 Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66  Quite frankly, I can't help but wonder if you could work in something similar under existing U.S. laws.
If the "denial" incorporates slander or liberal, it could easily be seen as legally actionable.
And let's face it. Some of the "stories" you hear about denial often talk about how the "Jew" created this lie.
Obviously there are some grey areas. If no mention of who was supposedly responsible for the claimed "fraud", there is no target for the slander/libel.
Also, I suspect it is easier to perpetuate such libel / slander if you avoid naming names but instead blame the general group, although I can't help but think such a cop-out should not be allowed.
It's hardly any less slanderous (IMO) if you are "vague" about it... | I wonder if you can be charged with slander if it's a historical event, especially since there isn't anyone in this circumstance to "blame." We have to define both slander and libel.
slan·der
n.
Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
A false and malicious statement or report about someone.
li·bel
n.
A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
The act of presenting such material to the public quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra? quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet? quem ad finem sese effrenata iactabit audacia? nihilne te nocturnum praesidium Palati, nihil urbis vigiliae, nihil timor populi, nihil concursus bonorum omnium, nihil hic munitissimus habendi senatus locus, nihil horum ora voltusque moverunt?
-Cicero |