CLINTON COCAINE VIDEO SURFACES IN LITTLE ROCK

13 views
Skip to first unread message

Albert Nanomius

unread,
Apr 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/14/96
to

Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 00:00:22 -0700 (MST)
From: Free Speech <r...@grapevinenews.com>
Subject: "Clinton Cocaine Video Surfaces in Little Rock"


"Clinton Cocaine Video Surfaces in Little Rock"

Free Speech Newspaper has obtained exclusive information from a source
associated with the Arkansas State Police in Little Rock that a sensational
video of then Governor Bill Clinton involving the illicit use of the drug
cocaine will be released to the media nationally during the next week.

The video tape clearly depicts then Governor Bill Clinton sitting at a table
in front of an ashtray with a substantial amount of cocaine in the presence
of Dan Lassiter and other well known and prominent Arkansas personalities.
The black and white video tape has been verified as authentic and is further
corroborated by witness statements.

For additional support of the video tape, sources linked to the Arkansas
State Police maintain that a series of surreptitious video and audio
recordings allegedly obtained by former Arkansas security employees of Bill
Clinton will be released. The release of the tapes may be made with the
tacit consent of key Washington D.C. Democrats who are said to be seeking a
quick resignation of President Bill Clinton in favor of Vice President Al Gore.

Photo excerpts from the video tape will be posted on Free Speech Newspaper
Web Site. http://www.freespeechnews.com/callme/ and their hardcopy Newspaper
during the next week.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Free Speech Newspaper
18631 North 19th Avenue
Suite 128-200
Phoenix, Arizona 85027
r...@freespeechnews.com
http://www.FreeSpeechNews.com/callme/
A current collection by top writers and researchers
of exposes on government, corporate and institutional
coverup and fraud. Exposing serious media abuses.
Subscription: $12.00 12 issues email version.
$24.00 12 issues hardcopy version postpaid U.S.
$15.00 Bundle of 50 for distribution postpaid U.S.
----------------------------------------------------------------

--

~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
/\. |\| /\ |\| () |\/| | |/ _/~ nano...@netcom.com
A l b e r t N a n o m i u s http://www.newciv.org/~albert/

John Q. Public

unread,
Apr 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/14/96
to
forwarded from David Sussman

Folks,

I have been told that the player behind the Arkansas tapes of Clinton doing
drugs, Larry Case, is a "Clinton disinformation operative." Specifically:
"He handles the dirty tricks department."

What devious plot is afoot? The investigation continues...


David Sussman

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Prediction of the decade: "The public will never believe the
innocence of the Clintons & their loyal staff." -- author unknown

David Salvador Flores

unread,
Apr 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/20/96
to
In article <3171B8...@globaldialog.com>,

John Q. Public <J...@globaldialog.com> wrote:
>forwarded from David Sussman
>
>Folks,
>
>I have been told that the player behind the Arkansas tapes of Clinton doing
>drugs, Larry Case, is a "Clinton disinformation operative." Specifically:
>"He handles the dirty tricks department."

I have been told that its all Bob Dole's doing.


-Dave

Joyce

unread,
Apr 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/20/96
to
David Salvador Flores (ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
: In article <3171B8...@globaldialog.com>,

: -Dave

No, it was the commies.

Dave Brickner

unread,
Apr 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/21/96
to

hAVE BEEN TOLD BY WHO??????????????????????????????


Michael Rivero

unread,
Apr 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/21/96
to
In article <Dq4y7...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,

David Salvador Flores <ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>In article <3171B8...@globaldialog.com>,
>John Q. Public <J...@globaldialog.com> wrote:
>>forwarded from David Sussman
>>
>>Folks,
>>
>>I have been told that the player behind the Arkansas tapes of Clinton doing
>>drugs, Larry Case, is a "Clinton disinformation operative." Specifically:
>>"He handles the dirty tricks department."
>
>I have been told that its all Bob Dole's doing.
>

Who told you? Raymond Young?

--
============== P I X E L O D E O N P R O D U C T I O N S ==============
| Mike & Claire - The Rancho Runnamukka http://www.accessone.com/~rivero |
===========================================================================


Joseph Bowen

unread,
Apr 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/21/96
to nano...@netcom.com
nano...@netcom.com (Albert Nanomius) wrote:

>
>"Clinton Cocaine Video Surfaces in Little Rock"
>
>Free Speech Newspaper has obtained exclusive information from a source
>associated with the Arkansas State Police in Little Rock that a sensational
>video of then Governor Bill Clinton involving the illicit use of the drug
>cocaine will be released to the media nationally during the next week.

