Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Boot Hill
"Yes, but the person making such a statement had best be prepared to be publicly labeled anti-Semitic."

Two more questions:

    1) But not criminally charged (with a "hate" crime) for holding an unpopular or unattractive opinion?

    and...

    2) Did the Quigleys make their remarks in public or did they make their remarks with expectation of privacy?


41 posted on 03/03/2004 2:56:57 AM PST by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]


To: Bonaparte
that depends on if they expected their neighbors to tap their phones in violation of the law, doesn't it?
44 posted on 03/03/2004 2:58:42 AM PST by VaGunGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

To: Bonaparte
1) Hate crime laws suck.

But since I've restricted my comments on this thread solely to the verdict in the defamation case, your question is a little irrelevant.

2) Not relevant to the question of defamation.

--Boot Hill

55 posted on 03/03/2004 3:11:42 AM PST by Boot Hill (America: Thy hand will be upon the neck of thine enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson