Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66
She IS NOT cutting any new or revolutionary ground here.
I realize you gotta point the finger at the Libs cause you can't defend your own Conservative boys and you don't want to admit that they did wrong...
... but if you conservatives HAD a case, you could have brought your cases already. 
I have quoted the slander law, and beyond some conservatives obviously failing to comprehend what it says, it IS a clear cut case of slander.
If you want to go the "Breitbart is SOOOOO stupid that he just aired an edited tape he was sent and didn't have a clue", I guess you can do that. 
But this IS a clear cut case of slander. 
|
Actually, I wonder if she might be. I too hope she wins. The internet/blogosphere has long been a wild west no-rules journalistic environment. The problem is - no rules, no ethics, no accountability for what is said and dissiminated.
People bitch about the MSM (and I include cable in that category becuase it IS now mainstream) - but there is accountability. Dan Rather DID lose his job over his failure to verify when he was overly eager to smear Bush. Folks seem to think that accountability only belongs to the "other side" of the aisle. Slander and libel (I use that loosely, not legally) are somehow justified if it supports their own prejudices or if it's seen as "retaliation" for some percieved "transgression".
I wonder if a lawsuit against Not-so-Bright-Bart, might open the door to serious questions. Reputations can be shredded in hours with carefully placed and passed on rumor-mongering, selective editing of material and down right lies. Is this a good thing?