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.
Of course it's true. If the court says you are meanly speaking ill of Mohammed, you don't have free speech protection.
Or were you defending the behavior itself-----saying it's okay for old men to force kids to have sex, and they shouldn't be criticized for it??
You can speak ill of him, you just cannot hold seminars and make unproven assertions that are negative. I guess the title is technically correct, you can't legally defame him anymore than you can anyone else. But the tone of the article to me seemed to suggest what you are saying - that people can't speak ill of him. Which isn't true.
Again, age of consent is 16, at the lowest level in the US.
And if there are any actual child marriages they are either in religious zealot sects or foreigners. This is not an American practice and never has been.
you must have missed it ... Child Marriage and Religion in the United States
"In New Jersey, the law remains that minors can marry with parental consent at 16, and anyone younger can marry with consent of both parents and a judge’s approval. (my bold)
<snip>
Marriage involving minors — which most often involves young girls and older men — doesn’t always occur due to strict interpretations of religious custom.
<snip>
“It isn’t exclusive to the Muslim population,” she says, negating the notion that child marriage is only an issue among those who practice Islam."
It's only "defamation" if it's not true. Muhammad was a warlord, a slave taker, a rapist, a misogynist and a pedophile. Not defamation, all historical fact. Europe's laws protect depraved scum and make it illegal to talk about their crimes.
You can speak ill of him, you just cannot hold seminars and make unproven assertions that are negative. I guess the title is technically correct, you can't legally defame him anymore than you can anyone else. But the tone of the article to me seemed to suggest what you are saying - that people can't speak ill of him. Which isn't true.
So by pointing out that this grown man had sex with a nine-year old, 1,500 years ago, and then asserting that this was bad, she is somehow so "negative" that she should be arrested?? This is far as the argument can be broken down, Jen. This is the essence of the question. You have to explain how that makes even the slightest bit of sense. You have failed to do so.
Point out SPECIFICALLy what she did that merited arrest.
That poster is not right. Trump is 100 percent right. Libel is specifically excluded under the 1st Amendment and is a private action brought against a private party for false statements. It has nothing to do with free speech.
You do realize (one this is ot) that he was talking about taking newspapers to court right? Trump hates negative press as his ego can't handle it. So it would suit him just fine if the u.s. began to look a bit more like China.
You do realize (one this is ot) that he was talking about taking newspapers to court right? Trump hates negative press as his ego can't handle it. So it would suit him just fine if the u.s. began to look a bit more like China.
Yes. Absolutely. You should absolutely without a doubt be able to file a private civil action against a media outlet or any other person who publishes a completely false statement about you. That’s not free speech and is specifically excluded from the 1st Amendment protections.
The person in this topic was fined by a government entity for stating a fact about a historic figure. It has nothing to do with Trump’s views on libel laws.
You can speak ill of him, you just cannot hold seminars and make unproven assertions that are negative. I guess the title is technically correct, you can't legally defame him anymore than you can anyone else. But the tone of the article to me seemed to suggest what you are saying - that people can't speak ill of him. Which isn't true.
Give me a break. This had nothing to do with "defamation." Nothing that woman said was untrue. And they clearly weighed speech against the feelings of religious groups.
Well, that's Europe. So don't get too excited because that gar-baghe will never fly here--though some would LIKE it to.
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.
