Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lawdog who wrote (109541)	12/10/2000 1:27:38 PM
From: DOUG H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

You are correct, I'm not a lawyer, so my lack of knowledge is understood. But yours? Losing an election is not slander, the ultimate defense to slander is truthfulness. I said nothing about an election in regards to slander. My point was about "irreperable harm". The problem with slander of reputation is that the falsehood is placed in the minds of others. Not the slander or slanderee. To ensure trhe reversal of harm you must ensure removal of the false idea from the minds of others. The absence of exculpatory facts does not prove the slander correct but their absence also precludes the correction of the harm. Therefore one can claim irreperable harm without having being put to death. That's my point. The facts as they are known is the basis upon which the stay was granted.

To: lawdog who wrote (109541)	12/10/2000 1:43:29 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

lawdog, I have a problem with your statement "Losing an election is not slander, the ultimate defense to slander is truthfulness". I saw one of the talking heads make a similar point today when he said that the US SC came down with a decision (by stopping the count) that will eliminate the possibility of knowing the "truth". His statement, like yours I believe assumes that a handcount with no standards by a few hundred people at the very last minute will result in the "truth". I cannot see how any intelligent adult human being can view the results of such a charade as the "truth". This line of reasoning does allow me to see why so many of Clinton's actions were approved by the dems. I'll call it FUZZY TRUTH.