"It is my understanding that the First Amendment provides no restrictions on what I'm allowed to question publicly or privately."
He literally doesn't have to say anything else.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (18)
sorted by:
Where does it say in the 1st amendment that it doesn’t cover defamation? That’s a liberal construct. Only snowflakes complain about being defamed. The 1st amendment, as the founders envisaged it, was to be pure and absolute.
You do realize that an amendment is an update to the constitution, right? Look up the definition of amendment.
Meaning that... no, the constitution was not supposed to be pure and absolute, it was meant to be amended. Thomas Jefferson even said that the constitution should be periodically updated to reflect the times (something that has yet to happen).
Correct, it is supposed to be a living document. You have rights to do many things that we can't really imagine. But with those rights come responsibility. That is one reason insurance became popular, if you injure another person, you are responsible for all cost to that person's life and you can not violate someone else's rights either.
Defamation to me would be lying about someone. Not musing. In order for it to be a lie you must know it's not true. It's a form of fraud. If you suspect someone is involved in a conspiracy there's nothing wrong with stating that suspicion and what makes you think that way. If you know it's not true, or you give weight to your suspicion by citing a source that doesn't actually exist or something like that, then yeah, I'm ok with people seeking damages for defamation.
That said, having not watched this trial and the evidence presented, I really have no opinion on how this trial should go. My post presumes that Alex was merely musing. If he wasn't, then yeah, I think the families could have a legitimate case.