Obama Thuggery: No Free Speech in Obamamerica

um never heard of slander.. it really doesnt amaze me the right has no concept of our rightsas they keep tryoign to take them all away. heck a fox "reporter" was also whining "free speach" cuase no one would talk to him.. hate to brak it to fox but silence is free speach as well.

Publishing known lies about someone in a way that damages them is liable and slandaer and has zero to do with free speech

But i guess you would support the right of someoen to scream "Fire" in a corwded theature.. as long as the theature was filled with liebrals.

The courts balance a need to protect speech and a need to prevent people from being defamed.  While there is a higher standard for defamation of public figures, it is not so high that someone who knowingly makes false imputations of serious criminal conduct would be immune.

i don't think that Justice William Brennan would have allowed any intimidation of any political speech.

Defamation isn't political speech.  If I say "Politician X is unfit for office because he is a murderer," when in fact Politician X is not a murderer, I have committed defamation through my political speech.  This is still defamation -- political nature is no defense against charges of defamation.  This is the law.

Remember, the great First Amendment jurists let Nazis parade through Skokie Illinois...if that was allowed, how are Obama's goon squads legal?

Because the Nazis weren't defaming anyone -- that is, they were expressing their opinion, however repugnant, that so-called Aryans were superior to other races.  The people at whom this circuit attorney's remarks are directed are defaming Obama -- they're making factual statements which are false which tend to defame Mr. Obama.  Read up on your defamation.  (It's the college AMTA case for this year -- I know my @!$%#.)

Republican playbook 101 - accuse your opponent of exactly what you are doing.

So for clarity's sake you are promoting the notion that in the name of politics I can call you an idiot? Is that correct? Because we are discussing politics its fair game right?  Its politics after all.

OK headinthegame I feel then that I am not making a COH violation by saying -- Wait for it....

Nope can't do it, civil discord prevents me from accusing you of something I know to be false. Clearly you are misinformed, misguided, and misdirected but clearly not an idiot.

Here you go, HITG. 

The Obama campaign is considering, apparently, pressing defamation charges against Jerome Corsi for making, among other claims, false and defamatory imputations of serious criminal conduct -- imputations of current use of illegal drugs.

Assuming the claims are false (the burden of proof would lie on Mr. Corsi to prove that they are true), Corsi would have published a defamatory statement about Mr. Obama either that he knew was false or with reckless disregard for the possible falsity of the statement.  Thus, Corsi would be liable for defamation.  The fact that the speech pertains to a political public figure is irrelevant.  There are only two standards - public figures, regardless of the arena of their publicity, and private figures. 

And yes, I've read quite a few US Supreme Court Cases.

@Purple Party:  Yes, it is protected speech to call someone an idiot.  You can't be put in jail for that, it's your opinion.  If I say that you associate with terrorists, and that's false, however, I've made a factual assertion and thus can potentially be thrown in jail for defamation.

insert I couldn't agree more. I was just pointing out that headgame wasn't being civil himself.

Excuse me.  It appears that the Obama campaign is rather considering a civil suit against Mr. Corsi. 

Further, it appears that Missouri doesn't have criminal libel statutes even on the books.  So the prosecutors are pretty dumb.  But regardless, in states that do have criminal libel statutes, someone like Mr. Corsi could, in theory, be charged.

That surely doesn't make it right.  I won't argue the legal point. But doing anything you want just because you can is wrong. That's the way you divide people not bring them together and anyone that does it is seen for what they are.

my favorite free speech case of all time.  the guy who had a t-shirt which said "f*&* you" on it.  he gets criminally prosecuted.  he appeals.  the courts set him free.that's free speech.  you may not like it.  that's the point!

Obscenity is hardly related.  This is about defamation, not free speech in general. 

in the political realm there is a lot more freedom than outside the political realm.

Sort of?  What do you mean?  There's no difference in the law for defamation which is what we are talking about, you'll remember, for political public figures and other public figures (like celebrities).Saying "Obama associates with terrorists" is vague enough to be protected.  What exactly is a terrorist?  What exactly does "associate" mean?  It is unlikely that a court would see this as libel. (The same applies if I were to say "Brad Pitt associates with terrorists.")However, saying "Obama provides material aid to terrorists" is clearly an imputation of serious criminal conduct.  That would be libel, despite the fact that Obama is a politician.  (It would also, of course, be libel if I were to say "Brad Pitt provides material aid to terrorists.")

in fact, i would argue divisive speech is actually helpful. it actually promotes the general welfare. these people who say the opposite are fascists.

There's a difference between divisive speech and libel. Libel is false. Divisive speech is just different or strange. Suggesting divisive ideas, like that America should, say, invade and annex Canada does promote the general welfare (I wouldn't use that phrase, but whatever.) Lying and defaming, like saying that Barack Obama is a Muslim, doesn't promote the general welfare.

i mean political speech has more protection than commercial speech

Yes.  Normal speech has more protection that commercial speech, too, however.  Sorry, but you were clearly saying that political speech is legally protected beyond normal speech, and that's just not true. 

Commercial speech is regulated, *I think*, by the UCC, which has rules about false and misleading business practices and labeling requirements.  I can say that "My orange juice cures cancer" without any legal liability, but if I try to sell my orange juice to you based on that claim, I am acting illegally.