Still waiting...no video. Checked out the "newspaper" link again...no
video, and no pictures.

There IS, though a COPY of an ADVERTISMENT offering to SELL this lie to
anybody stupid enough to offer money. Even supporters of Rush aren't
that stupid, I suspect.

Free Speech was never intended to protect liars.

Joe Bowen

Danny Sale

unread,
Apr 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/22/96
to
>There IS, though a COPY of an ADVERTISMENT offering to SELL this lie to
>anybody stupid enough to offer money. Even supporters of Rush aren't
>that stupid, I suspect.

Then what do you have to lose.

if you send them the money, and dont get a video of President Clinton
doing cocaine, sue the hell out of them.

If you do, then you have a video of clinton doing cocaine and can get
him out of the whitehouse.

But by your prior post I take it you would never do this if it meant
there would be a 1% chance you'd get a video of our pinko liberal
one-worlder president doing cocaine, and if it came out to be a true
un-modified video you would probably say 'Who cares! everyone has
problems! that wont affect what he does in the whitehouse!'


Joseph Bowen

unread,
Apr 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/22/96
to ds...@jax.jaxnet.com
ds...@jax.jaxnet.com (Danny Sale) wrote:
>>There IS, though a COPY of an ADVERTISMENT offering to SELL this lie to
>>anybody stupid enough to offer money. Even supporters of Rush aren't
>>that stupid, I suspect.
>
>Then what do you have to lose.
>
>if you send them the money, and dont get a video of President Clinton
>doing cocaine, sue the hell out of them.

Excuse me? Give money to liars who seek in impede the President of the
United States? Not my idea of patriotism.

Let's see - grainy video, camera moves a lot. Picture of the President.
Cut to figures huddled around a table, one may be the President, can't
tell. Close up of the President seated at a table. Shot of a line of
cocaine. Voice that sounds like Mr. Clinton... <etc>

No, I haven't seen it, I can just already tell you what's on it.

Sorry for not replying to the rest of your post. If it were intelligent,
maybe I would have.

Joe Bowen


George Grapman

unread,
Apr 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/22/96
to
Danny Sale (ds...@jax.jaxnet.com) wrote:

: if you send them the money, and dont get a video of President Clinton


: doing cocaine, sue the hell out of them.

If you can find the people after they have your moey.

: But by your prior post I take it you would never do this if it meant

: there would be a 1% chance you'd get a video of our pinko liberal

By your own post you have shown that you will accept anything negative
about Clinton without any need for facts.

George Grapman

unread,
Apr 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/22/96
to
Albert Nanomius (nano...@netcom.com) wrote:

: Free Speech Newspaper has obtained exclusive information from a source


: associated with the Arkansas State Police in Little Rock that a sensational
: video of then Governor Bill Clinton involving the illicit use of the drug
: cocaine will be released to the media nationally during the next week.

Here we are, one week later, and the tape has not been released.


: The video tape clearly depicts then Governor Bill Clinton sitting at a table


: in front of an ashtray with a substantial amount of cocaine in the presence
: of Dan Lassiter and other well known and prominent Arkansas personalities.

: corroborated by witness statements.

Who are the witnesses?


: Photo excerpts from the video tape will be posted on Free Speech Newspaper


: Web Site. http://www.freespeechnews.com/callme/ and their hardcopy Newspaper

The site just has a sales pitch for the tape. No photos,no evidence.

: ---------------------------------------------------------------

Max Kennedy

unread,
Apr 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/22/96
to
George Grapman (sfge...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Danny Sale (ds...@jax.jaxnet.com) wrote:

: By your own post you have shown that you will accept anything negative

: about Clinton without any need for facts.

We don't NEED anything else negative about Clinton. He should have been
impeached, tried, and thrown in jail a long time ago.

