Slandering and defaming someone as mentally Ill when they are not is a false statement of fact and unprotected speech.
"Even when considering some instances of defamation or fraud, the Court has instructed that falsity alone may not suffice to bring the speech outside the First Amendment; the statement must be a knowing and reckless falsehood."
"do not establish a principle that all proscriptions of false statements are exempt from rigorous First Amendment scrutiny."
"False factual statements serve useful human objectives in many contexts."
"Moreover, the threat of criminal prosecution for making a false statement can inhibit the speaker from making true statements, thereby “chilling” a kind of speech that lies at the First Amendment’s heart."
- UNITED STATES v. ALVAREZ
"For when 'it is impossible to know, in view of the general verdict returned' whether the jury imposed liability on a permissible or an impermissible ground 'the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded."
"Freedom of discussion, if it would fulfill its historic function in this nation, must embrace all issues about which information is needed or appropriate to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of their period."
"Because the threat or actual imposition of pecuniary liability for alleged defamation may impair the unfettered exercise of these First Amendment freedoms, the Constitution imposes stringent limitations upon the permissible scope of such liability."
"It is simply impossible to believe that a reader who reached the word 'blackmail' in either article would not have understood exactly what was meant: it was Bresler's public and wholly legal negotiating proposals that were being criticized. No reader could have thought that either the speakers at the meetings or the newspaper articles reporting their words were charging Bresler with the commission of a criminal offense. On the contrary, even the most careless reader must have perceived that the word was no more than rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet used by those who considered Bresler's negotiating position extremely unreasonable. Indeed, the record is completely devoid of evidence that anyone in the city of Greenbelt or anywhere else thought Bresler had been charged with a crime."
- Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Assn., Inc. v. Bresler
"Next, statements that cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about an individual are protected" (opinion for example)
"thus assuring that public debate will not suffer for lack of "imaginative expression" or the "rhetorical hyperbole" which has traditionally added much to the discourse of this Nation."
"Under that analysis, four factors are considered to ascertain whether, under the "totality of circumstances," a statement is fact or opinion. These factors are: (1) "the specific language used"; (2) "whether the statement is verifiable"; (3) "the general context of the statement"; and (4) "the broader context in which the statement appeared."[...] With respect to the third factor, the general context, the court explained that "the large caption
TD Says' . . . would indicate to even the most gullible reader that the article was, in fact, opinion." Id. at 252, 496 N.E.2d at 707. As for the fourth factor, the "broader context," the court reasoned that, because the article appeared on a sports page -- "a traditional haven for cajoling, invective, and hyperbole" -- the article would probably be construed as opinion" "
"However, due to concerns that unduly burdensome defamation laws could stifle valuable public debate, the privilege of "fair comment" was incorporated into the common law as an affirmative defense to an action for defamation."
"The principle of "fair comment" afford[ed] legal immunity for the honest expression of opinion on matters of legitimate public interest when based upon a true or privileged statement of fact."
"use of the word "traitor" in literary definition of a union "scab" not basis for a defamation action under federal labor law, since used "in a loose, figurative sense" and was "merely rhetorical hyperbole, a lusty and imaginative expression of the contempt felt by union members""
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal, 497 U.S. 1 (1990)
"Freedoms of expression require "
breathing space,'"
- Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767 (1986)
"That erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and that it must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the "breathing space" that they "need . . . to survive,""
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
" Failure to investigate does not, in itself, establish bad faith."
" The finder of fact must determine whether the publication was indeed made in good faith."
- St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (1968 )
"At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern"
"[T]he freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty - and thus a good unto itself - but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole."
"We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions." "The First Amendment recognizes no such thing as a "false" idea"
"But even though falsehoods have little value in and of themselves, they are "nevertheless inevitable in free debate,""
"But for reasons heretofore stated this claim cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages when the conduct in question is the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody involved here."
- HUSTLER MAGAZINE v. FALWELL
Just a few citations for you to think over. If I wished to make a case for you being a limited purpose public figure, then I could show even more interesting citations, but I think I put enough effort for other kiwi's to enjoy, and for you to most likely ignore.
But you are very obviously acting like you're mentally ill, so to the best of our knowledge you are mentally ill, so it's not a false statement of fact.
That is true.
Remember when you met me? Yeah, neither do I. False statement. Unprotected.
Anger is a normal human response not a mental health condition.
Wrong.
Actually, yes you do. All physical and psychological assessments are in person.
Literally not true.
.
Not a single US court has ever forbid the publishing of public information, and indeed it never shall. If you are referring to the comment, and threat or death threat, such threat must "on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made [be] so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution" (United States v. Kelner (2d Cir. 1976) ). This is simply not the case here
