Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wrong. Biographies are research pieces....but that doesn't mean they are researched "well" or with "documented facts." A biographer can interpret anything he wants under the premise of "biographical" information. That doesn't mean it's accurate.
Why are liberals so damn gullible?
You're the one who accepts any damn smear as a "biography," and you're asking me why liberals are gullible?
I don't think this conversation is going the way you planned.
Difficult does not mean that the threat of penalty is not there and therefore won't be pursued.
It means it's nearly impossible to win, that's why it's rarely pursued. A poster mentioned the Shirley Sherrod case. Sherrod is suing Breitbart's estate for defamation claiming that Breitbart deliberately edited the video in an effort to defame her. If she can't prove that Breitbart deliberately edited the video, she is going to lose her case, even though we all know that the selective edit of the video shown, completely misrepresented Sherrod's views and led to her being forced from her job.
Geezus Christ. Of the millions of books written in the history of man, of the kazillions of lies that have been told about people, you actually thought it was worthy to deflect to a blog post and a YouTube video to make your case about libel, slander, and defamation?
But, since you did, i'll bite: Do you think that those folks should have sued? If not, why not?
Deflect? Those things I mentioned are two of the most egregious, harmful and vicious hit pieces done in America in the past 10 years.
It's only a coincidence that they, and you, are all right wing fanatics trying to smear liberals, right?
Talk about deflection.
Judas: "Honest, when I betrayed Jesus and caused his death, it was no big deal!"
As to why not, Votre_Chef already answered you and you're ignoring it as usual. I can't be bothered to repeat it because I know you're not interested. You're too busy trying desperately -- and ridiculously -- to prove that this "book" has any merit beyond use a toilet paper.
Deflect? Those things I mentioned are two of the most egregious, harmful and vicious hit pieces done in America in the past 10 years.
It's only a coincidence that they, and you, are all right wing fanatics trying to smear liberals, right?
Talk about deflection.
"Those things I said that destroyed a person's life are no big deal, you Honor. Honest! You have to trust me!"
As to why not, Votre_Chef already answered you and you're ignoring it as usual. I can't be bothered to repeat it because I know you're not interested. You're too busy trying desperately -- and ridiculously -- to prove that this "book" has any merit beyond use a toilet paper. If that.
Hey genius....Shirley Sherrod SUED Breitbart.Which goes exactly to my point! You can't just make **** up about people....especially using direct quotes.....and expect to be protected by the law when those quotes are found to be fabricated!
You don't even realize how you stepped on your own argument with your bizarre example!
It means it's nearly impossible to win, that's why it's rarely pursued. A poster mentioned the Shirley Sherrod case. Sherrod is suing Breitbart's estate for defamation claiming that Breitbart deliberately edited the video in an effort to defame her. If she can't prove that Breitbart deliberately edited the video, she is going to lose her case, even though we all know that the selective edit of the video shown, completely misrepresented Sherrod's views and led to her being forced from her job.
And that's why we have Courts. To sort it all out. But that doesn't mean the threat of penalty does not exist. And it especially does not mean that the author of a book who uses direct quotes will use those quotes with out fear of retribution if those direct quotes are 100% fabricated.
And that's why we have Courts. To sort it all out. But that doesn't mean the threat of penalty does not exist. And it especially does not mean that the author of a book who uses direct quotes will use those quotes with out fear of retribution if those direct quotes are 100% fabricated.
The point is, that the fear of any penalty is remote because cases aren't often pursued because it's much tougher to prove in the United States, a country with some of the weakest libel laws of any western nation. You can like or dislike the US's libel laws, but you can't say they inhibit people from lying about famous people, that's simply not the case.
I can give you an example that anyone can easily relate to. Everything said about Mitt Romney, George W. Bush, and Sarah Palin must be true, because...libel laws. Now, do you agree with that statement or not?
Hey genius....Shirley Sherrod SUED Breitbart.Which goes exactly to my point! You can't just make **** up about people....especially using direct quotes.....and expect to be protected by the law when those quotes are found to be fabricated!
You don't even realize how you stepped on your own argument with your bizarre example!
She sued and it's been YEARS and she probably will never get a dime for reasons that have been patiently explained to you. That's not the point.
The point is that you can say any damn thing you want, and remedies are weak to nonexistent in this country. Meaning that the argument you're using to pretend is anything but a smear job is worthless. Genius.
But keep trying to convince us you know what you're talking about, since you don't even know what a biography actually is. I learned that in third grade.
The point is, that the fear of any penalty is remote because cases aren't often pursued because it's much tougher to prove in the United States, a country with some of the weakest libel laws of any western nation. You can like or dislike the US's libel laws, but you can't say they inhibit people from lying about famous people, that's simply not the case.
I can give you an example that anyone can easily relate to. Everything said about Mitt Romney, George W. Bush, and Sarah Palin must be true, because...libel laws. Now, do you agree with that statement or not?
You're moving the goal posts by focusing only on basic libel. The issue at hand is the direct quotes in the book referenced in the OP. Quotations add an entirely different dimension than merely saying something about someone and its intent/interpretation being judged harmful or not.
You're moving the goal posts by focusing only on basic libel. The issue at hand is the direct quotes in the book referenced in the OP. Quotations add an entirely different dimension than merely saying something about someone and its intent/interpretation being judged harmful or not.
Still laughing at this…
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
