Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;cplradar, post: 7891085, member: 108985&quot;]Aside from being wrong about the facts of law,[1] this forum isn&#039;t covered by the US Constitution since it is a privately owned website.&nbsp; It is so boring to read misconceptions about freedom of speech in the law, or the general principle.&nbsp;&nbsp; In the public, one can say whatever &quot;defamatory&quot; or &quot;libelous&quot; comment that one wants.&nbsp; In a private forum, speech is as free as the ownership chooses it to be.&nbsp; Free Speech, as a principle, is blanket.</p><p><br /></p><p>Calling for someone else&#039;s speech to be edited, limited, of suppressed is distasteful and i find it completely unnecessary.&nbsp; The same freedom that allowed him to make this statement also protects one to criticize it, which was rightfully done in this case.&nbsp; It is one step too far to ask for the post to be edited.</p><p><br /></p><p>IF NCG feels it is defame, they have lawyers.... let them sue the poster.&nbsp; The website has safe harbor, FWIW, under the DMCA among other points of law.</p><p><br /></p><p>NCG won&#039;t win that case, BTW.&nbsp; They have ZERO chance.</p><p><br /></p><p><font face="Courier New"><font size="2">[1]&nbsp; <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/defamation" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/defamation" rel="nofollow">https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/defamation</a></font></font></p><p><font face="Courier New"><font size="2"><br /></font></font></p><p><font face="Courier New"><font size="2">Unanimously, the Court reversed the lower court’s judgment for the plaintiff. To the contention that the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment" rel="nofollow">First Amendment</a> did not protect libelous publications, the Court replied that constitutional scrutiny could not be foreclosed by the “label” attached to something. “Like . . . the various other formulae for the repression of expression that have been challenged in this Court, libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment" rel="nofollow">First Amendment</a>.”<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/defamation#fn1259amd1" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/defamation#fn1259amd1" rel="nofollow">376 U.S. at 269. Justices Black, Douglas, and Goldberg, concurring, would have held libel laws <i>per se </i>unconstitutional. Id. at 293, 297. &quot;&gt;1259</a> “The general proposition,” the Court continued, “that freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment" rel="nofollow">First Amendment</a> has long been settled by our decisions . . . . [W]e consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/defamation#fn1260amd1" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/defamation#fn1260amd1" rel="nofollow">376 U.S. at 269, 270. &quot;&gt;1260</a> Because the advertisement was “an expression of grievance and protest on one of the major public issues of our time, [it] would seem clearly to qualify for the constitutional protection . . . [unless] it forfeits that protection by the falsity of some of its factual statements and by its alleged defamation of respondent.”<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/defamation#fn1261amd1" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/defamation#fn1261amd1" rel="nofollow">376 U.S. at 271. &quot;&gt;1261</a></font></font></p><p><font face="Courier New"><font size="3"><br /></font></font></p><p><font face="Courier New"><font size="3"><br /></font></font></p><p><font face="Courier New"><font size="3">[MEDIA=youtube]sOVHpQ_pAJg[/MEDIA]</font></font>[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in