Originally posted by weaselsan
When asked about the use of lawsuits to combat the KKK and other supremist organizations, Mr Shamus replied.....
I'm not sure that I meant it exactly that way, however, the point is valid...
I'm the son of a doctor, and, thus, have generally stood in favor of certain tort reforms. I'm also a soon-to-be lawyer, and, in this light, must ask the question: how can a government decide what is reasonable and what is not, PRIOR to a meeting between plaintiff, defendant and judge? Isn't that what trials are for? To decide if something is right or wrong?
In this sense, tort reform seems to be a short cut to justice. Yes, all court cases must meet certain requirements before going to trial, but their fitness for trial should never be determined by blanket legislation. It should be determined by a judge. A person's right to compensation for a very public, potentially damaging misuse of a quote is not something that can be summarily ruled out.
Legally speaking, there is no set definition for the word 'frivolous'. There are only opinions. For opinion to carry legal significance, at least in the system established in this country, it must be tried.
Moore practiced, perhaps even abused his right to free speech, and profited greatly. This soldier deserves his day in court, plain and simple. Any nation that deprives him of this right should just go back to burning people at the stake for witchcraft.