Quote Originally Posted by daihashi
How is this different from the tons of Anti-Bush merchandise, videos etc etc that's out there. How is this different than labeling McCain a warmonger?

And defamation laws wouldn't really do anything here:

Defamation of character legal definition of Defamation of character. Defamation of character synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.



It's unlikely the court would rule in Obama's favor over this. It's a kid for one and this stuff is out there everywhere. There is a reason other politicians aren't suing a number of tshirt companies. It's not like Obama is the first one to get a t-shirt with slanderous remarks on it. :hippy:

I meant it could technically be sued. no1 is suing him though.
However the child's father is considering a lawsuit. that won't fly

and hey: "Most" of THE BUSH BASHING HAS some BACKUP. this simply doesn't have any. is Obama linked to a terrorist group or individual? has he funded terrorism, has he helped them in any way? prove to me that he has, and i give it to ya.

Bush HAS LIED. go ahead bring me evidence to deny it. that is enough excuse to call him a lier and ask for his impeachment for cheating everyone he lied to. He has lied and got A NATION of 300 Million plus people into a war with his lies. a war we are suppose to win!? thats just funny.

Go ahead and do some research on war crimes definition as well. u will find why he is being called a murderer and a war criminal. I aint even gonna open that discussion here cuz it will just get us into a different topic.

At least there is some evidence to be considered in Bush's case for most of major points being made and said about him. Whether accepted or not thats a different story. But, when u run around and call some1 a "terrorist's friend" without any evidence to prove your point, thats defamation.

and for your info defamation laws work very well if some1 has the will to pursue a case over it, many examples out there.

refer to Defamation, Libel and Slander Law
Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.
Now the kid or his guardian have no proof or evidence to back their claim up. It's just malice and u know it. don't argue over something that u @ heart know about.

and I agree there are some claims against bush that are pure malice as well without any backup.