ddavid wrote:
\"very specific legal definitions\" – it just feels icky.
... so does \'libel\'
As a \'nobody\' ... I\'d suggest people pay attention to what they continue to write from here on out on this matter. Persisting to persecute Paul in light of what has been factually and objectively presented ... think about it.
The OP\'s question was a valid one ... the bandwagon persection based on your opinion\'s and continued intentional ignoring the facts and basis of law continues to edge in a direction that enters into another legal realm.
I still respect the OP\'s question, and believe that the OP has a better sense of understanding now than at the beginning of this thread. Seeking truth and understanding is a good thing and should be applauded and respected. The First Amendment does afford \'free speech\' ... but it does not afford for \'libel\'. This too is a LEGAL issue ... and this is supposed to be a PHOTOGRAPHY forum.
An honest question was raised ... and an honest answer was provided.
ddavid wrote:
\"very specific legal definitions\" – it just feels icky.
... so does \'libel\'
As a \'nobody\' ... I\'d suggest people pay attention to what they continue to write from here on out on this matter. Persisting to persecute Paul in light of what has been factually and objectively presented ... think about it.
The OP\'s question was a valid one ... the bandwagon persection based on your opinion\'s and continued intentional ignoring the facts and basis of law continues to edge in a direction that enters into another legal realm.
I still respect the OP\'s question, and believe that the OP has a better sense of understanding now than at the beginning of this thread. Seeking truth and understanding is a good thing and should be applauded and respected. The First Amendment does afford \'free speech\' ... but it does not afford for \'libel\'. This too is a LEGAL issue ... and this is supposed to be a PHOTOGRAPHY forum.
An honest question was raised ... and an honest answer was provided. Fred should now close this thread.