Thread: David Letterman

It is a weird line is it not.

Overt racism is ok, but overt sexism is not.

a person is free from criminal prosecution under their "freedom of speech" rights, but not from civil liability. If he were to say such things about my daughter(s) I would be suing his arse so fast his head would spin, and I would hire the best publicity firm to cover the run up to the trial, and the trial itself, dig up every hooker he has slept with to testify, and thrash his reputation.

You are free to speak what ever you want about anyone, but be ready for the slander/libel suit which will inevitably follow.

Originally Posted by pio

what about the "joke" about comaring the first lady with a gorilla?
is that wrong?

Why did you even pose that statement as a question?

Originally Posted by mhailey

Why did you even pose that statement as a question?

too many questions marks i guess...
you haven't answer the question...
it is funny to call the president gorilla just because he is black?

We have a right to trial by jury not by press. If you want to substitute the trial process for one by press then kiss all your freedoms goodbye because the people are fickle and they will change there minds on a whim.

BTW for a public figure you may be able to dig up dirt, but for Joe Shmoe that met anyone on the street and made that comment. According to the law you have no damages. Slander requires a loss of something that you cannot get back, earning potential, loss of clients, etc. If you are a young girl in this case 14, your earning potential is not such that a comment like that would adversely affect you, nor should you have clients.

Some one could bring a suit and it would get dismissed as being baseless. Then the other party would counter sue for something and around we go.

Again respectfully.

Originally Posted by pio

too many questions marks i guess...
you haven't answer the question...
it is funny to call the president gorilla just because he is black?

Seriously? You need me to answer that?

How about NO. is that sufficient?

Originally Posted by mhailey

Seriously? You need me to answer that?

How about NO. is that sufficient?

lol

don't get mad...
just making sure...
you would be surprise how many people find the joke really amusing...

Ok guys tone it down a notch and leave your emotions at the door.
There is no need to have a go at each other because you don't agree.

Black's Law Dictionary:

Lible: "A method of defamation expressed by print, writing, prictures or signs. In its most general sense, any publication that is injurious to the reputation of another. A false and unprivileged publication in writing a defmatory materal. (INSERT CITATIONS HERE) A maliciously written or printed publication which tends to blacken a person's reputation or to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to injury him in his business or profession."

Loss of business is not a prerequisite for a libel suit, and I doubt a suit from Bristol/Willow would be dismissed under a 12(b) motion or summary judgment.

in the hopes of raising the morale of everyone in this thread, I'd like to respond with a Sarah Palin joke of my own: (not actually, I heard it somewhere else, can't remember where)


Q: what do you call a woman with teenage daughters who teaches abstinence and nothing else?
A: GRANDMA!