Max Kennedy


seneca

unread,
Apr 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/23/96
to

Well if you've got everything you need what the hell is taking so long.
Let's get the show on the road.

sensen


David Salvador Flores

unread,
Apr 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/26/96
to

In article <4ldd5j$7...@pulm1.accessone.com>,

Michael Rivero <riv...@accessone.com> wrote:
>In article <Dq4y7...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
>David Salvador Flores <ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>>In article <3171B8...@globaldialog.com>,
>>John Q. Public <J...@globaldialog.com> wrote:
>>>forwarded from David Sussman
>>>
>>>Folks,
>>>
>>>I have been told that the player behind the Arkansas tapes of Clinton doing
>>>drugs, Larry Case, is a "Clinton disinformation operative." Specifically:
>>>"He handles the dirty tricks department."
>>
>>I have been told that its all Bob Dole's doing.
>>
>
> Who told you? Raymond Young?
>

C'mon Michael, you know I can't reveal my sources. Let's
just say that they're super secret, well placed, high up
individuals with about as much credibility as is to be
expected from super secret sources on alt.conspiracy.

-Dave


David Salvador Flores

unread,
Apr 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/26/96
to

In article <Dq9wJ...@iglou.com>, Max Kennedy <mken...@iglou.com> wrote:
>George Grapman (sfge...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: Danny Sale (ds...@jax.jaxnet.com) wrote:
>
>: By your own post you have shown that you will accept anything negative
>: about Clinton without any need for facts.
>
>We don't NEED anything else negative about Clinton. He should have been
>impeached, tried, and thrown in jail a long time ago.

For the crime of refusing to goose step alongside Max Kennedy, no
doubt.

>
>Max Kennedy
>


-Dave

david mcintosh

unread,
Apr 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/26/96
to

: But by your prior post I take it you would never do this if it meant
: there would be a 1% chance you'd get a video of our pinko liberal
: one-worlder president doing cocaine, and if it came out to be a true

: un-modified video you would probably say 'Who cares! everyone has
: problems! that wont affect what he does in the whitehouse!'
:
I would really like to see videos of Newt giving his wife divorce papers
just as she comes out of cancer surgery with their children standing
around that would be a hoot or how about Newt recieving oral sex from
another professors man I'd laugh for days. Or how about Phil Gramm on the
set of that porno he invested in hahahhaha. And wouldn't it have been
great if Pat Buchannon would have been around 100 years ago so he could
have kicked his immigrant grandparents out of the country. And of course
some one whos been in Washington for 35 years has never done anything
questionable.

And you say Clinton is the one with the character flaw.

Kurt Warner

unread,
Apr 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/26/96
to


On 21 Apr 1996, Joseph Bowen wrote:

> nano...@netcom.com (Albert Nanomius) wrote:
>
> >
> >"Clinton Cocaine Video Surfaces in Little Rock"
> >

> >Free Speech Newspaper has obtained exclusive information from a source
> >associated with the Arkansas State Police in Little Rock that a sensational
> >video of then Governor Bill Clinton involving the illicit use of the drug
> >cocaine will be released to the media nationally during the next week.
>

> Still waiting...no video. Checked out the "newspaper" link again...no
> video, and no pictures.
>

> There IS, though a COPY of an ADVERTISMENT offering to SELL this lie to
> anybody stupid enough to offer money. Even supporters of Rush aren't
> that stupid, I suspect.
>

> Free Speech was never intended to protect liars.

ah... so now the liberals are stating they are against free speech.... We
all know they have never supported it unless you're saying what they want
you to say, but in the past they at least paid lip-service...

>
> Joe Bowen
>
>
>
>

Ross LaGue

unread,
Apr 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/27/96
to

In article <4lqjq0$f...@news.cc.utah.edu>, dmm...@cc.utah.edu (david mcintosh) wrote:
>: But by your prior post I take it you would never do this if it meant
>: there would be a 1% chance you'd get a video of our pinko liberal
>: one-worlder president doing cocaine, and if it came out to be a true
>: un-modified video you would probably say 'Who cares! everyone has
>: problems! that wont affect what he does in the whitehouse!'
>:
>I would really like to see videos of Newt giving his wife divorce papers
>just as she comes out of cancer surgery with their children standing
>around that would be a hoot or how about Newt recieving oral sex from
>another professors man I'd laugh for days. Or how about Phil Gramm on the

Kill file.


