http://www.thefirsttwins.com/images/chelsea_versace_expo.jpg
Omigod! This is such a doll!
Slander is spoken. Libel is written.
I for one would love to see Dubya request that charges be filed (or file a civil suit). He must have blood samples stored from his Presidential physicals that would be fun to test, and we also might be able finally to unravel the mystery of Dubya’s replacement drivers’ license.
He might be worried if it was actually slander. But I’m pretty sure it’s not. For it to be slander, the comment would have to a) be false, b) must be published knowing it was false with the intent of malice. Speculation based on a perceived character trait is not considered slander. Plus, I think it would actually be libel since I think message boards are considered publishing.
Of course, IANAL, so I’m sure I’ll be corrected.
Denial is a curious thing–and the Right has it in spades. That is one reason I tend to hold the GOP in contempt–they live in a bubble and preach morality, but there is no “walk” to all that “talk”. How incredibly “Christian” of them.
Jeb’s son (the one who assaulted someone else)–now that is scarey.
And yes, for every Bush relation, there is probably a Democratic counterpart–that is NOT the point. The point is that the Dems don’t go all righteous and morally rigid and pretend to be above the pale.
To me, it says alot about the collective character of the GOP and conservatives.
I’m not fond of the Bush Dynasty, but I’ve got to side with Bricker on this one. It was my understanding that you get a criminal record upon conviction.
Neee!!
Sorry, in my geekiness I am unable to restrain from Monty Python references.
To the OP:
It is pretty pathetic that the Bush Boys are 0 for 5 on kids. Let see my parents managed to raise 4 kids with family values and not one of us was in trouble with the law before 21 and only one of us got as much as a DUI. While this minor success does not qualify my father for higher office or any office, it sounds like the Bush Bro’s are not qualified either, especially on a family values platform.
Didn’t Reagan’s kids have a multitude of non family values problems also.
Don’t even get me started on George Bush. Look at his sons. One was involved in the S&L scandals and the other started an illegal war. Tough to top those crimes.
BTW, I like Reagan and was nuetral on Bush Sr. It is only Bush Jr. I despise.
Whatever.
[quote=Neurotik]
For it to be slander, the comment would have to a) be false, b) must be published knowing it was false with the intent of malice. Speculation based on a perceived character trait is not considered slander.
First, an accusation of illegal activity, isn’t commentary on a “character trait.” Second, the statement made can’t be interpreted in any fashion except as being deliberately malicious. So those tests have been passed.
Third, the truthfulness or falsity, of a datum is exactly what would be contended in a trial. A person making such a defamatory statement of fact, and indicted for such, would be required to prove that it is indeed a fact in open court. As always, the burden of proof is upon the person making the claim. So, if no evidence is forthcoming which supports a deliberately malicious and defamatory statement, the charge of slander (or libel - whatever) is entirely appropriate.
The Kennedys may not all get arrested, but they’ve proven pretty good at killing themselves.
My understanding is that the statement must be made knowing that the statement is false.
Except in cases involving public figures. In those instances, the burden of proof is in actuality shifted to the plaintiff who must prove that the statement was made with the prior knowledge that it was false.
Only four of the Kennedy offspring are dead, one being the child of Jack and Jackie’s who died shortly after birth. Two died in accidents and one died of a drug overdose. Only one of those deaths could possibly be reasonably considered suicide.
No, I didn’t get my information from a blog, it is based off of my own observations and experiences. I am very familiar with what he’s doing. I had a problem with it for a while. I ended having TMJ surgery because I worked my jaw joints down from clenching and twitching.
I am making a judgement off of physical traits because I know what I am seeing and I know about the rumblings of his past. He’s hiding a lot of information that only those priviledged enough can get it erased from their record.
And you can try and scare me with whatever threats you’re trying to use here, but keep in mind this is all over the internet and talk radio. If it was such a crime, why is it that no one gets in trouble? SNL did a skit last season that shows Bush and his parents partaking in illegal drug use, has anything happened to them? No.
Do you know how many times a day I read what you could consider libel and slander on these very boards? Those in glass houses and all . . .
You seem to keep forgetting that this is just a message board. What’s the matter? You mad because someone’s saying mean things about your widdle Georgie-Baby?
And going off of Neurotik’s answer here, I have no reason in the world to believe he’s never done drugs and doesn’t currently. There is no evidence whatsoever that he has quit. Money can buy you lots of things, including others’ ignorance.
Not just money–power. And W has both, in spades, I’d say.
As a nurse, let’s just say that I see a broad swathe of the addicted public.
AA doesn’t work for everyone, but it is more reliable than “I found God on my own”.
I tend to not believe users who claim to be clean with no support network and no accountability–and that goes for Joe Schmoe, as well as Presidents.
[QUOTE=UncleBeer]
Whatever.
Also, the standard for slander or libel of a public figure are much higher than for a private figure. Given the considerable evidence of coke use in Dubya’s past, I imagine it would be virtually impossible for him to obtain a libel conviction against someone for speculating that he might once again be doing coke.
I’d like to add that I think Bush is currently a stinking drunk, a cokehead and a war criminal. I have personally scraped better stuff than Bush is made of from the bottom of my shoes.
Howzat for libel, Otto?
Whoopes, I meant:
How do ya like that for libel, UncleBeer?
Prescott doesn’t technically have a criminal record, I withdraw it. However, the fact that he stalked an ex-girlfriend, broke into her house and vandalized her father’s property is not debatable- it happened, it was witnessed, and had the criminal record if the family had pressed charges he’d have had a criminal record.
Yep, if people hadn’t been so shallow they could have had a man of character like Richard Milhouse Hixon instead.
Are you trying to explain a single lapse in judgement or just saying you suffer from an overall decision making impairment? 
I ask because [del]I care[/del] it’s funny. 
And there’s no other possible cause for a former drug user than current use, eh? Conclusion jumping a sport with you?
Wow. Conclusion jumping mated to conspiracy mongering. What a bizarre world this must be for you.
SNL is a parody; parodies have been tested in court and are generally protected by legal precedent. Your comment is not a parody; it is a statement not based on fact intended to be malicious and defamatory.
Great argument. Everybody else does it . . .
The medium has nothing at all to with the message. How have you drawn the conclusion that Georgie-Baby is my widdle guy? I neither voted for him, or contributed to his campaign. I’ve been vocal in my opposition to policies and actions of Bush’s which I believe are wrongheaded.
More conspiracy theorizing. And some damned thin rationalizing for even that.
By some medical accounts, cigarettes are more difficult for some people to quit than drugs. You believe none of these folks have given up that addiction without help? I suspect I little accountability with you, but I’ve managed to quit smoking - cold turkey and without any kind of support group.
Neurotik, thank you for the additional information. Indeed those criteria could be a positive defense for the statements I labeled slanderous.