at a political party meeting at the University of New England in Natal, a leading politician attcks university students with the following words: \n"The student leaders at historically white universities are being used as the tools of capitalism. Not only are they tools, they are in fact terrorists, because they are working towards underminig the new democratic order in South Africa. They are forcing a confrontation with the state and if they do not mend their ways the state wiil be forced to take drastic action against them." please be advised that this is a hypothetical question and set of facts. the question is would these words amount to defamation by the politician against the students?
129486
It would only be defamatory if it were false.
672423
Well said Liam,but I think you are far too gentlemanly in your replies to foxtel.This guy is obviously a Scientoligist,which means you cannot have a rational debate with him.He has threatened you with the rtc,this is gang whose sole purpose is to hound,threaten & discredit any-one who dares to disagree with Scientology.They hire private detectives to dig up dirt to blackmail critics into silence,and expensive lawers to threaten legal proceedings.Scietology is not a religeon,it' a mafia,dedicated to gaining as much money & power as possible,using any means,no matter how vile.
351368
It is wrong for any political party to use a past remark that has been explained and apologized for, as a tool to sway an opinion. cheap shot. \nThere is truth in the remark though, heck I joined USCG cause I couldn't afford college. That's a sad comment on America. Richest country in the world with the least and lowest paid teachers in the Public School System which only goes to G12.
376846
Hi Amy, not sure what the previous post was about, but it was clearly uncalled for.\n\nAs a lawyer who has seen the movie (albeit a while back) I am sure there are many issues you could raise.  This is all just sort of stream of consciousness off the top of my head, so I apologize if it's not too organized, but here are a few thoughts.\n\n1)  It seems to me that much of the protagonist's (I've forgotten his name) actions are designed at misleading others.  If he does this for his own material gain he may be comitting fraud (for example, doesn't he mislead the former Marlboro man into accepting a cash settlement of some sort-?--that could be a fraudulent inducement into a contract).\n2)You also might want to look into whether or not there are any applicable lobbying laws he violates.\n3)  Are there laws against "pushing"cigarettes to minors (I'm thinking of the little classroom lecture he gives) or something similar.\n\nThe best way to do legal research for applicable cases or statutes is using lexis nexis or Westlaw.  To the unitiated these databases can be daunting, but if you are at a large university you may be able to get access at the law library.  Failing that, you might want to go to a local law library and ask the librarian for help (call ahead and explain the situation to clear access ahead of time).  Yet another option is to check out www.findlaw.com, which generally provides access to cases and articles free of charge, but is no where near as sophisticated as Lexis or Westlaw.  Finally, you might call your state bar association's relevant sub group or a Washington Lobbying or ethics organization (I do not know but suspect there are several) and see if they have any suggestions.  Research is about getting your hands dirty and hitting dead ends until something clicks into place.  Good luck!
635646
It is most gratifying to read such an eloquent discourse and I whole heartedly agree with the thrust of your most erudite question. The thing is, bless'em they're a bit brain washed you know and believe that there is a worldwide conspiracy against them. Paranoia indeed! The extreme right wing proclivities of this nation are a great concern to me and it is causing the polarising, divisive and skewed nature of US politics today. Of course, the really worrying trend, is that those that are hurt most by this type of hysterical, disabling, right wing thinking are the ones that rush to it's defence when it's under threat! Presumably out of some misguided sense of loyalty or patriotism. No, I'm afraid you're right, America needs to learn to play nicely and have a bit of humility. Terrorism is in large part a result of this rigid, militaristic, right wing foreign policy she has dished out over the last 5 or 6 decades and I can't see it stopping anytime soon. Jules, lecturer. Australia.
518005
How come, a person who is crying because they are scared of what might happen, are calling liberals "wussies"?  \n\nI guess this is what happens when you continue to follow STUPID!\n\nBTW. . .WWJD?\n\nFarzand A:  It is a fact that "ALL MEDIA" is biased depending on ones particular view.  Which is why everyone and anyone should seek as many different sources possible to gain information.  \n\nI check many sources (using the Internet) to see through the eyes outside of this country, as it pretty obvious that every U.S. news station will tend to protect this nation (and it is understandable).  While our constitution states we have freedom of the press, the press is free to report the news as the owners see fit.  It does not guarantee that it has to be reported straight up and with no holds barred.\n\nToday the ignorant stay ignorant by choice, however, stupidity is a Birth Right and no amount of knowledge can help them. . .In this forum it is difficult to tell the two apart, and the whole concept that a 45 is the best solution,  proves my point.
