Lawyers: Can Lamont SUE LIEberman for accusing him of voter fraud?

[Philosoraptor]

Just asking?

[rusty_parts2001]

1. He hasn't actually accused him of it.

[Solly Mack]

2. They're using "our political opponents" and "Pro-Lamont Hackers"

so they can say they never accused Lamont directly. This way the smear cast a wide enough net to cast doubt on Lamont without ever directly accusing Lamont. Lieberman's people have not said "Lamont did it"

This kind of attack is designed to indirectly accuse/smear another person but still leave an out for the accuser. "We never said Lamont did it - we said our 'politcal opponents' did it."

It's the doubt and the smear the accuser wants to spread more than anything else.

[treestar]

3. There is something about public figures having to prove actual

malice - knowledge of falsity. The standards are higher when it comes to evidence and proof, if they are a public figure, so free speech won't be hobbled too much. The reason why we can say so many things about Dubya without having proof. We can call him a liar, etc., without his being able to sue us over it.

They would have to make the accusation directly, too.