You are wildly off base to the point that you seem like a shill. Learn about tort law and the first amendment. Besides it not being injurious or necessarily false, It involves a public official so good luck proving actual malice.
Your response seems unnecessarirly harsh. Please be more civil (HN strives for civility) and understand that HN has a global audience with differing laws (the parent could use this same perspective that HN is global).
Meh. I think I feel what you do too. I do think everyone needs thicker skin and that we'd all be better if we did. However, just because we can lash out, and others can take a lashing, I think it's more effective to kindly point out someone's absurdity. They may have yelled first, if you yell back, no one can hear amongst all the noise. Bullying, regardless of what side one is on, is always a bad way to try and shut someone down. I don't believe the end justify the means.
> Your response seems unnecessarirly harsh. Please be more civil (HN strives for civility) and understand that HN has a global audience with differing laws (the parent could use this same perspective that HN is global).
If HN is American, the poster is American, and the subject of conversation is American, I'm not sure why we should give a damn that some other country has oppressive and censorious libel laws.
In Thailand, it's a crime to speak ill of the king. In Saudi Arabia, being gay is a capital offense. I hope you're not going to defend those just because they're laws that exist somewhere.
I would argue against the laws. I wouldn't harshly respond, or make a claim against their character, to someone who may not know that you can speak ill of the President in the U.S. I'd try to educate them and expose them to the fact that not everyone and every culture observes the same rules. That's all I'm trying to point out and say.
