why are the libel laws in the USA so lax..to allow Sludge and this

[the Kelly Gang]

bunch of clown Veterans who have written this Kerry book to get away with the rubbish they are spouting. ?

[Courtesy Flush]

1. It's a trade-off

Those same laws protect Michael Moore

[sendero]

2. The difference is..

... that MM tells the truth and these fuckers literally make stuff up daily.

[the Kelly Gang]

3. your right..but outright lies are outrageous..then again if the President

gets away with it :puke:

[ClintonTyree]

4. Would you care..................

to elaborate as to what information Moore has given that is a complete lie, like much of Drudge's? Just interested.

[the Kelly Gang]

5. I didn't mean Moore lied !! good God no..never !!!

[Cats Against Frist]

6. I think they're flirting with breaking libel laws

There are different levels of libel laws, according to the type of person being attacked. It's been a LONG TIME since I've had my libel class -- but for Kerry to claim a libel suit against O'Neill, he would have to claim actual malice -- which, I think is reasonable -- and the burden falls on O'Neill to prove his case in court. Since the accusations of O'Neill are specific, and could be true, that entitles Kerry, also, to sue for libel. If O'Neill's claims could be mistaken for satire, or a joke, such as "Kerry eats aborted fetuses," no libel suit could be claimed.

I don't really know if Kerry would want to do this -- and since he has so much access to media, to respond to O'Neill, that would play into it, as well. I am all for attacking public figures, however, and I want libel suits to be used sparingly. I for one, like to tell people that "George Bush is and AWOL, coke-snorting gay who paid for an abortion, and his wife is a killer," without having to worry about it coming back on me....:)

It's really up to O'Neill, and how far he wants to take this -- if the media on it become so overwhelming that it puts Kerry at a disadvantage, I would say that Kerry would have a libel case -- based on damages, actual malice and specificity -- but, then -- does O'Neill have a reasonable case?

[ASanders84]

7. It would be best for Kerry

to leave this alone and not draw attention to it.

[Cuban_Liberal]

8. It's called free speech.

:shrug:

[Davis_X_Machina]

9. It's the price Mr. Kerry pays to play.

Justice Black, in his concurrence in the decision in Times v. Sullivan (1966):

This Nation, I suspect, can live in peace without libel suits based on public discussions of public affairs and public officials. But I doubt that a country can live in freedom where its people can be made to suffer physically or financially for criticizing their government, its actions, or its officials.

And Justice Goldberg's concurrence:

If liability can attach to political criticism because it damages the reputation of a public official as a public official, then no critical citizen can safely utter anything but faint praise about the government or its officials.

Any law that would let Kerry sue Drudge would also let, say, Cheney, sue DU.