599379
Cantcu, I don't think there is any way to bludgeon reason into the concrete heads of these people. They didn't read the article, they don't understand that European politicians are subtle and diplomatic, so yeah the point you tried to make was lost on them. \n\nfor the people who replied before me: try reading these last lines:\nBut the chancellor also prodded Bush. "We can only have a victory in the fight against terror if we don't undermine our common values," Schuessel said. "It can never be a victory, a credible victory over terrorists if we give up our values: democracy, rule of law, individual rights."\n\nAnd for your reference European politicians are polite, subtle and diplomatic. Translated into American parlance that last paragraph means: "You are a hypocrite, you are talking of fighting terrorism while you are taking away the civil rights and liberties of your own people".\n\nDo these people have even a single grey cell in their cranium?
103036
Thank you.  It's nice to know who our friends are and believe me, the respect and admiration goes both ways.  Though if you want a true look at who these "anti-war" protestors are, follow the link.  The zombietime "hall of shame" is enough to make one's dinner return.  However, the photographer also highlights the good people in the counter-protests and those who oppose terrorism in the "Bus-19" event.\n\nIt's amazing to see the difference between the rabid "anti-war" leftists and those who oppose them with dignity and self-respect.\n\nJust so one knows, I use "anti-war" as these "tolerant" and "open-minded" protestors seem to support any war in which the USA and her allies are destroyed and thus are only "anti-war" when the USA and her allies are winning.  Though, ironically, these same people are the first the terrorists would kill if given the chance (the "Queers for Palastine" group obviously didn't read Islamic Law's view on homosexuality)...  A chance the Armed Forces of America, England, and Australlia not to mention police and intelligence agencies world-wide will not give the terrorists.  \n\nYes, the irony of it all is the same people the leftists hate so much are protecting those same leftists from the terrorists and dictators they seem to love.
601472
One, I think the article is confusing…\n\nOk after like reading it for like 3 times over to get everything clear…\nI agree with what the article said, and I also think the definition should be universal, not just for certain entities.\nI also agree that it is a “much more serious crime of aggression”.\n\nI agree that a lot of times terror happens because one group thinks that their beliefs are more legitimate then another’s, and when they think they’re better they think they can force another to conform to it, usually this happens through force. All that the other can do is fight back; defend themselves. I think this is what he meant when he said: “Similar interesting issues about terror and resistance, almost always suppressed in the self-declared "enlightened states."”\n\nWhat would constitute terrorism?\n\nI think nothing, because I do not believe that terrorism / force / violence solves anything, it just creates more problems and makes stuff more complicated. I believe that one has the right to defend themselves in order to live and live how they wish, but nothing more. Defending yourself doesn’t mean you have to go on a shooting spree or go through with kidnapping schemes or trying to make others believe in what you think.\n\nYa know in the end of V for Vendetta (in the comic book, and kinda in the movie) V hands it off to Evey, he was the destructive force that brought down the system of oppression but she symbolized the rebirth of a new era of freedom and peace. After experiencing and committing such atrocities how could V go on to help the masses? For what, when the corrupt had fallen. Evey on the other hand had less of a violent history and because of that would most likely be more effective in carrying on V’s symbol since she will not have the luggage of old tendencies. This is assuming that V couldn’t heal himself from such violence he committed and experienced in the past, so instead handed it off to someone who could bring about a future that he truly wanted and dreamed of. Also by him going through with his final act would have been pushing his belief onto the masses, it was up to someone akin or who represented the masses (Evey) to commit the final act to bring down the system once and for all, it was not V’s place because that would have been a force against the masses, that and they may have not been ready for it. People need to free themselves before they can truly end a system that oppresses them. If the people’s minds weren’t freed then destroying the State would serve no purpose because it would be repeated all over again. I think people forget things like this, and that’s why some really good efforts of change are short lived because people forget to work on the root of the problem that also tends to lay within themselves(and everyone for that matter). For example if the root of the problem is money then what does money mean, then when we solve that problem how are we going to live without it and not just create another form of it? In other words how are we going to stop it from manifesting into similar things in the future? We have to be careful of that since we were once so accustom/use to it.\n\nAs for Noam Chomsky, I think he’s another academic old white man. One, the article was confusing because it was written so academic like, be forreal don’t try to prove yourself by fancy words. Plus I personally think the man still has some whiteness to work on. Other then that I think he’s done a great job in making the subject of Anarchism a more accepted topic in the academic world and is helping to give credit for it’s political perspective instead of just a philosophical theory.\n\n...\nto add to the notes you listed above after the Q:\n\nYes the IMF, WTO, and World Bank are horrific terrorists just as many governments and other financial institutions around the world are too. So I agree with “victor” the definition should be expanded upon. Yet it is peopl