---
Ross LaGue < r...@erinet.com > Dayton, Ohio

CHill3644

unread,
Apr 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/27/96
to

Let me get this straight. Clinton is a jazz saxophonist wannabe who
"didn't inhale", Vietnam draft dodger, ladies' man, and he occasionally
does a couple of lines of blow. I knew there was a reason I voted for him.

Max Kennedy

unread,
Apr 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/27/96
to

David Salvador Flores (ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:

: For the crime of refusing to goose step alongside Max Kennedy, no
: doubt.

I admire the intelligence it takes to scawl a one line insult. I'm sure
you worked your way up from bathroom walls.

Max Kennedy


Paul H. Henry

unread,
Apr 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/27/96
to

In article
<Pine.ULT.3.91m.96042...@red5.cac.washington.edu>, Kurt
Warner <kwa...@cac.washington.edu> wrote:

> On 21 Apr 1996, Joseph Bowen wrote:
>
> > nano...@netcom.com (Albert Nanomius) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Clinton Cocaine Video Surfaces in Little Rock"
> > >
> > >Free Speech Newspaper has obtained exclusive information from a source
> > >associated with the Arkansas State Police in Little Rock that a sensational
> > >video of then Governor Bill Clinton involving the illicit use of the drug
> > >cocaine will be released to the media nationally during the next week.
> >
> > Still waiting...no video. Checked out the "newspaper" link again...no
> > video, and no pictures.
> >
> > There IS, though a COPY of an ADVERTISMENT offering to SELL this lie to
> > anybody stupid enough to offer money. Even supporters of Rush aren't
> > that stupid, I suspect.
> >
> > Free Speech was never intended to protect liars.
>
> ah... so now the liberals are stating they are against free speech....

You're an idiot, Kurt. Free speech does not protect liars. Ever heard of
libel law? If you tell a lie that defames someone, that is not protected
speech and that person can sue you for damages. Read a book, Kurt.

--
=============================================================================
_ (phe...@halcyon.com) || I N M E M O R Y
|_) || Oklahoma City * April 19, 1995
| aul H. Henry - Seattle, Wash.|| Remember the Victims of Extremism and Hate
====================== http://www.halcyon.com/phenry/ =====================

Paul H. Henry

unread,
Apr 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/27/96
to

That's right, folks! Ross LaGue can't stand to read messages from people
who think differently from him! He comes to Usenet to be surrounded by a
soothing buzz of conformity, not this messy debate and disagreement! You
heard it here first!

Paul H. Henry

unread,
Apr 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/27/96
to

In article <4lqjq0$f...@news.cc.utah.edu>, dmm...@cc.utah.edu (david
mcintosh) wrote:

> : But by your prior post I take it you would never do this if it meant
> : there would be a 1% chance you'd get a video of our pinko liberal
> : one-worlder president doing cocaine, and if it came out to be a true
> : un-modified video you would probably say 'Who cares! everyone has
> : problems! that wont affect what he does in the whitehouse!'
> :
> I would really like to see videos of Newt giving his wife divorce papers
> just as she comes out of cancer surgery with their children standing
> around that would be a hoot or how about Newt recieving oral sex from
> another professors man I'd laugh for days.

I guess that's the difference between you and me. If I saw a video of Newt
Gingrich receiving oral sex, I doubt I'd ever be able to sleep without
nightmares again.

Paul H. Henry

unread,
Apr 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/27/96
to

In article <4ltnlc$k...@pulm1.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com (Michael
Rivero) wrote:

> In article <4lsnp0$q...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,

> Saying that Clinton occasionally does a couple of lines of blow is like
> saying the Titanic hit a little ice.

Boy, that's a strong statement. I'm sure you're prepared to back it up
with some evidence. Unless, of course, your mind is so diseased by hate
that you're just making this stuff up because you want it to be true.

Charlie Armstrong

unread,
Apr 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/27/96
to

In article <4ltnlc$k...@pulm1.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com (Michael Rivero) pontificated:

> Saying that Clinton occasionally does a couple of lines of blow is like
>saying the Titanic hit a little ice.
>

And you base this not-quite-a-factoid on?

