Reply #68: you cannot call a professional a quack w/o proof, nor defame w/o proof [View All]

[NuttyFluffers]

i read the article, several times. do you know he wasn't defamed? how? what exactly was said in that newsletter (i don't have access to the newsletter, if you do, share it online. libraries often have scanners)? i don't know what was said, do you? post it. how do you know that this is not a case that can be taken to court in america?

if his credibility is at stake as a well-researched writer, and the research was questioned and dismissed as foolishness in the newsletter, then there'd have to be evidence to back up the priest's claim, otherwise a violation of unprotected speech was committed. from what little we know of the facts in this case it could be anything, even enough to fit the criteria of torts in this country for defamation (or libel. unlikely, he's a professional agronomist, no relation to history prof or archaeologist, which would be relevant professions. and yet, he could if he is considered a valid professional researcher, so i honestly don't know). you cannot destroy people's good name without evidence without the prospect of facing repurcussions. free speech goes far, but nowhere near as far as people think.

now if you have definitive proof that this case cannot be taken up here, (a copy of the newsletter would be nice), i'll gladly agree with you. until then, this could be anything, and very much within the realm of unprotected speech in america.