670535
Why do you represent yourself so kindly, yet when the rubber hits the road, you degenerate into a poor witness for your faith:\n\nBehold, your email to me 06/30/06\n\n"Hello Veritatum17,\n\nYou have received a message from another user! \n\nFrom: mythkiller-zuba \n\nSubject: Re: I have no goat to provide \n\nMessage: U and d green desk could kiss my art.\nKiss a clean **** for a change.\nand 4Qverymucharsehole \n"
478620
If he had said something like, "I want every person in town to get a gun and kill all the police officers", then perhaps he could be charged with inciting violence.  Most successful public speakers are schooled enough to know better than to do that sort of thing, though.  You can skirt the issue fairly closely if you wish such as by saying something like, "If the police break the law, we may be forced to break the law ourselves".  See, that gives some insulation to the speaker, because the police are not supposed to be breaking the law in the first place, right?  The story in the website just said the speaker stated they might resort to 'weapons of warfare' if a repeat occurred.  There are all kinds of weapons of warfare, including psycological and rhetorical.  One note I'll add though is that a just government has no need to fear an armed public.  One of the main reasons for including the second amendment to the constitution was to assure the people the means to resist an oppressive government.  I'm a cop, but if a whole section of my town wanted to party in the street (sans violence and looting, of course), I'd back off and let 'em.  No need to clear the street unless fire department or ambulance crews need to get through.
492518
Those of you who accused this joke teller of being a twat and racist read all the writing if you're able. He did say it was a joke. Also look at Al V's response....\nI wish you lot woul lighten up...after all let's have a laugh before the buggers blow us up.
516459
He was at a liberal college, in a liberal state, and talking liberal politics.\n\nHe knew his audience and said what he said because he knew they would respond favorably to his words.\n\nExcept they didn't, because what he said was insulting, not funny.  It wasn't a joke, nor was it intewnded to be a joke.  It is insulting to soldiers, vets and the stuidents he was addresssing.\n\nHe was not misquoted, nor was it taken out of context.  He said what he intended to say.  What he didn't expect was that he would be caught.\n\nWhat he said was politics.   The context in which it was delivered was politics.  That he said it has nothing to do with politics, it has to do with poor taste.
178596
"These immigrants are fighting to embrace this nation."\n\nThat is funny.  Of course, how did I miss it.  Waving a foreign flag, speaking a foreign language, demanding free services, bastardizing the National Anthem.  Sound like their trying to embrace this nation - in a war!\n\nI believe that this is going to backfire on them.  In California we need to stop electing these people who hate living in this country.  That's the only reason I can explain why they would boycott it.
174137
Does anyone still believe anything that comes out of Number 10? The Prime Minixter doesn't own the questions, so the phrase they use makes a mockery of the democractic process and perhaps an indicataor of the trend to elevate the PM to Presidential status.\n\nI'm not sure which is correct - you might try Hansard - but I prefer Questions to the Prime Minister.
609806
So the next time some liberal D&D player comes in and starts smoking you and your students "Professor", we'll just stand outside and protest like a bunch of liberla p*ssy's and see if you want us to pick up our guns to help you.\n\nI don't want to hear another pascifist scream for help as they are having their head crushed by some other democratic "victim".  I think once again, we just whip out the protest signs and discuss the pros and cons of him stopping.\n\nProfessor my *ss, you're no stinking professor.  On second thought, you are probaly the "head" of the department.\n\nEven though my answer is the best, take you 10 points and shove it.\n\nG - wrong again baby - what are you going for a record or something.  Partial birth is before the court right now.  \n\nThere are already moves at the state level for anti abortion legislation in a number of states.  If you knew anything, (which apparently you don't) you would know that is where all matters start before they are taken by the supreme court.  The process started about 18 months ago and is working it's way up the ladder ya mo.
10759
Well obvious Mr. Savage is going for a reaction, as I presume are you, and somewhat successfully too.\n\nI can't deny its not fun to antagonize our liberal friends, as you are, but of course at the end of the day, the blind following of ideals from either end of the political spectrum, is the main stay of democracy. It would be as easy to find ridiculous conservative ideas as it was to find ridiculous democratic ideals and question the sanity of those that repeat them.\n\nSo fun yes, but no, not true.