well...I'll let you two define what is and isn't hate...I see an argument...right around the corner...gulp !!...

friendly debate... lol

I'm just saying.. at some point the freedom of speech has to be stunted. otherwise, hate crimes would run free and ya know I think its okay to hate someone, but acting on that hate and saying untruths is uncalled for.. see the attached..


Libel and slander are legal claims for false statements of fact about a person that are printed, broadcast, spoken or otherwise communicated to others. Libel generally refers to statements or visual depictions in written or other permanent form, while slander refers to verbal statements and gestures. The term defamation is often used to encompass both libel and slander.

In order for the person about whom a statement is made to recover for libel, the false statement must be defamatory, meaning that it actually harms the reputation of the other person, as opposed to being merely insulting or offensive.

The statement(s) alleged to be defamatory must also have been published to at least one other person (other than the subject of the statement) and must be "of and concerning" the plaintiff. That is, those hearing or reading the statement must identify it specifically with the plaintiff.

The statement(s) alleged to be defamatory must also be a false statement of fact. That which is name-calling, hyperbole, or, however characterized, cannot be proven true or false, cannot be the subject of a libel or slander claim.

The defamatory statement must also have been made with fault. The extent of the fault depends primarily on the status of the plaintiff. Public figures, such as government officials, celebrities, well-known individuals, and people involved in specific public controversies, are required to prove actual malice, a legal term which means the defendant knew his statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of his statement. In most jurisdictions, private individuals must show only that the defendant was negligent: that he failed to act with due care in the situation.

what a breath of fresh air...an actual friendly debate...lol...I thought for sure...you were setting me up for the kill !!...LOL...you young lady need to stop by more often...

aww shucks...

LOL.. so did I prove my point.. LOL

honestly...sort of...although I still see the sign as freedom of speech...not hate...dislike ?..yes...aggravation...yes...sour grapes...yes...hate...nope...IN MY OPINION !!...

I think that if President Elect Obama actually wanted to, he could probably sue the church for the slanderous/libel remarks on the sign but I think because he is a good man that he wouldn't do something like that and would look at it the same as you, its a freedom of speech.. but I do think that the sign needs to be covered..

Ah Gio...my favorite piece of work on this board.

haha

You sure are persistent...in many areas.

I think that when this church is teaching people to hate, they are teaching people to be predjudice, and most predjudice brings crime... Crime prevention, is all i'm saying...

saying Obama is a Muslim is preaching hate ?...

Yes.Repeatedly calling someone something they arn't is usually a hateful action. It certainly is obnoxious and makes the person saying it look stupid.

Mirror in fairness to the poster you replied to if you are going to say she got her facts all wrong perhaps you should point out which were wrong and why.