Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by mandym, Dec 16, 2011.
And just who would the arbiter of what was & wasn't "true" ?
So let me get this straight: Currently, someone says something about someone else, and it gets blasted all over the media; and 24 hours later, it turns out to not be true, but by then, all anyone knows is what the original sensationalist story was, and that's the usual opinion they walk away with.
In the meantime, the individual who was slandered or libeled can file suit for slander or libel.
How does this bill act as a deterrent to such happenings, if the current libel or slander laws are obviously not deterring it?
Okay, upon re-reading the article...I'm still of the opinion that this is additional legislation, not legislation that we just discovered we need to have. We currently have laws that prevent voter intimidation and denial; we just don't enforce them, as with the case concerning the Black Panthers at voting booths.
This is unnecessary legislation, obviously intended to be a political remark towards republicans.
The article isn't telling the whole story, I'm sure. The Dems are doing all they can to limit free speech. They can't win any other way.
Winston Smith worked in the Ministry of Truth.
So Schumer wants to limit publishing info, but it would be okay for the Networks to announce it?