Nick Sandmann...will get justice!!

[friendly fred]

Originally Posted by themystic

Fuck Israel. ( Unless Fred is visiting). They can take care of themselves. Im tired of spending money on that welfare country

I've been to that very civilized and important country numerous times.

They are our friends.

OTOH, fuck Russia!!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by friendly fred

I've been to that very civilized and important country numerous times.

They are our friends.

OTOH, fuck Russia!!

How many Russians are Israeli citizens?

A whole bunch ove the last 20 years right?

[Munchmasterman]

Looks like anything to distract the people from trump's money shot.
Guess I should say donald's facsial.

Yeah, I remember how the cocksucking bastard brigade treated David Hogg.
Stop pretending this is in the same city, let alone the same ballpark.
Fucking cry babies.

Stop trying to shut down the government and stop trying to clog up the court system.

No fucking wall for you.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Looks like anything to distract the people from trump's money shot.
Guess I should say donald's facsial.

Yeah, I remember how the cocksucking bastard brigade treated David Hogg.
Stop pretending this is in the same city, let alone the same ballpark.
Fucking cry babies.

Stop trying to shut down the government and stop trying to clog up the court system.

No fucking wall for you.

No Soup for YOU!!!!

[friendly fred]

Originally Posted by WTF

How many Russians are Israeli citizens?

A whole bunch ove the last 20 years right?

Yes, something like that. Can you blame them for wanting to go to such a fine country when they live in a shithole like Russia.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by friendly fred

Yes, something like that. Can you blame them for wanting to go to such a fine country when they live in a shithole like Russia.

Fred shame on you! you know the liberal media has outlawed calling shithole nations "shithole nations"! so please refrain from calling shithole nations "shithole nations"!

thanks, the liberal media.


BAHAAAHA

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by WTF

If you do not understand it...how would you know if it is off topic?

If I run across a sale on logic, I'll be sure and buy you some.

More of your nonsense...keep up the good work...the left and logic could marry...because they have no relation with each other.
VERY little of what you post reflects your"Libertarian" beliefs...you don't have to hide behind that false cover, don't you know the left encourages people to be come "out" and don't be embarrassed...the left welcomes you.

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by WTF

Let's see a rightie thinks the left is wrong and it would be logical to assume that the leftie thinks the rightie is wrong.

What really was your point?

Only snowflake righties that have gotten their feeling hurt can sue? Are justified in suing?

What is your point never?

So the MSM should be able to lie with impunity and not be held accountable...Gotcha!!
What's that you were saying about logic...Hummmm

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by WTF

Poor kid....got his feelings hurt. He should sue somebody!

Or is he a paid actor?

Is slander unlawful and are there any consequence for it??
Excellent how you down play violations of the law...when it suits you
You should do critical thinking and not hypocritical thinking...try it some time it will portray you in a better light...

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by WTF

What is your point never?

That kids on the political right should be able to sue when they get their feeling hurt but kids on the left can not.

That is stupid as fuck.

Please post a link where kids on the left can't sue...
you said something about logic, try using it...I'll be waiting on those links
This is slander pure and simple...that is why they have law against it...slander IS a lot more than hurt feeling.
The left's new catch phrase..."feeling not facts"...they put a lot of emphasis on feeling...not the right!!
You need to read up on slander and then you can discern it from hurt feeling.
I'll being waiting on those links...

[themystic]

Originally Posted by friendly fred

I've been to that very civilized and important country numerous times.

They are our friends.

OTOH, fuck Russia!!

Fred I may change my opinion in Favor of Israel because of you. If you exit the earth before me I have the right to change it back

[friendly fred]

Originally Posted by themystic

Fred I may change my opinion in Favor of Israel because of you. If you exit the earth before me I have the right to change it back

Those are fair terms and I appreciate that you are open minded on this subject. You show considerably more intelligence than that guy who went to High School at the University of Houston and exploits immigrants to build shitholes and avoids legitimate taxes by illegally and intentionally mischaracterizing the status of employees.

[oeb11]

Originally Posted by bb1961

Is slander unlawful and are there any consequence for it??
Excellent how you down play violations of the law...when it suits you
You should do critical thinking and not hypocritical thinking...try it some time it will portray you in a better light...

Again!
Defamation of character is an offense for which a complainant may be eligible to bring another party to civil court. There are two types of defamation: spoken defamation, or slander, and written defamation, or libel. The balance that makes defamation law tricky is that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives people the right of free speech. On the other hand, people should not be able to ruin the lives of others by disseminating lies to force a business to shut down or compel the breakdown of a family. Laws regarding when to sue for defamation vary from state to state, but generally speaking, four criteria must be met for a slander or libel suit to stand a chance of success.

