Is the quote gays are an abomination slanderous or defamation in a civil court of law?

[Union Yes]

Methinks it's time for LGBT people to sue reich wing church's that spew this defamatory hatespeech.

Solidarity LGBT peeps, will set us free.

It's not just "gays are an abomination". I am talking about most inflammatory untrue hate speech against LGBT people.

[Union Yes]

1. sorry if there was confusion. My op original poll question got wiped out somehow.

Edited and fixed it.

[Chemisse]

2. I'm thinking 'no' because he is expressing an opinion

About what that person is, not saying something about the person that is not true.

Like if you tell me I am an idiot or an asshole, that is of course obnoxious but I don't see that as slanderous, whereas if you tell me I am a whore who sleeps with 20 guys a week, that would be saying something that is not true (it's not, I am monogamous) so would be slander.

But I am not a lawyer, so I could be totally off.

[Chemisse]

5. By the way, I didn't vote at all because with 'no'

You said 'slander is free speech' and I don't agree with that.

[Union Yes]

8. I edited and updated with a better definition of what I beleive is slander.

If you get a chance please re read my op. Not saying it'll change your opinion.

I disagree with some of what you said. That it is indeed slander IMO. I'm a gay male. When I hear that us gay people are a bunch of child molesters and we're all abominations, nothing could be further from the truth. These are untrue accusations that are meant to defame.

To me, that defines slander.

Peace

[Chemisse]

19. If they call you a child molester, that would be slander

(in my non-lawyer opinion), but abomination would be just an opinion or judgement.

Amid all this dispassionate legal examination of words and rights, is the simple fact of how it must hurt to hear these things.

I may not agree that it is slander, but I sure do agree that it is unkind, hateful and hurtful, and I am sorry that so many of our fine citizens are made to feel they are something less than that.

[Union Yes]

21. +1.. A great description of the pain us LGBT people feel when we hear that crap.

:cry:

We're not the evil abominations that we're made out to be by the Reich Wing.

Peace

[Prism]

3. I doubt it

It's religious opinion protected by the First Amendment. The only context I could see being legally actionable is if that sentiment were wrapped in a call for violence.

They have the freedom to think what they wish of me, and I have the freedom to reply.

[tritsofme]

4. Slander is not free speech. But is that statement slander?

You have not stated your argument as to why it should be.

It is hard to form a slander case against an opinion, especially when that opinion relates to their religion.

I don't believe you would get very far.

[Critters2]

6. If it's stated as a religious belief, no court will touch it.

Courts see religious speech as protected, unless there's a direct threat.

[Union Yes]

10. When Reich Wing churches call for extermination of gays, and they do, that's a direct threat.

[Critters2]

17. Without clear directions, and probably named victims,

the courts wouldn't hear it that way.

[Sebastian Doyle]

7. Maybe stage some psuedo-Phelpsian protests outside Red Lobster on Sunday afternoons

...right when the after church crowd shows up to commit their own abominations by eating shellfish.

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

[Union Yes]

13. +1

[izquierdista]

9. Good luck

Getting all atheists on a jury, who will regard the Bible as nothing more than the Big Book of Hebrew Fables. Talk about pissing into the wind.

[Union Yes]

15. I agree. It'd probably be like scaling Mt St Helens during the eruption.

Something of this scale would be an enormously dificult task. But the struggle for civil rights and equal treatment has never been an easy one. I know you understand that and I'm just sayin'

Nothing will be easy in the struggle for LGBT equality. Gays are used to that fact.

Thanks for weighing in.

Peace.

[readmoreoften]

11. My guess is "no" since "abomination" is an abstraction about how an invisible being feels.

But if you say, for example, that I'm not fit to teach children because "people like me can't control our sexual appetites and I endanger children by my very existence or proximity" then I would have a case for slander since I am monogamous, can control my appetites quite well, and pose no danger to children."

And if they say "RMO is an abomination... and thus should be stoned to death" that is probably a terroristic threat.

:shrug:

[Laelth]

12. I can't vote in the poll. Neither answer is legally correct.

If an individual gay person were called an abomination, he might have a case, but it would be very weak unless it caused some actual (monetary, pecuniary) injury to that person.

Calling a group of people an abomination is not recognized as slander in the jurisdiction in which I practice. I call Republicans lying weasels on a regular basis, for example, and that's not actionable slander.

You can always sue. You have every right to access the Courts. The question is whether or not you would win. I don't think the acts of "reich wing churches" are winnable as slander cases. The GLBT community might better get these cretins' attention by working to take away their tax-exempt status.

For what that's worth.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Union Yes]

18. Thanks for weighing in with an educated opinion.

I was hoping some legal minds would show up.

Peace.

[Laelth]

20. My pleasure. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[OutNow]

14. Anyone Can File A Lawsuit

But I don't think any one person would have standing. In all likelihood the case would be dismissed long before it went to trial.

I'm not a lawyer but I have a niece that is and the whole family is very proud of her. :-}

[Union Yes]

16. That's great that she's surrounded by a loving and supportive family.

Thanks for weighing in.

Peace

[chollybocker]

22. Yes and No.

When some douchebag RW preacher calls a specific person (i.e., Rep. Barney Frank) a "pedophile" - a criminal act for which Mr. Frank is not quilty - then a lawsuit is in order.

But - I'm sure I've called Michelle Bachman an 'abomination' a time or two, yet I broke no laws doing so.

There's a difference between thin skin and slander.

[customerserviceguy]

23. Voted no

because the First Amendment guarantees each individual the right to believe and express things that the majority finds stupid, wrongheaded, irrelevant, or just plain idiotic.

Besides, today's Xtians are always looking for some silly way to feel 'persecuted', they don't toss them to the lions the way they did in old time Rome. Lawsuits would only gain them sympathy from people who are otherwise too stupid to take a stand on the issue.

[JDPriestly]

24. Gays are an abomination is an opinion. It therefor can't be slander.

Defamation including slander and libel must be statements of fact that are false. That gays are an abomination is not a statement of fact.