Can Rev Ted Haggard be sued for libeling the President?
912078
But only George can choose to sue him
552166
Generally (see above on the value of specific legal advice), groups have the same legal expression (free speech) rights and liabilities as individuals. This includes religious organizations and other expressive associations.\n\nIf a religious (or other) organization says/does something that would be defamatory, then they would likely be just as liable for libel (or slander) as if an individual had done it.\n\nCaveat: some states may grant special protections to certain organizations, and I don't know whether Colorado is one of them. To be sure, consult with a Colorado attorney.
85066
sue him in civil courts
369041
A customer in SC sued Pizza Hut for a racial slur that was printed on his receipt. You don't give any details, so I can't tell if your case would fall along similar lines, but it's certainly plausible, as long as actual defamation of character took place. Being abusive is not defamation.
563308
If it is a distorted or false information that is intentionally put out to negatively effect someone's reputation, you are liable for...\n\nIn English and American law, and systems based on them, libel and slander are two forms of defamation (or defamation of character), the tort or delict of publishing (to a third party) a false statement that negatively affects someone's reputation.\n\n"Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "libel" and "slander". Libel is defamation that can be seen, such as in writing, printing, effigy, a movie, or a statue. Slander is any defamation that is spoken and heard.
87449
They can't sue but they can take it to the police who would charge him with a crime.  In order to sue him they would have to prove that there is something they deserve in return for receiving these emails which is doubtful.
189090
I think Bush should be banned from any more public appearances.  He just keeps making himself look worse and worse.  For a leader of a country he sure is dorky.  He has got us into such a mess.  Lets file federal charges, and see if we can get him banned.  He should be held accountable for interrupting our lives whenever he wants. If we interrupted his, you can bet he would file charges on us.
949508
I think it's good that he has stepped down from his church and from the other organization he was leading, but Christians also need to cut out the gossip and gawking and pray for the guy. Check out the blog entry below that I just posted about Haggard.
861255
I'm not sure if this applies to you or not (you'll have to make that call), but the California Supreme Court (this will set precedence elsewhere, though) has decided that if you post something online which criticizes or attacks a person, either personally or professionally, and you did not write it, you cannot be sued.  If that person who has been attacked decides to sue, he/she can only sue the original writter.
654143
Yes, it's a myth, but these days a lie can whiz around the world at Internet speed many, many times while the truth is still putting on its running shoes.  Besides, the creationists will say anything.  \n\nIf I were one of Charles Darwin's descendants (there must be a few around), I'd sue for defamation of character.  It probably wouldn't get very far in the courts but at least it would get a few headlines, so there would be at least a chance to tell the real story.
1099494
Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries.\n\nThis is because the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States gives strong protection to freedom of expression, which arose from the tradition of dissent in the American Revolution. One very important distinction today is that European and Commonwealth jurisdictions adhere to a theory that every publication of a defamation gives rise to a separate claim, so that a defamation on the Internet could be sued on in any country in which it was read, while American law only allows one claim for the primary publication.\n\nIn the United States, about 75 percent of defamation lawsuits are filed in state courts, and the remaining 25 percent in federal courts. A comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander is difficult, because each state's definition differs. Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of laws. Some states have criminal libel laws on the books, though these are old laws which are very infrequently prosecuted.\n\nMost defendants in libel lawsuits are newspapers, which are involved in about twice as many lawsuits as are television stations. Most plaintiffs are corporations, businesspeople, entertainers and other public figures, and people involved in criminal cases, usually defendants or convicts but sometimes victims as well. Almost all states do not allow defamation lawsuits to be filed if the allegedly defamed person is deceased. No state allows the plaintiff to be a group of people.\n\nIn the various states, whether by case law or actual legislation, there are generally several "privileges" that can get a defamation case dismissed without proceeding to trial. These include the allegedly defamatory statement being one of opinion rather than fact; or being "fair comment and criticism", as it is important to society that everyone be able to comment on matters of public interest. In addition, it is generally accepted in the United States that a sufficiently public figure is "fair game" for all but the grossest libels.\n\nDefences to claims of defamation include:\n\n    * Truth is an absolute defence in the United States because of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In some other countries, such as Canada, it is also necessary to show a benefit to the public good in having the information brought to light.\n    * Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.\n    * Privilege is a defence when witness testimony, attorneys' arguments, and judges' decisions, rulings, and statements made in court, or statements by legislators on the floor of the legislature, are the cause for the claim. These statements are said to be privileged and cannot be cause for a defamation claim.\n    * Opinion is a defence is recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the person makes a statement of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. Some jurisdictions have eliminated the distinction between fact and opinion, and allow any statements suggesting a factual basis to support a defamation claim.\n    * Fair comment on a matter of public interest, statements made with an honest belief in their truth on a matter of public interest (official acts) are defenses to a defamation claim, even if such arguments are logically unsound; if a reasonable person could honestly entertain such an opinion, the statement is protected.\n    * Consent is an
1043895
Fraud, forgery and theft come to mind. Yes you can sue him civilly, but he can also be criminally charged as well and ordered to pay restitution.
562850
I repeat, it is a federal crime under 18 USC Sec. 871 to threaten the life of the President of the United States. This "question" attempts to evoke such threats.
891921
You are very smart. Nobody seems to realize what you have just stated. Have you heard the news report of the pastor who paid for meth with sex with a homosexual? It kinda is embarrassing!
7634
I heard this was a rumor from his trip to Mexico. Apparently, however, the suit is still in court and is pending a verdict. The real truths will come out on the stand. Link below is to a TheSmokingGun article describing the suit with filed documents.
817664
Not a priets, a fundamentalist minister.  His name is Ted HAggard and he was the leader of a huge church and one of the largest politically active funamental Christian organizations in the country.
763500
SLANDER is spoken word.\n\nYou mean to ask if it is LIBEL (written word).\n\nThat depends on what you said, and whether they can prove damages.  Publicly writing some things (in most states) that are very bad automatically proves the defamation, including allegations of criminal conduct, infidelity, things harmful to a person's job, and allegations of really bad diseases (known as "defamation per se").\n  \nStill, the accuser would have to prove the damages AND file the lawsuit....so even if they were willing to pay a lawyer and court fees, if they couldn't prove who saw it, and it is no longer there to be seen, it would be tough to prove any substantial damages.