On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 06:13:30 -0700 (PDT), Special.Care03@googlemail.com
wrote:
> But this is really about a fundmental principle of freedom of
> expression.
>
> If we say a man has been wrongly convicted, we are also saying
> directly or by implication that the person(s) responsible for
> convicting him is either (a) incompetent or (b) corrupt.
I don't follow that. How was one person responsible for the conviction?
Was he judge, jurors, prosecution, defence and all of the witnesses? Or
did he bribe or otherwise control all those people? What did Mr. Gregg do?
> If Gregg v. O'Gara is establishing in law the precedent that we have
> no legal right to say a man has been wrongly convicted, because it
> automatically implies that someone is (a) incompetent or (b) corrupt,
> then we have entered dangerous legal and societal territory in terms
> of the implications for civil liberties in this country.
Mr. O'Gara is totally free to tell people that Mr. Gregg is corrupt, and
Mr. Gregg is free to demand that Mr. O'Gara pays the price for defaming him
when Mr. O'Hara can not prove his claim. What is unfair about that?
Tony |