naturalplastic wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Liable.
Depends
It COULD be "libel". Two different words.
He could be being sued for libel. In which case he would be "being held liable".
"Libel" is a form of slander (both in common, and in legal terms). If I
say insulting stuff about you (like at a party) I am slandering you. If I
print stuff in an article in my newspaper the wrongly defames you I am committing "libel".
If I SAY stuff about you on the air (on the radio TV, and presumably also on UTube) I am also committing "libel". In the twentieth century they expanded the definition of libel to cover the then new electronic media of radio and TV by calling things said on the air "libel", rather than "slander" on the premise that "its all written down in script first before announcers say it so it is still the written word". That aside its still -the media of the age- so folks still need legal protection.
So...if you say something unproven bad stuff about someone on the air (on radio, TV, or on Utube) you might be liable to be sued for libel. And found liable!
I'm familiar with the meanings of both words.
He was found responsible for his violations of a court order related to turning over documents; libel isn't a relevant word in this news story even if it's one that often applies when it comes to Alex Jones' statements.
Also,
I don't like 'em putting chemicals in the water that turn the frikkin' frogs gay.
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.