Posted on 01/13/2009 1:43:28 PM PST by season_bug
You rational is much clearer. :->
Try to grasp post 19 and get back to me. You’re wasting our time now.
Once again, please show a successful libel suit by a sitting president. Second, you have no idea whether AC pulled the article because of your threat of legal action. Third, you have no standing to file a libel suit in behalf of a third party without their consent. And fourth, as a poster noted in NY Times v. Sullivan, there is a higher threshhold for public figures. And fifth, political speech typically has a high level of legal protection.
Yours: Second, you have no idea whether AC pulled the article because of your threat of legal action.
Mine: I know ... do you? I sent them an ultimatum, and you read a caption of it. They backed out! How about you, did you know why they backed out after receiving a "warning"? If you think you know better than I do why the libelous lines were removed after they received a warning, show me. They "truncated" the article to escape a libel suit. You didn't read it well first before you made your original tall claim against what I have written and read by millions of readers.
Yours: If Third, you have no standing to file a libel suit in behalf of a third party without their consent. Mine: Wrong. You don't understand what you are against. Read the background one more time. You might know better and understand before you make this comment. And just to call attention to your rush judgment ... how did you know that "consent" was not given?
Yours: And fourth, as a poster noted in NY Times v. Sullivan, there is a higher threshhold for public figures. And fifth, political speech typically has a high level of legal protection. Mine: Did you know what the case NY Times v. Sullivan is all about? Ouch ...! Never mind. Just go back to the "threshold" that you claim you have which I have just described for you in the first paragraph so that you can understand it well and then show it to me. Then read again the dicta of the Sullivan case and tell me if there is even a shade of comparison with the "threshold" above-described that you are supposed to show to me, otherwise this legalistic discussion you brought up is just becoming more and more pretentious and itis wasting my time.
season_bug P.S. The spelling of "threshold" has just been corrected accordingly. Now show it to me as above-described.
Please show where a president, during your career, even filed a libel suit.
Mine: Wrong. You don't understand what you are against.
I'm up against a legend in his own mind. THAT is clear.
Read the background one more time.
Instead of claiming, why don't you show precedent where you can have standing to file a libel suit on behalf of a third party without their consent. You keep asking me to prove negatives. You need to prove a positive.
Mine: I know ... do you? I sent them an ultimatum, and you read a caption of it. They backed out!
You have no idea if your 'ultimatum' caused it. Once again, since you have a 35 year legal career, I'm sure you can cite legal precedent for filing a libel suit for someone without their consent. Until you can do that, you are just blowing smoke out your arse.
You said: Please show where a president, during your career, even filed a libel suit. I say to you: No way if you cannot show a "threshold" you said you have in a Supreme Court decision where a president of the United States was defamed but the case was dismissed because the S.CT had decided as you claimed that the libelous statements did not pass the standard or "threshold" that you knew exists.. Besides, where did you get the idea that a U.S. president has filed a case of defamation against a revolutionary leftist writer and a radical publication that published with malice those false derogatory statements against the private person of the president? It is not in the editorial I wrote to which you directed your comment. I don’t know where did this come from!
You said: I'm up against a legend in his own mind. THAT is clear. [underscored]. I say to you: If you only know ... you are indeed against a legend, period. For, what if this “legend” you messed up with appears in the Internet to countless audiences; had rubbed elbows with the world's dignitaries and royalties [Kings and Princes, if you may]; had debated with the best minds representing different countries in the international forums, aside from writing a truckload of published dissertations in the academe, a consistent recipient of excellence awards in journalism, etc. ... would that not disabuse your mind of cynicism and jolt you to reality as to who you are dealing with? Websites competed to publish this “legend”. I will give you just one sample so as not to tire you down out of curiosity – please go to http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com and scroll down to “Columnists” and meet him there. There are still more than a dozen of these websites in the Internet.
You need to know if you must, who you are jousting with. As of now, I expect a two-way learning process. Unfortunately, it only flows one way to you. I appreciate the fact that at this point even though it is late you began to know the “legendary figure” [to borrow your cynical cliché] you are parlaying with [modesty aside when to blow a horn is absolutely necessary] and that thank heavens this is now "clear" to you.
You said: Instead of claiming, why don't you show precedent where you can have standing to file a libel suit on behalf of a third party without their consent. I say to you: This is the craziest thing a layman or those pretending to be lawyers, would indulge themselves in. It was not only the private person of the one who was elected president that was injured -- do I have to repeat this to you over and over again? His wife was injured, and his children, grandchildren, relatives and friends were also damaged. Look and please listen carefully, when a lawyer files a case or cases for those who were defamed with malice, do you suppose that that lawyer can file or will file those cases without his client's/clients’consent? If you have gone to law school, that would be preposterous, don’t you think? No lawyer on earth will do that because the BAR won’t allow him/her to pass. I have already forewarned you what imprudence and little knowledge would make people think of you if you ignore this flawed thinking. But in a “class suit”, a lawyer does not go to a community of individuals to seek "consent" before going to court. This is just to enlighten you what "standing" in court means with regards to “consent” in litigation that you brought up. If you are a lawyer, do I need to explain this to you? If you are not, you are excused and I need to explain it to you because it is important that you should know.
You said: You keep asking me to prove negatives. You need to prove a positive. I say to you: You are now forgetting how this discussion started. I wrote an editorial piece, and against it you presented "negatives". This is how it begun when you started it, did you forget? Since you negated what I wrote, I asked you first to support your negative assertions against what I wrote. If you cannot support it, the honest thing to do is to refrain from negatively harping on what you cannot support. Let me give you an example as a reminder: You negatively asserted that the libelous statements of a leftist author that I have identified to you directed against the president’s persona that injured his private person, his wife, children and grandchildren, relatives, etc. cannot pass the THRESHOLD that you said you know, for libel. Where is that "threshold" that you claim to know? You got me interested in it and I am still waiting up to now. While waiting, you cannot ask anything further from me if in fact you cannot first support your NEGATIVE assertion against what I have written that was read by millions. It is unfair to anyone to give anything to a windblower for nothing. You started it, and you are obligated by decency to either support your negative assertions against my article and finish it or drop your intervention because you cannot support it. You have not been invited to give a negative assertion at all that cannot be supported. Only negative assertions that can be supported are invited. I do not need to explain to you the doctrine in journalism involving the right to criticize under our constitutional freedom of expression. You have invited yourself to a mess that the intervention you cannot support has created.
This is the longest response because this is the last explanation I can give to you. Sometimes there are those who have gotten used to live in their shady domain of knowledge for so long that they resent the light that intrudes into their darkest corner. You can say whatever you want to say after this either with grace or disgrace, but to me it is irrelevant, has no more meaning and no longer valid. We have made our points clear and there is nothing more to add.
Before I leave, please accept my apology if I have offended you in whatever way you think I did. It was not meant to be. I hope we can end those exchanges this way and remain as friends rather than as “enemies” that we have no cogent reason to justify we should be.
Cheers!
season_bug
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.