Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
Rove is a public figure. The comments on this thread, and in the media that speculate about his complicity in the Plame outing are not actionable. Perhaps you are confusing UK civil libel law with U.S. law.
http://www.newsdesk-uk.com/law/libelcheck.shtml
You have no way of knowing anymore about Rove's involvement than anyone else who posts here. Can you support your comments and conclusion ? |
Actually, you are wrong, they are very actionable, IF Rove is NOT the person that leaked the name. It's entirely possible that Rove did leak the name, but given the way the left treat his intellect (the Evil Genius behind Bush), I find it kind of doubtful that he would be so stupid. If he did leak the name, O'Donnell is in the clear. If he did not in fact leak the name, and O'Donnell lied about it when he said Rove did, and there is "actual malice", he certainly CAN be liable. The only remaining issue would be how to quantify damages (both compensatory and punitive).
I don't know if Rove leaked the name or not. Without good, solid evidence to the contrary, I'd say he probably didn't. And remember, the standard in the US for a public figure is: a) was the statement actually false, and b) was it published with "actual malice" and c) is there damage to reputation. Now SPECULATION is an entirely different matter, but that's not what O'Donnell did. As an example, and just to let you know the difference, saying "I think Michael Jackson is a babyrapist" is very different than saying "Michael Jackson raped that baby." One would be actionable, and the other would not.