O'Reilly needs crash-course in free speech
Anyone accusing a fellow American of mass murder better have undeniable facts to back it up. I am fed up with these America haters hiding behind [free speech].
And I am fed up with uninformed, overpaid morons like O'Reilly, who've been handed control of OUR airwaves.
Clearly, O'Reilly didn't bother to consult with a constitutional lawyer before he opened his flap.
Not a single American needs "undeniable facts" to accuse a public official of impropriety, malfeasance, or even treason.
Contrary to O'Reilly's nit-wit rantings, the First Amendment puts the burden on public officials to prove that the defendant acted with actual MALICE.
[The Supreme Court] determined that in the case
of a public official, such as the police official in Sullivan, the First
Amendment rights of free speech and expression outweigh the public official's
rights unless the public official can prove that the defendant acted
with actual MALICE. Actual malice means that the defendant who communicates
a defamatory statement does so knowing that the statement is false or
very likely false. The defendant need not harbor ill will toward the
plaintiff for the public official to recover in an action for slander
or libel; the public official need only prove that the defendant knew
that the defamatory statement was false or had serious doubts as to
So, go ahead - file suit against US - make my day.
Please help our fight against the New World Order by giving a donation. As bandwidth costs increase, the only way we can stay online and expand is with your support. Please consider giving a monthly or one-off donation for whatever you can afford. You can pay securely by either credit card or Paypal. Click here to donate.