The defamation, whether written or spoken, must be:

• 1) Demonstrably and objectively false
• 2) Seen or heard by a public third party
• 3) Quantifiably injurious
• 4) Unprivileged by law

Defamation Must Be Objectively False

It is not against the law to say mean things about somebody if they are either true or if they are entirely subjective. For instance, if a restaurant critic says that the food “was the worst I’ve had in a long time,” the statement, while mean, is vague and subjective enough to avoid a lawsuit. Similarly, environmental activists who make the public aware of corporate practices that harm the earth can’t be sued for defamation as long as they report on the facts.
Defamation Must Be Published

In order to prove injury, you have to prove that other people saw it, heard it, read it and had their minds changed because of the slanderous or libelous statements. Courts generally consider libel to be more serious than slander because writing lasts longer, though major television broadcasts often carry the same weight as major print or web publications because more people viewed them.
Defamation Must Cause Financial Injury

In order to determine the damages from a slander or libel suit, there must be quantifiable damages. Defamation of character damages a person’s or company’s reputation, and it must be proven that the damage to reputation correlated with a loss of money, property, relationship or was subject to harassment that led to any of the above losses.
Defamation Must Not Be Protected Speech

Examples of speech that is privileged and protected specifically by the U.S. Constitution from defamation laws include witness testimony in court and lawmaker statements in legislative chambers or official materials.
As long as the defamatory statements are published, false, injurious and unprivileged, you may have a case to file a defamation lawsuit. Of course, it is always advised to consult with a lawyer before taking any steps forward in your legal action.
When to Sue for Defamation as a Public Official

It is challenging enough for the average person to win a defamation case, but it is even harder for a public official to prove slander or libel, whether the person is a government employee, a high profile actor, or any other form of celebrity. This is because as a public official, you have to meet a fifth criterion – actual malice. Actual malice in the context of defamation means a person knew what they said was not true and defamed the public official with the intention of harming his or her reputation. Proving that the individual completely disregarded the truth and purposefully intended on damaging the other person’s reputation can be difficult, however.
Celebrity Case of Defamation

While it may be difficult, there are a number of high-profile people who have won cases of defamation. For instance, Katie Holmes filed a libel lawsuit against The Star gossip magazine for publishing that she was a drug addict in the article titled “Addiction Nightmare. Katie Drug Shocker!” However, inside the article, the publication did not divulge any information related to a drug addiction, but with such a defamatory headline, Holmes had a case on her side. The $50 million lawsuit ended with a printed apology and a donation to a charity of Holmes’ choice.
Not every case is as straightforward as Holmes’ was.

[themystic]

Originally Posted by oeb11

Again!
Defamation of character is an offense for which a complainant may be eligible to bring another party to civil court. There are two types of defamation: spoken defamation, or slander, and written defamation, or libel. The balance that makes defamation law tricky is that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives people the right of free speech. On the other hand, people should not be able to ruin the lives of others by disseminating lies to force a business to shut down or compel the breakdown of a family. Laws regarding when to sue for defamation vary from state to state, but generally speaking, four criteria must be met for a slander or libel suit to stand a chance of success.

The defamation, whether written or spoken, must be:

• 1) Demonstrably and objectively false
• 2) Seen or heard by a public third party
• 3) Quantifiably injurious
• 4) Unprivileged by law

Defamation Must Be Objectively False

It is not against the law to say mean things about somebody if they are either true or if they are entirely subjective. For instance, if a restaurant critic says that the food “was the worst I’ve had in a long time,” the statement, while mean, is vague and subjective enough to avoid a lawsuit. Similarly, environmental activists who make the public aware of corporate practices that harm the earth can’t be sued for defamation as long as they report on the facts.
Defamation Must Be Published

In order to prove injury, you have to prove that other people saw it, heard it, read it and had their minds changed because of the slanderous or libelous statements. Courts generally consider libel to be more serious than slander because writing lasts longer, though major television broadcasts often carry the same weight as major print or web publications because more people viewed them.
Defamation Must Cause Financial Injury

In order to determine the damages from a slander or libel suit, there must be quantifiable damages. Defamation of character damages a person’s or company’s reputation, and it must be proven that the damage to reputation correlated with a loss of money, property, relationship or was subject to harassment that led to any of the above losses.
Defamation Must Not Be Protected Speech

Examples of speech that is privileged and protected specifically by the U.S. Constitution from defamation laws include witness testimony in court and lawmaker statements in legislative chambers or official materials.
As long as the defamatory statements are published, false, injurious and unprivileged, you may have a case to file a defamation lawsuit. Of course, it is always advised to consult with a lawyer before taking any steps forward in your legal action.
When to Sue for Defamation as a Public Official

It is challenging enough for the average person to win a defamation case, but it is even harder for a public official to prove slander or libel, whether the person is a government employee, a high profile actor, or any other form of celebrity. This is because as a public official, you have to meet a fifth criterion – actual malice. Actual malice in the context of defamation means a person knew what they said was not true and defamed the public official with the intention of harming his or her reputation. Proving that the individual completely disregarded the truth and purposefully intended on damaging the other person’s reputation can be difficult, however.
Celebrity Case of Defamation

While it may be difficult, there are a number of high-profile people who have won cases of defamation. For instance, Katie Holmes filed a libel lawsuit against The Star gossip magazine for publishing that she was a drug addict in the article titled “Addiction Nightmare. Katie Drug Shocker!” However, inside the article, the publication did not divulge any information related to a drug addiction, but with such a defamatory headline, Holmes had a case on her side. The $50 million lawsuit ended with a printed apology and a donation to a charity of Holmes’ choice.
Not every case is as straightforward as Holmes’ was.

If you want to give this con artist victim money go ahead. Maybe he will donate the money like Katie Holmes . Trumps Nazi party will be glad to accept the donation

[nevergaveitathought]

suffice it to say

and I'm sure all will agree

as it goes without saying

and is evident

and its at least one point of agreement for all

that the main stream media and the Hollywood "intellectuals" and the hateful left, those who have not apologized, are totally wrong