Reply #31: This is true, but doesn't apply in this case

[Clark2008]

See my post above.

But, Curtis can be protected under this application of Communications Law in regards to the First Amendment right to question public officials.

Feeney is a public official and public officials have less latitude on which to sue for libel/slander. Feeney would have to prove that A.) Curtis was lying and B.) the lie in some way damaged him. Absolute truth need not apply since Feeney is a public official. The courts have ruled this way for years so that citizens have the First Amendment right to question their public officials. Of course, since the Bushies have packed the courts (or are attempting to pack the courts) with people who don't understand democracy, this protection of free speech may soon fall by the wayside.

BTW, most of you may know this, but for those who don't:
Libel is the written word and slander is the verbal word.

In most states, "defamation of character" does not exist. That sentence gets tossed around alot, but the law is a libel/slander law. (Personally, I don't know of a state that allows "defamation of character" lawsuits, but I've been out of reporting for a while and really only dealt with about four or five states in my career, so there may be some, now).