Principled libertarian, tea party patriot and Aqua Buddha Rand Paul:
“I think they deserve a lawsuit,” he said of GQ. “The problem is that in our country, they make it almost impossible for politicians to win anything.”[…]
“In England it’s easier to win a libel suit,” he complained. […]
The Constitution is a great document that we should all venerate except when we disagree with it — then it’s a “problem”. And even though we’ve named ourselves after a great protest against English oppression, we sure like their oppressive laws when they cut our way. The Tea Party is nothing but a permanent butthurt parade.
El Cid
Too many times the Founding Fathers were seduced by the radical, anti-tradition thinkers of the Enlightenment, who endangered civilization by denouncing the stability and nurturing we had from Church rule.
That’s why we have to portray the Founding Fathers as mostly ministers, though they weren’t, to counter their radical free-thinking tendencies.
4tehlulz
David Irving would disagree with that assessment.
soonergrunt
mistermix, you don’t need to blog about them anymore. Neither does anyone else. That one statement says it all right there.
Dave
We should never be like Europe! Except when we should be exactly like Europe!
It must be nice to have a mindset where logical inconsistencies aren’t even noticed.
NonyNony
I wonder what Rand Paul’s stance on Tort Reform might be…
Dork
Yes, but that’s Presumptive Senator Paul to you.
chopper
there oughta be a law! wait…
azlib
And these are the same people who whine about out of control lawsuits and have so restricted things like product liability via tort “reform” that manufacturers can in some cases literally get away with murder. And yet they want to sue because someone reported a college prank that might be embarrassing to them. Well at least he is not proposing a “2nd Amendment” solution to his problem with GQ.
Albatrossity
So Tea-tipplers were obviously Tories before they became Confederates.
Mark S.
@El Cid:
I’ve been noticing a lot of this lately. Did you know Thomas Jefferson went to church while he was president? Much better than that freethinking deist Ronald Reagan.
Frank
It is also easier to have your pre-existing condition covered in England…Maybe Europe is not so bad after all for the hypocritical tea baggers.
Jay C
IS it?? Not that I am an expert on British libel laws, but from most of the cases I have heard of, it may be somewhat easier for, say, a political candidate to bring a suit for libel in court (unlike the Good Old US of A where politicians have virtually zip standing), actually winning a case is a different matter. Almost invariably involving a great deal of time and six- or seven-figure legal bills; often for a minimal payout (save the satisfaction of being officially adjudicated as “right”).
Omnes Omnibus
@Frank:
Well, that’s a completely different thing. Apples to oranges. Creeping soshulism, doncha know? Hey, look! Gheys are trying to get married; some of them might be immigrants! Let’s get ’em!
Napoleon
@4tehlulz:
:)
That opinion was a great read if for no other reason a run down of the evidence of the Holocaust, which was eye opening.
amk
No paulie. In England, they would have jailed the sorry ass of you and your kind for hate speech. And the brit journos would have torn you a new one, unlike the amurikan msm, who wrought about the nasty teabaggers like you on the political scene.
Omnes Omnibus
@Jay C: Not a British libel law expert here either, but it is my understanding that an unsuccessful libel plaintiff can be liable for defense costs even if the case is not frivolous.
Fern
And here I had thought you couldn’t be found guilty of libel if the statement was true.
Omnes Omnibus
@amk: The First Amendment cuts both ways.
Napoleon
@Omnes Omnibus:
Plus there is not the overlay US Courts impose because of the 1st Amendment on a case where the person is a public figure so not only do you have to prove it was false but basically the person making the statement made it while knowing it was false.
valdemar
English libel laws favour the rich and dishonest. ‘Libel tourism’ is a major scandal.
NB rebel colonists, Scotland has a different system, so never say British laws.
Omnes Omnibus
@valdemar: Mea culpa.
Villago Delenda Est
The Teabaggers were screwed up from the getgo, naming themselves after an event in which the private property of the British East India Company was targeted, not any government.
Over at FARK a few years back they had a contest that showed how Faux Noise would cover the Boston Tea Party, and the best ones decried a “terrorist attack” on the Honorable East India Company’s ships.
Svensker
John Hiatt is good.
evinfuilt
“help, help, I’m being oppressed” signed white male christians.
WereBear
Libel suit? I thought he issued a non denial, or at least, his campaign did.
Is it okay to sue if you have your fee fees hurt?
Sentient Puddle
@WereBear: He did issue a non-denial. Evidently, how Paul defines “libel” is someone bringing up inconvenient facts that reflect badly upon him.
burnspbesq
@Svensker:
John Hiatt is good.
That’s a bit like saying “Usain Bolt is fast.” It’s true, but it doesn’t quite capture the whole thing.
cat48
It becomes clearer to me daily why Hamsher thought the Teaparty had so much in common w/progressives. Butthurt! (common in Professional Liberals) They have teamed up together in CA for weed laws which is a good cause!
EZSmirkzz
I think the word you were looking for was load.
NickM
Aqua Buddha – was he one of Parliament’s personae from “Motor Booty Affair”? Although you’d think that Rand Paul would really worship Sir Nose D’voidoffunk.
morzer
Rand Paul shows us just how principled the glibertarian commitment to free speech really is. As soon as anyone, exercising their right of free speech, dares to tell the truth about him, Mini-Paul immediately rushes to exploit the laws he spends so much time denouncing – simply to deny free speech to others.
TooManyJens
Ask Simon Singh about UK libel law.
It’s much harder to defend against libel in the UK than in the US.
valdemar
@TooManyJens: Too right. You can be sued here for things that would be considered utterly unremarkable in the US. Calling someone a crank or a charlatan or a bigot can lead to tremendous financial damage.
Alwhite
That is not a new standard – the right suggested for years that the USSR and/or Red CHina had a superior legal system because it allowed the government to execute people they KNEW were guilty or to lock up indefinitely anyone they felt was a threat to them.
They kept saying how great that was & how we should have that here. The right loves the Constitution like a hooker loves a trick – as long as the money is good say whatever it takes.
Indie Tarheel
@NickM: Yes. Yes he was.