so if she is fired and the petioners are successsfully sued they are both damaged. Who's at fault?
Why do some think their rights trump other people's?
Indeed. It seems like a lot of people are thinking that.
Someone putting ina petition to get someone fired is one. Suing those petitioners is another.
EDIT: my apologies, I've really taken this thread off course. I'll quit that now, but will say I fully support the counter petition.
Being that its a Fox affiliate they might just consider the original petition an achievement and crow about it (I would!).
so if she is fired and the petioners are successsfully sued they are both damaged. Who's at fault?
Why do some think their rights trump other people's?
Indeed. It seems like a lot of people are thinking that.
Someone putting ina petition to get someone fired is one. Suing those petitioners is another.
A person sues to recover for damages. It's called restitution. A lawsuit award or settlement is not damages.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
In 1994, 60 Minutes pulled an interview about the cigarette industry for a threat of a multi-billion dollar lawsuit for "tortious interference". This was when 60 Minutes was still hugely popular and powerful. CBS was worried about their impending sale and caved on the story.
I know this sounds a bit silly because the consequences are so much more severe, but the principle is exactly the same:
Using your freedom of speech to damage another person is no different in principle than using your right to keep and bear arms to damage another person. The myriad of attacks on the Constitution in today's society can be traced to single difficulty our Constitution faces - that it is, as John Adams said, suitable only for a moral and religious people, and unsuitable for any other kind. While it is certainly possible to be moral without religion, and it is possible to claim religious belief and still act immorally, it goes without saying that a society that depends upon A) mutual respect among the citizenry, B) respect for authority by the citizenry, and C) respect for the individual by authority, cannot succeed without a citizenry that is either moral, or religious, or both.
In such a society, imbued with liberty, there is a recognition that with liberty comes responsibility; and, that sense of responsibility causes one to recognize that in the absence of an initiating affront directed against one's self, one's own rights end at the point where they intrude on another person's rights. I.E., I shouldn't slander you, unless you've slandered me first. I can't shoot you, unless you have initiated a physical attack against me. I can't steal from you, unless I am taking back what you have stolen from me.......and so on.
The point I am trying to make about these kinds of assaults on the security of another person's private employment (as opposed to elected officials and/or appointed bureaucrats), particularly if, like Hoff did to Moore, it involves slander of the other on top of the assault on employment, and if, as in both cases, the person under assault has done nothing to their pursuer except to perhaps hold a different set of beliefs, then the person who is seeking their destruction is someone who is either patently ignorant of the principles of liberty, or has complete understanding, and seeks its destruction.
As such, people who do this are abusing their free speech rights in a manner inconsistent with the principles of liberty.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
I Thess 5:21
Disclaimer: IANAL, IANYL, IDNPOOTV, IDNSIAHIE and IANROFL
"There is no situation so bad that you can't make it worse." - Chris Hadfield, NASA ISS Astronaut
“Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, an American Soldier doesn't have that problem". — President Ronald Reagan, 1985
VoiceofReason wrote:I would like to see more lawsuits against the anti-gun organizations when they lie and the media when they intentionally slant a story.
During the George Zimmerman saga, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence had so many lies on their site it made my stomach turn. The more ground they lose, the more desperate they get and the more lies they manufacture.
The lies they tell make each of us look bad as a gun owners and have even encouraged the “swatting” of gun owners.
Is there any practical way of stopping this?
Unfortunately there is no PRACTICAL way of stopping it, and suing for intentional slant has been tried and failed, which leaves suing for lying. IANAL, but suing for lying is no practical because first you have to prove that they are lying, and organizations like the brady bunch are wily enough to have attorneys of their own who can prove that even if what they said wasn't true, they thought it was true, and therefore were not lying.
I guess I have been wrong all along. I thought it was incumbent on the person slandering you to prove what they said is true.
God Bless America, and please hurry. When I was young I knew all the answers. When I got older I started to realize I just hadn’t quite understood the questions.-Me
