Posted on 03/24/2008 3:43:32 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man
Public Figures Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages. The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures. A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html
As I specifically said, I understand your distinction, I just think you are willfully abetting slander by continuing to bring it up.
Could be his people are trying to boost Obama by blasting McCain.
"My boy" you call him? That reveals much. And this isn't the first thread I've seen you blasting McCain, which strongly indicates your own biases. I'm not slandering you one iota, pal!
If you're gonna hurl dirt at McCain [as you have been for months now] be man enough to admit it.
Ummm, pal, stop reading sh1t into a post when it isn’t there. If someone can’t ask people a question about something and get the real deal about it, then I’d just rather not have you post to me at all.
On the bright side, many who may come across that 'story' about what happened on the Forrestal that day, if they hadn't read up on it previously, may be able to rest assured that no matter what else negative things one may think could be said against the GOP nominee, balme for that particular catastrophe isn't one of them.
As far as me not posting to you some from of criticism, well tough. Don't post in a forum asking questions, or making statements, if you're don't want to face a challenge. Understand?
Well, I am glad that you were joking. It didn’t really come across that way, but there are WAY too many people that see a word or phrase around here and don’t read, but just project their own crap onto someone else. That’s why it’s just not worth trying to have a discussion with these people. We’re not democrats here, we don’t have to bite someone’s head off for wanting accurate knowledgeabout something.
Maybe I was influenced by that movie I saw on cable yesterday, twice in a row. Sahara. Never read the Cussler books, but it was a pretty good movie. Some good dialog, including some dry humor. The "Al" character had some great lines.
Otherwise, political operators DO play around on this site at times, trying to manipulate things. I wonder if some do plant things to gauge reactions, too. It's probably happened right in front of me before, and I didn't see it. Otherwise, many contributors do have agendas. Some of them honest, and straightforward. others, not so honest or straightforward...
It helps to stay aware, though I admit that I usually do not think about it too much.
Most threads seem to have only a few hundred 'views'. Others, with few posted contributions, can run a lot higher. I'm glad they restored that tracking function. My own checking on the mood, and analysis of the electorate, is purely hobby.
I’m like you, I’m just a guy who likes being on the site and reading up on the issues. I guess I try to be a ‘what you see (read) is what you get’ kind of person, whether here or face to face. And I get a lot of info not only from the stories posted here, but also from the comments that follow. It’s why I expected to get the real story here from folks.
I’m not familiar with the Sahara movie. What’s the storyline?
In the end the good guys win (of course), get the gold (from a U.S. Civil War era Confederate Ironclad long shipwrecked on the banks of some now long-gone tributary to the Niger River) and they get the girl. Well, the "main" character gets the girl, and a rare car. As it's main character, the movie starred Matthew McConaughey, whom I've heard of, but know nothing much about. Digging around on-line, hoping to not write out the convoluted plot line I found this quote;
I'm assuming the book is somewhat different. It's one of a series of books by Cussler using the same character McConaughey plays in the movie.
“yes, just as soon as Dan can generate all the necessary documentation needed”
I’m afraid that old ‘Danny Boy’ has done his homework this time; the incriminating photo shows McCain smoking a cig just below deck on that fateful day. In he is sporting his Arizona D-backs hat, drinking a Red Bull and reviewing a map of the former Soviet Union.
No the FReeps can’t burn rather on this one. He is expressing his journalistic vigor!
I did some searching of historical news articles some time ago. As far as I can tell, the “wet start” theory came from the Navy itself, back in 1967, but not as the story is currently being told attributing the wet-start to McCain’s aircraft.
News reports on July 29, 1967 said the Pentagon attributed the incident to an auxiliary fuel tank dropping off of an aircraft (which turned out to be McCain’s) with fuel spilliing on the flight deck and igniting. Subsequent news reports that day and the day following gave more detail, saying the fuel tank fell onto the deck and the fuel that spilled out onto the flight deck was ignited by the catapult system.
It was two days later, on July 31, 1967, that reports, atributed to a “Cap. Beling” theorized that the sequence of events started with a “wet start,” not from McCain, but an aircraft further forward on the carrier. (”Cap. Beling” appears to be John K. Beling, Commanding Officer of the USS Forrestal, according to google.) He said that a “wet start” had caused a large plume of fire to sweep backward and touch off an air-to-air missile on one of the F-4s which in turn hit McCain’s fuel tank (still slung under the wing of the A-4.)
The theory of an electrical malfunction in the F-4 being the cause of a missile firing must have come much later.
Thanks, your story sounds like what others are saying about this. See, this is why it is good to ask about shuch things here and why I consider FR to be a good research tool as well as informative.
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.