"I'm your only friend, I'm not your only friend but I'm a little glowing friend. But really I'm not actually your friend. But I am." -The Blue Canary

Dave B.

unread,
Apr 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/27/96
to

Tim Watson wrote:

>
> gre...@earthlink.net (Charlie Armstrong) wrote:
> >In article <4ltnlc$k...@pulm1.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com (Michael Rivero) pontificated:
> >
> >> Saying that Clinton occasionally does a couple of lines of blow is like
> >>saying the Titanic hit a little ice.
> >>
> >
> >And you base this not-quite-a-factoid on?
>
> That doesn't sound like a pontification to me. Sounds more like an
> assertion, strongly put. There is much talk of Clinton's dope use while
> in Arkansas, but if he still indulges, he is doing a much better job of
> keeping it quiet, which I understand is one of the perquisites of the
> presidency.

Have we seen the Boy President's medical records yet?

Habitual drug use would certainly be one reason to keep it from the
public.
--
Dave Bockstanz
Wifewater ain't over until the First Lady sings

Michael Rivero

unread,
Apr 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/27/96
to

In article <4lsnp0$q...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
CHill3644 <chil...@aol.com> wrote:
>Let me get this straight. Clinton is a jazz saxophonist wannabe who
>"didn't inhale", Vietnam draft dodger, ladies' man, and he occasionally
>does a couple of lines of blow. I knew there was a reason I voted for him.

Saying that Clinton occasionally does a couple of lines of blow is like
saying the Titanic hit a little ice.

--

Tim Watson

unread,
Apr 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/28/96
to

gre...@earthlink.net (Charlie Armstrong) wrote:
>In article <4ltnlc$k...@pulm1.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com (Michael Rivero) pontificated:
>
>> Saying that Clinton occasionally does a couple of lines of blow is like
>>saying the Titanic hit a little ice.
>>
>

Charlie Armstrong

unread,
Apr 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/28/96
to

In article <4lroiv$8...@eri1.erinet.com>, r...@erinet.com (Ross LaGue) pontificated:

>In article <4lqjq0$f...@news.cc.utah.edu>, dmm...@cc.utah.edu (david mcintosh)
> wrote:
> >:
> >I would really like to see videos of Newt giving his wife divorce papers
> >just as she comes out of cancer surgery with their children standing
> >around that would be a hoot or how about Newt recieving oral sex from
> >another professors man I'd laugh for days. Or how about Phil Gramm on the
>
>Kill file.
>

Gosh, succint and yet totally of content! You do understand, Ross, that all of
these attempts to paint the President as morally depraved opens the door to
examination of folks on the other side. And you do know the difference between
the Clinton/coke story and the Gingrich/hospital (and lest we forget, the
Gingrich as deadbeat dad) story, don't you? In case you don't, it's this: The
first is almost certainly untrue, while the second certainly is. Killfile. Why
not? There probably isn't all that much sand to bury your head in out
there in Dayton. <snort>

Charlie Armstrong

viewer

unread,
Apr 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/28/96
to

phe...@halcyon.com (Paul H. Henry) wrote:

[...]

>> ah... so now the liberals are stating they are against free speech....
>
>You're an idiot, Kurt. Free speech does not protect liars. Ever heard of
>libel law? If you tell a lie that defames someone, that is not protected
>speech and that person can sue you for damages. Read a book, Kurt.

You start out by calling him "an idiot" in a public forum, and then lecture
him on defamation and libel issues? Chutzpah, if nothing else.

But we digress.

His point, (that thing that you may have noticed flying right over your
head) is that when they assert that "free speech" doesn't "protect liars",
they indeed saying that "free speech" only extends to those who agree
with them.

The essence of the point is the notion (try to comprehend this -- I'll
use small words, and type slowly) that if I am telling the truth, and
what *you* say disagrees with what I say, then *you* are telling lies.

Now, if we have established that liars are not protected by the First
Amendment, and, we have established (to at least *my* satisfaction) that
I am "right", and *you* are "wrong", then your speech is obviously not
protected.

Now, as to your poorly-crafted attempt to reframe the debate from one of
free speech, to one of libel: this is not a binary decision. One can
speak lies, yet never approach even the fringe of "libel". For example,
try this one out for size, and tell me if Our Glorious Leaders could
find my words actionable:

"Our President, and his First Lady, are sterling examples of the proud
American tradition of elevating our very best and brightest to positions
of leadership and authority, and they do every American proud!"

A lie? Certainly. Libelous? Somehow I think not.

If you ever find a clue, treasure it.

