|Since when did slander/libel laws get suspended during political "debates"?|
Posted by: LateForLunch ® |
Author Profile Mail author Edit
The acceptance of criminality by the 'Crats (started by the casual way the Eightball Obama administration wiped its *ss with the Constitution in so many ways) has become so egregious, that one of the candidates (at least) committed what I'm fairly certain is "slander".
The increasingly haggard-looking Camel-lover Harris stated:
“We have a criminal living in the White House (and) that means it is a criminal enterprise engaged in by the president".
So I make a public statement that a living person knowingly, purposefully engages in ongoing criminal business activities - and it becomes widely documented that I said it. THEY hire an attorney and sue me successfully for a violation of the civil code concerning,"...the publication, promulgation, public declaration of allegations against a separate party, of criminal actions, grossly immoral actions, depraved character," and win a great deal of money in damages if I have it to take.
A 'Crat Senator, (supposedly some sort of exemplar to the people she represents) publicly calls the president of the United States a criminal running a criminal enterprise, and bears zero legal consequences. ZERO.
What a strange thing. We as a civil society, legally proscribe physical assassination without bloodshed yet permit assassination of the character of another on a public forum viewed by countless millions.
No doubt the answer lies in the weeds, as they say - abstruse details known only to "wonks" or others who make a focused study of the Law.
I can't call my local mayor a criminal who runs a criminal business without getting sued for a ton of money and having a judge order me to shut up. But so-called leaders of the nation may do exactly that to one-another freely and without any legal penalty.
Although I am familiar with the common truism, 'There are exceptions to every rule," I can't remember hearing, "There are exceptions to every law".
Clearly in the case of slander law, an exception was granted to that individual in the debate. Just as one in a CRIMINAL act (inciting to riot) was given to the mayor of Los Angeles in the notorious 1992 Rodney King Riots when he went on broadcast T.V. news and encouraged everyone to go out and, "show your anger", resulting in the prolonging of the rioting and possibly to the deaths of people involved. He got away with it because he was a top public official of local government and a powerfully-connected politician.
Had you or I gone on T.V. and encouraged a population already engaged in rioting to "go out and show your anger", we'd get locked up and charged with a felony.
Even though I understand how such dichotomies arise out of complex modern political / legal processes, it is still sort of sick.
Another case of how in our regressing time, leaders do not lead. Just as educators do not teach. Law Enforcement officers cannot enforce the Law, Healers do not heal. And so on...
Modified by LateForLunch at Thu, Nov 21, 2019, 10:34:15
|Post Reply | Recommend | Alert||View All||Previous | Next | Current page|
|Replies to this message|