I agree with what you mean, but they do need them as the easiest defense against a slander suit.
I'd argue in court that he's a fascist tyrant. The precedent will be useful.
"Your honor... look at him"
"just...I mean...just LOOK at 'em"
Problem is so are many of the judges that would theoretically see his case. The theocratic, white ethno-project has been incubating in the United States since the 70s. Democrats are too spineless to attempt to balance the Supreme Court, and all the appointees that have been made to the lower circuits will take time to be felt - time I don't think the US has before it risks going the way of the Weimar Republic.
Public figures have higher barriers of proof for those accusations than a private individual would
The quotation marks are precisely why I changed the headline to something that doesn't need quotes but is still accurate and won't open up slander/libel.
You don't need the quotation marks.
I agree with what you mean, but they do need them as the easiest defense against a slander suit.
I'd argue in court that he's a fascist tyrant. The precedent will be useful.
"Your honor... look at him"
"just...I mean...just LOOK at 'em"
Problem is so are many of the judges that would theoretically see his case. The theocratic, white ethno-project has been incubating in the United States since the 70s. Democrats are too spineless to attempt to balance the Supreme Court, and all the appointees that have been made to the lower circuits will take time to be felt - time I don't think the US has before it risks going the way of the Weimar Republic.
Public figures have higher barriers of proof for those accusations than a private individual would
The quotation marks are precisely why I changed the headline to something that doesn't need quotes but is still accurate and won't open up slander/libel.