You Don’t Have A First Amendment Right To Libel

a little fuzzy on the FA Such injunctions are allowed when such speech is deemed to be libel and defamation and that’s after the court has ruled as such. Since July of 2013 you have called Brett Kimberlin a pedophile. Here’s a snippet from September 5, 2013: hoge admits calling kimberlin a pedo And there you have it. Brett Kimberlin rightfully objected to being called a pedophile as he was never charged with or convicted of pedophilia and yet here’s Hoge doubling-down for his readers on that.

Let’s see…you’ve also called Brett Kimberlin a convicted domestic terrorist bomber: hoge calls bk domestic terroristHoge sorta got it right – Brett Kimberlin was convicted on the bombing charges but not domestic terrorism as the charge of domestic terrorism didn’t exist back in 1978.

These are not isolated incidents, folks. Hoge has repeated these things on his blog many times over and which is why he now finds himself embroiled in a defamation suit.

You can’t call someone a pedophile in print if it’s not true. You can’t call someone a terrorist in print if it’s not true. You can’t call someone a murderer in print if it’s not true and you can’t accuse someone of a crime they didn’t commit in print if it’s not true.

Every journalist, blogger and newsman on the planet knows this. Everyone that is except Hoge.

When it comes to libel, you don’t have first amendment rights and you certainly can’t make a libelous statement in print and claim you’re just expressing an opinion.

This is what Hoge doesn’t seem to understand.

Yes, Hoge, words do have meanings and I invite you to learn the meaning of the words: bankruptcy, destitution and insolvency.

Because when you lose these lawsuits you’ll be introduced to these concepts and find them not at all to your liking.

The mockery continues…

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “You Don’t Have A First Amendment Right To Libel

  1. lordofsatire2013 says:

    I’m not trying to be simplistic here. I see too much of that on the other side. But the whole argument of Hoge et al seems to be, “Yeah, we said it. We had a right to say it because BK was a convicted bomber.” That dog don’t hunt. And when other evidence is presented showing that it was nothing but malice and a desire to raise funds that led to the defamation, I don’t see how a judge or a jury can rule anything other than a verdict against the defendants. How will they explain BK’s allegation — if proven — that Hoge/Walker coached Tonya on what to say to lie about her husband and get away with it? How do they explain Tonya’s asking them to remove material from their blogs for the sake of their children, and their refusal to do so? How do they make a “public figure” out of someone that, if you asked people 50-miles away from Speedway, Indiana who he was, folks would say, “Who?” The defendants’ case is a loser from start to finish, and they have no one to blame but themselves.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s