Free Speech vs Slander

[Massacure]

A Bush supporter said Bush opposes all 527's putting Kerry in a bad posistion.

I said Bush opposes the first ammendment. I also told him there is a difference between Free Speech vs Slander.

Anyways does the 1st ammendment technically allow slander, or is the government allowed to censor the most outragous of lies?

[CarolynEC]

1. Slander is NOT protected speech...

... but it's not a matter of government censorship AT ALL. It's a legal matter, to be decided by the courts and (preferably) a jury of one's peers.

[Warpy]

2. Slander is not protected speech, but with some exceptions

and unfortunately, political ads are one of the exeptions.

However, libel is not allowed, which is why Kerry needs to get off his duff and hire a rabid libel lawyer to go after evrybody he can connect to that book. That way he can fight this thing to the max without having to commit any of his campaign funds, time or energy.

I wish he'd listen to me instead of to the DLC.

[Massacure]

3. What's the difference between slander and libel?

[Sydnie]

4. The difference is

Libel and slander are two forms of defamation (or defamation of character), which is the tort of making a false statement of fact that injures someone's reputation. When the communication is in writing, it is termed "libel".

However, the law does allow for a bit more leeway when the words are about a public figure. If they state that "Kerry did XYZ, in my opinion" then they have fairly well covered their butts. Opinions about public figures are not libelous. Stating that something is a fact, that one can not conclusively prove, however, would be libelous.

[Lindacooks]

6. I remember it this way -

'slander' and 'spoken' both start with 's'.

[eleny]

5. The way Kerry is going after Bush* now

...they now know that what they did was like shouting "Fire!" in the movie house, too.

Been thinking along your lines these past few days and am so glad to see your post. You spoke for me.

[DieboldMustDie]

7. If I understand the situation correctly,

their 527s may stop telling lies about Kerry if we stop telling the truth about Bush. :shrug:

[Vickers]

9. Ha!

:toast:

I think you nailed it!

[MichaelHarris]

8. Its never slander

when it's true. For example bush* AWOL thats true therfore not sloander. bush* lied to America, not slander because its true. not-so-swift boats, slander because it's all lies. If you speak the truth, nothing is slander.

[Nimrod]

10. Extremely blurred lines

A simplistic way to define is when you make accusations toward specifics that are presented as fact but have no factual basis.

"Bush is an idiot." Free Speech. I'm allowed to think he's an idiot.

"Bush shot JFK." If I'm going to seriously make this claim in a public forum (not just joking but really trying to convince people that Dubya was on the grassy knoll) I had better have something to back it up with.

On the subject of joking, slander/libel easily becomes political satire when presented in a humorous fashion. As long as you can make the case that you were NOT trying to state solid fact you're pretty safe. If the SBV had taken to the streets like the Billionaires and put on funny little skits they could have passed themselves off as satirists. They made their case serious, so it scoots right back to slander/libel range.

EDIT: Again, this is extremely simplistic. Please, no linguistics majors jumping down my throat this time.

[b06jgm]

11. 1st time poster...need help answering a question....

I got some dude in my office asking me about all this mess with 527's and such. He was saying that if the Swift Boat Vets crap should be banned, so should MoveOn.org's ads. I said "No, they're completely different beacause one is based on slander". He said "Not anymore than MoveOn.org is basically comparing the two side by side". I'll be honest, I try to keep open minds when it comes to politics...I'll listen to the right even if I don't agree. But basically he was saying that both groups are financed by high profile rich people...he's right I suppose. Both groups are there to disprove the other candidate...he's right there too; however, then he said "both are resorting to less-than-kosher methods to get their message across" and that's where I disagreed. I just am bad, honestly, at debates...gimme some good comebacks I can use..and this kid does have a 180 IQ so I need something that actually has some merit to it...I gotta come off as the smarter one here. :-)

[spooky3]

12. welcome to DU, and some tips inside...

1) your argument that one is speaking truth and the other lies is the strongest argument. Be sure you have looked carefully at the Swifties ad AND the MoveOn ad. Have specific examples of truth vs. lies to nail your opponent.

2) People who do the asserting have to provide the evidence. Ff he (not you) is asserting the "less-than-kosher" methods on BOTH groups' parts, tell him he needs to prove that with specifics.

3) Tell him to provide evidence of the financing of both groups (since he's asserting they're similar).

Where he does make a good, well-supported point, acknowledge it.

By the way, I doubt very much that he has an IQ of 180, so don't be intimidated! If you haven't seen the test results with your own eyes, then how do you know he is telling you the truth. Only 2% of people have IQs above about 125 (depending on the test used) (see the Mensa website, for example). So you can guess what % have IQs in the range he's claiming, and consequently what the odds are that he does.

[blondeatlast]

13. Slander of a public figure is extrememly difficult to prove. nt

[fishface]

14. That's Bushit...

he doesn't oppose 527's, just the ones that are nailing his ass.