George Grapman

unread,
Apr 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/28/96
to

Tim Watson (tim...@cei.net) wrote:

: That doesn't sound like a pontification to me. Sounds more like an

: assertion, strongly put. There is much talk of Clinton's dope use while
: in Arkansas, but if he still indulges, he is doing a much better job of
: keeping it quiet, which I understand is one of the perquisites of the
: presidency.


Actually it seems like a fabrication or one of those"I read it on the
net so it must be true" things.


BOBJONES

unread,
Apr 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/28/96
to
Proof Charlie? Documentation?


Paul H. Henry

unread,
Apr 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/28/96
to

In article <4luhgr$1...@ren.cei.net>, Tim Watson <tim...@cei.net> wrote:

> gre...@earthlink.net (Charlie Armstrong) wrote:
> >In article <4ltnlc$k...@pulm1.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com
(Michael Rivero) pontificated:
> >
> >> Saying that Clinton occasionally does a couple of lines of blow is like
> >>saying the Titanic hit a little ice.
> >>
> >
> >And you base this not-quite-a-factoid on?
>
>

> That doesn't sound like a pontification to me. Sounds more like an
> assertion, strongly put.

And it sounds to me like a lie, even more strongly put.

> There is much talk of Clinton's dope use while
> in Arkansas, but if he still indulges, he is doing a much better job of
> keeping it quiet, which I understand is one of the perquisites of the
> presidency.

Considering the degree to which you folks blindly hate people who disagree
with you, I'd be surprised if there WASN'T "much talk" of such things.
That does not make it any less of a scurrilous lie, and it does not make
you any less immoral for spreading it.

Paul H. Henry

unread,
Apr 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/28/96
to

> phe...@halcyon.com (Paul H. Henry) wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><Pine.ULT.3.91m.96042...@red5.cac.washington.edu>, Kurt
> >Warner <kwa...@cac.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> ah... so now the liberals are stating they are against free speech....
> >
> >You're an idiot, Kurt. Free speech does not protect liars. Ever heard of
> >libel law? If you tell a lie that defames someone, that is not protected
> >speech and that person can sue you for damages. Read a book, Kurt.
>
> You start out by calling him "an idiot" in a public forum, and then lecture
> him on defamation and libel issues? Chutzpah, if nothing else.

Hardly. The expression of an opinion is protected speech under the First,
and notwithstanding the outdated medical definition of the word "idiot,"
"You're an idiot" is the expression of an opinion.

Try to keep up:

"Clinton is a drug addict"--a defamatory lie; actionable under libel law

"Clinton is an idiot"--defamatory but a statement of opinion; protected
under the First Amendment

See? It's not that hard if you try.

> But we digress.

Speak for yourself.

> His point, (that thing that you may have noticed flying right over your
> head) is that when they assert that "free speech" doesn't "protect liars",
> they indeed saying that "free speech" only extends to those who agree
> with them.

In fact, that is not his point at all, as you would know if you cared
enough to pay attention. Kurt was replying to Joseph Bowen, who asserted
that an advertisement offering to sell a video "showing" the President
using cocaine was a lie, noting that "Free Speech was never intended to
protect liars." THIS IS A TRUE STATEMENT, regardless of the specifics of
the lie. This is exactly what libel law addresses, hence its relevance.

Kurt then let fly with the moronic (opinion!!) and grammatically incorrect
(verifiably true!) comment, " ah... so now the liberals are stating they
are against free speech...." Kurt's statement is not supported by the
evidence with which he has been presented, and also implies that he
doesn't know jack shit about First Amendment law (neither do you,
apparently).

It should be noted that the advertisement in question is probably libelous
on its face; current libel law allows a public figure to sue and recover
damages if the accused libeller makes a statement that s/he knows is
false or has acted with reckless disregard for the truth. See New York
Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 2524, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964);
also Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d
789 (1974).

> The essence of the point is the notion (try to comprehend this -- I'll
> use small words, and type slowly) that if I am telling the truth, and
> what *you* say disagrees with what I say, then *you* are telling lies.

Utterly irrelevent, as the statement at issue is "Free Speech was never
intended to protect liars." You're falling behind again.

> Now, if we have established that liars are not protected by the First
> Amendment,

Which we have. At least, the Supreme Court has, and I have. You I'm not so
sure about.

