Reply #157: I'm familiar with the Sullivan case, and with the "actual malice" standard.

[Seabiscuit]

I studied it in law school. And that standard does *NOT* mean "that the plaintiff usually loses." And it is patently untrue that defamation law "is a disaster", "incomprehensible", " unfair" or "unjust". And it is certainly not true that It appears that you know just enough of a smattering of the law to have a cynical contempt for the legal system. I happen to agree with the Sullivan ruling. It only affects defamation cases where the person allegedly defamed is a public figure, and it's a just distinction for numerous reasons.

The Swifties made statements putting them in places and times to witness stuff which was impossible because they were never there at those times. Their allegations had nothing to do with opinion. They clearly falsified the factual record. Undoubtedly, Kerry can prove that.

So why did they lie in public about it? They were paid to do so by a right-wing group. This was no mere case of negligence, or even reckless disregard for the truth. It was clearly a case of intentional lying with one purpose in mind - to damage Kerry's reputation enough so that he'd lose the election. Case closed. End of story.

Kerry *did* say *numerous times* during his campaign that he thought Saddam was a threat to us, and that the Iraq invasion was justified. He just said he'd go about managing the war differently. You can't wipe out my recollection of the campaign that easily.