasn't in
bad faith.
Pretty much nothing BUT bad faith ....

Lefties ... always sure their shit don't stink.

Hmm ... you were probably in favor of
the "Hush Rush" law way back when,
but now say "Lie your ass off for The
Cause !" :-)
super70s
2018-01-11 23:13:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr. B1ack
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 14:58:35 -0600, super70s
Post by super70s
Boy is he going to be disappointed when he finds out there are no
pictures and graphs. Not to mention his name is nowhere to be found in
them.
Anyway he can "look at" them all he wants but he won't be able to change
them just because someone wrote mean things about him and it wasn't in
bad faith.
Pretty much nothing BUT bad faith ....
You have to prove the author wrote something he knew beforehand to be
untrue and with malicious intent, and the author has sources inside the
White House to back everything up. You can be sure the publisher had
their lawyers go through everything before it was published. Trump has
no case.
Mr. B1ack
2018-01-12 03:08:13 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 17:13:14 -0600, super70s
Post by super70s
Post by Mr. B1ack
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 14:58:35 -0600, super70s
Post by super70s
Boy is he going to be disappointed when he finds out there are no
pictures and graphs. Not to mention his name is nowhere to be found in
them.
Anyway he can "look at" them all he wants but he won't be able to change
them just because someone wrote mean things about him and it wasn't in
bad faith.
Pretty much nothing BUT bad faith ....
You have to prove the author wrote something he knew beforehand to be
untrue and with malicious intent,
For a legal case, yes. For an ass-kicking, not so much :-)

Anyway I agree that it SHOULD be fairly difficult to persue
a libel case. Make it too easy and the laws would indeed
help to suppress even rock-solid Truths that were in any
way inconvenient to the elite (right, left or otherwise).
Rudy Canoza
2018-01-12 03:15:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr. B1ack
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 17:13:14 -0600, super70s
Post by super70s
Post by Mr. B1ack
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 14:58:35 -0600, super70s
Post by super70s
Boy is he going to be disappointed when he finds out there are no
pictures and graphs. Not to mention his name is nowhere to be found in
them.
Anyway he can "look at" them all he wants but he won't be able to change
them just because someone wrote mean things about him and it wasn't in
bad faith.
Pretty much nothing BUT bad faith ....
You have to prove the author wrote something he knew beforehand to be
untrue and with malicious intent,
For a legal case, yes. For an ass-kicking, not so much
Flabby fat fuck Trump isn't going to kick anyone's ass. He's getting
his own nose rubbed in the shit.

Loading...