General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGingrich demands TV stations drop attack ad
Newt Gingrich is asking television stations in his home state of Georgia not to air an ad by a pro-Romney PAC, Restore Our Future.
An attorney representing the former House Speaker, according to Gingrich's website, sent letters to Georgia-based television stations saying the ad is "NOT TRUE" (Gingrich's emphasis, not ours).
Attorney Patrick Millsaps wrote that the ad is "defamatory" and could expose the television station to "civil liability" if the station airs it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57380693-503544/gingrich-demands-tv-stations-drop-attack-ad/
The problem is if they quit lying in their ads, they will be making silent movies!
Kookaburra
(2,649 posts)does truth factor into anything you do or say?
I'm just sayin' -- you reap what you sow.
Kurmudgeon
(1,751 posts)Oh how the high and mighty have fallen. I haven't forgotten him during the Clinton years.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And it likely IS true and there are likely falsehoods in YOUR ads.
russspeakeasy
(6,539 posts)no_hypocrisy
(46,116 posts)(D)efamation law does not require that combatants for public office act like war-time neutrals, treating everyone evenhandedly and always taking the high road, the court wrote. Quite the contrary. Provided that they do not act with actual malice, they can badmouth their opponents, hammering them with unfair and one-sided attacks remember, speaking out on political issues, especially criticizing public officials and hopefuls for public office, is a core freedom protected by the First Amendment
. And absent actual malice, more speech, not damages, is the right strike-back against superheated or false rhetoric.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/1st-circuit-dismisses-candidates-defamation-suit