[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you speaking of when you made the novel legal argument that defamation and fraud were not laws??

Under your "laws" vs "suits" argument (note that "suits" is a shortened version of "lawsuits", but I digress) would it be constitutional to allow suits where you could recover damages if anyone stated an opinion with which you disagree? Why not? It's just a "suit" not a "law."

[/ QUOTE ]

If the suit had merit (though it sounds like it wouldn't) it might manage to go forward. Probably the judge would just throw it out as frivolous, no?

Other than that, I don't see the relevance of your question.

Civil lawsuits seeking compensation for at-fault and unjust damages are different than making it a criminal or punishable offense to say something.

And Elliot's argument was not just "novel"--it was plain wrong, too--right, Elwood?