> and, we have established (to at least *my* satisfaction) that
> I am "right", and *you* are "wrong", then your speech is obviously not
> protected.

Only if I have in some way made an assertion of fact, and that assertion
is incorrect and defaatory.

> Now, as to your poorly-crafted attempt to reframe the debate from one of
> free speech, to one of libel: this is not a binary decision. One can
> speak lies, yet never approach even the fringe of "libel".

That's called false light. False light is not protected under the First
Amendment, and victims can and have sued and recovered damages. See Time
Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374, 87 S.Ct. 534, 17 L.Ed.2d 456 (1967), and
especially Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing Co., 419 U.S. 245, 95 S.Ct.
465, 42 L.Ed.2d. 419 (1974). You just keep digging yourself in deeper and
deeper.

> For example,
> try this one out for size, and tell me if Our Glorious Leaders could
> find my words actionable:
>
> "Our President, and his First Lady, are sterling examples of the proud
> American tradition of elevating our very best and brightest to positions
> of leadership and authority, and they do every American proud!"
>
> A lie? Certainly.

Not a lie, a statement of opinion. In the strictest sense, you lied when
you said it was a lie.

> Libelous? Somehow I think not.

Of course not. Statements of opinion that do not imply assertions of
objective fact are not affected by libel law. I'm hoping that if I keep
hammering this into your head, you'll come to accept it someday. Witness:

"Sterling examples"--subjective.

"proud"--subjective.

"best and brightest"--subjective.

Your inane example did not make a single assertion of objective fact, and
as such is neither true nor a lie. Claiming that Bill Clinton habitually
uses cocaine is an assertion of objective fact, and if it can be shown
that the person or entity that made the accusation knew it was a lie or
said it with reckless disregard for the truth, guess what?--THAT'S LIBEL.

> If you ever find a clue, treasure it.

Just a friendly suggestion, kid. Don't argue on points of law about which
you know absolutely nothing. This stuff has been settled law for decades.
All you're doing is making me look good and making you look bad.

Max Kennedy

unread,
Apr 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/28/96
to

Charlie Armstrong (gre...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: In article <4ltnlc$k...@pulm1.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com (Michael Rivero) pontificated:

: > Saying that Clinton occasionally does a couple of lines of blow is like
: >saying the Titanic hit a little ice.
: >

: And you base this not-quite-a-factoid on?

A good example of how CNN is dumbing down the population. A factoid is
"like a fact". Too bad, it ISN'T a fact. Neither is lying or
exageration.

To be not quite a factoid, could quite honestly mean, to be a fact.

Max Kennedy

BOBJONES

unread,
Apr 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/28/96
to

phe...@halcyon.com (Paul H. Henry) wrote:
>In article <4luhgr$1...@ren.cei.net>, Tim Watson <tim...@cei.net> wrote:
>
>> gre...@earthlink.net (Charlie Armstrong) wrote:
>> >In article <4ltnlc$k...@pulm1.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com
>(Michael Rivero) pontificated:
>> >
>> >> Saying that Clinton occasionally does a couple of lines of blow is like
>> >>saying the Titanic hit a little ice.
>> >>
>> >
>> >And you base this not-quite-a-factoid on?
>>
>>
>> That doesn't sound like a pontification to me. Sounds more like an
>> assertion, strongly put.
>
>And it sounds to me like a lie, even more strongly put.
>
>> There is much talk of Clinton's dope use while
>> in Arkansas, but if he still indulges, he is doing a much better job of
>> keeping it quiet, which I understand is one of the perquisites of the
>> presidency.
>
>Considering the degree to which you folks blindly hate people who disagree
>with you, I'd be surprised if there WASN'T "much talk" of such things.
>That does not make it any less of a scurrilous lie, and it does not make
>you any less immoral for spreading it.
>
>--
>=============================================================================
> _ (phe...@halcyon.com) || I N M E M O R Y
>|_) || Oklahoma City * April 19, 1995
>| aul H. Henry - Seattle, Wash.|| Remember the Victims of Extremism and Hate
>====================== http://www.halcyon.com/phenry/ =====================
Is it immoral to spread the truth though.? The only lie spreading
is by Komrade Klinton and ministtry of Propaganda at ABC news.
Peter Jennings DOES looklike Josef Goebels. Do you have any proof
that he hasnt or doesnt do coke?