Reply to Thread

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Message: <blockquote data-quote="donner" data-source="post: 1474594" data-attributes="member: 277">The problem with a defamation argument is much like the rest of this mess with the WBC, it's in defining which aspect of the event you are talking about.Defamation laws require different things based on what category the 'wronged' individual falls into. Public figures enjoy far less protection than individuals. The third category is where this case gets complicated. Is Snyder an 'involuntary public figure'? If so, then he enjoys less protection from defamation than another private citizen.So the question now becomes, what was said and when. Were most of the WBC statements released prior to or after Snyder's lawsuit/comments about the church? If he injected himself into the situation by commenting on what WBC was doing then he may have become a limited purpose public figure, thus removing some of the protections he and his wife would get as private citizens. Oh, and don't forget, you also have to show that what was said was said with malice. Right or wrong, you have to show that the actions were meant to intentionally hurt the targeted individual. Merely saying something that causes another person pain isn't intent.  I agree that these people should be fought at every turn, i (and i think you would agree) just think the government is not the ones we want championing this issue. I don't like the idea of any junior congressman drafting legislation saying what i can and can't say as a form of protest. If for no other reason then i don't think they'd stop with just one law.</blockquote>

Verification