No.6638
File: 1599170951924.jpeg (8.26 KB, 212x238, 106:119, images (3).jpeg) ImgOps Google
Defamation against non-civilians is bad but, as long as they are political opponents then outright willful lies are "political speech".
I understand that factual basis can be challenged, threatening any sort of free speech, but why do politicians get a pass on being dishonest pieces of shit due for the guillotine?
Secondarily, should the guillotine be used for political lies. I'd love to see Gorsuch's head lopped off for the Trans-Am Trucking absurdity, even considering my neck would still go first.
Thoughts? Do anons on this board even have thoughts of their own or just spout their masters' lies?
No.6643
>>6638> as long as they are political opponents then outright willful lies are "political speech".False. The
actual malice standard (which is applicable to speech about public figures) is quite lenient, but knowing lies are unprotected, as is reckless disregard of the truth.
>I'd love to see Gorsuch's head lopped off for the Trans-Am Trucking absurdity,Please explain what you find absurd. Or do you find all decisions based on technicalities to be absurd?
No.6651
>>6643That a worker is expected to allow himself to die or be rightfully fired is absurd.
"Technicalities" is a nice excuse. But no, there is no technicality supporting that decision because enployment contracts have an implied covenant that workers cannot be expected to sacrifice their lives to comply with their obligations.
And its true, politicians can lie about facts and each other all they want, without regard for standards of malice or disregard. Its protected political speech.
No.6653
>>6651>That a worker is expected to allow himself to die or be rightfully fired is absurd.I agree with that.
>enployment contracts have an implied covenant that workers cannot be expected to sacrifice their lives to comply with their obligations.That would be state law, not the federal statute at issue. Not every tort is addressable in federal court.
>And its true, politicians can lie about facts and each other all they want, without regard for standards of malice or disregard. Its protected political speech.Please cite a court case that held this.
No.6659
>>6638Lies are 'legal' because they're a pain in the rear to prove. Though as it pertains to politicians, they have immunity from what I understand anyway.
I'd love to get rid of that, though.
Don't much care for the guillotine aspect, however. Such mob-controlled executions tend to get a lot of innocent people killed.
No.6679
>>6653>That would be state law, not the federal statute at issue. Not every tort is addressable in federal court.If there is a federal question or other means of federal jurisdiction then absolutely every state issue involved in the matter is also under the jurisdiction of the federal court.
Further contract law is the opposite of torts and entirely different. Just to correct your vocabulary.