Should a State Board of Education member in Texas be forced to retract her statement that obama is plotting with terrorist to attack the US or is this just free speech? http://www.star-telegram.com/448/story/1016140.html
by 
shady
ANSWERS: 8
-
Yes, because there is a difference between Slander and Free Speech.
-
link does not work.
-
The *government* cannot force her to retract anything. If it is not the government who forces her to retract, it's not a violation of the first amendment. I'm not quite sure whether the schoolboard would fall under the category of government, but, if it's not, they can tell her straight up "retract or be canned" and it's not a violation of the first amendment. /explains protections of first amendment all the time
-
It depends on whether or not she was speaking as a citizen or in her capacity as a State Board of Education member.
-
I don't feel she should be forced to retract. I feel she should be sued for slander/libel and defamation of character down to her last penny, and then some. That's why we have both free speech laws and libel/slander laws. You can say anything you want, but if it's not factual and intended to defame another, you get to pay the price.
-
I couldn't tell from reading the article you linked, but if she was speaking as a member of the State Board of Education, then, yes, she should retract it because everything she says in that capacity may be taked as being the opinion of the board. However, if she was speaking as herself, she need not retract it. - However, in my opinion, she should provide some sources and proof before she slanders a US Senator.
-
No. She should be examined by competent psychiatrists for other signs of paranoia and delusion.
-
She apparently did not say those things while representing the State Board of Education, but she is a regular columnist on the Christian Worldview Network website that hosted her article. Here's the direct link: http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/4140/Brannon-Howse/By-Cynthia-Dunbar Her arguments are steeped in the same mire as all of the other conspiracy theorists' regarding Senator Obama's presidential eligibility and citizenship, a case that has already been closed definitively. She also makes mention of his supposed intentions of imposing martial law after allowing an attack on American soil. I may be confused, but isn't that EXACTLY what Bush did, knowing that an attack was coming in advance of 9/11, not preventing it or mitigating it, and then after the fact imposing the Patriot Act which afforded him the legal right to profile and spy on his own people? As far as I'm concerned she can say whatever she wants. It is her right. The beauty of speaking your whole mind is that you reveal to the world that there's not much in it.
MrJosh RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC