[American_Centurion]

You claimed that the Quigleys "skated on a technicality". That implies that you believe that they should have been publicly proclaimed anti-semitic, and sued and maybe charged with a hate crime.

I have read later posts where you explained "hate crime laws suck", so I understand that you weren't implying they should have been charged. Still that doesn't reconcile your anti-freedom statement that "the Quigleys are anti-semitic and skated on a technicality".

They can say any darn thing they want in private (phone conversations have a reasonable expectation of privacy) and there isn't a think anyone can do about it.

IMO the taping of the conversations doesn't bother me one way or the other (regarding the timing of the law), even if the tapes were admissible the Quigleys didn't do anything that makes them civilly or criminally liable.

[American_Centurion]

Forgot to add.

Based on my previous reply, the Quigleys were defamed.

[Boot Hill]

"You claimed that the Quigleys "skated on a technicality". That implies that you believe that they should have been publicly proclaimed anti-semitic, and sued and maybe charged with a hate crime."

The highlighted portions imply no such thing. What I've been saying (not implying) from the start is that, in my opinion, the Quigley's should not have prevailed in their defamation suit against the ADL. From everything I've read here, the comments by the Quigley's were indeed anti-Semitic.

--Boot Hill