"He is acting no different than members of the Klan did years ago," Omar said at the meeting, referring to Hicks. "The only difference is that he and his other buddies have uniforms on now that provide them with legal cover as opposed to the white sheets. ... He's been wanting to shoot someone for a long time. Well, he finally has."
Lumsden called Omar to the witness stand, but Omar cited the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination and did not testify.
"We didn't enter any evidence," Strelka said, "because it's my belief we didn't need to."
Another Roanoke officer sued a critic in 1995. In that case, an officer who was accused.
Funny, and here I thought that we had Freedom of Speech. Silly me, and a treasonous court.
I would have NEVER used the Klan as a comparison to the police. They are more like Nazis to me. :-)
Indeed. I really can’t see how the standard for slander was met. I also note that Omar was defended by the Rutherford Foundation, a right-wing civil liberties group.
Methinks that this verdict will be overturned on appeal, but IANAL.
Freedom of Speech has NEVER meant Freedom to Slander.
The First Amendment wasn’t intended to protect libel, slander or defamation of character.
You do not have the freedom to defame others. Defamation has never been protected under the First Amendment.
In a civil trial the fifth amendment does not apply.
If a witness refuses to testify, the testimony of opposing witnesses is deemed to be true. That is the civil penalty for refusing to testify.