FUCK LITTLE peter king **Michael Jackson is the KING OF POP*

[tsbrenda]

THE KINK OF POP

[SmashysmashY]

You can only sue someone for libel or defamation if they have a reason to believe what they're saying is false. When people make the same accusations against you for more than twenty years, people have every reason to believe you're a pedophile, even if you dodge a bullet in court.

[Dino Velvet]

Oh, about Peter King...

Ya notice how he makes all his big libelous comments once MJ is dead. It's so easy to call a dead man a pedophile. Jackson's estate should sue the prick.

I doubt anyone involved with MJ would want to open up that can of worms. He's lucky his money bought him better justice than anyone of us could afford and escaped a prison sentence. I think King would be licking his chops if a lawsuit was filed.

[Jericho]

THE KINK OF POP

How very apt!

[Beagle]

You can only sue someone for libel or defamation if they have a reason to believe what they're saying is false. When people make the same accusations against you for more than twenty years, people have every reason to believe you're a pedophile, even if you dodge a bullet in court.

So, you can call someone a pedophile and not have to prove it?

Do you really think you could accuse someone of pedophilia in public and not have to prove it and base your claim on hearsay?

[SmashysmashY]

You can only sue someone for libel or defamation if they have a reason to believe what they're saying is false. When people make the same accusations against you for more than twenty years, people have every reason to believe you're a pedophile, even if you dodge a bullet in court.

So, you can call someone a pedophile and not have to prove it?

Do you really think you could accuse someone of pedophilia in public and not have to prove it and base your claim on hearsay?

Absolutely, there are basically three major defenses for libel, truth, opinion, and fair comment. When a person has been embroiled in scandal for over two decades it's certainly fair comment to say that you think they're guilty. And even if you like the taste of Michael Jackson's dick so much that you want to deny that, it's a perfectly legitimate defense to say the person was expressing their opinion.

But all of that would be assuming that Michael Jackson had a reputation that was good enough to be damaged. Michael Jackson is pretty much libel-proof, meaning he had such a bad reputation that it's not possible for him to be defamed any further. The idea of suing someone for defamation when your standing in the community is so negative to begin with is pretty laughable.

[chefmike]

suckers...

[chefmike]

guilty...

[chefmike]

the king of pervs...

[Faldur]