MMC wrote:
THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.

If it's true, it can't be slander. Apparently Carli doesn't know what
slander is. If sharing information about a product that is inferior or
harmful was illegal, we'd all get sued for trying to keep our kids from
smoking or buying Korean cars.


Normally I'd agree. But times have changed, and we U.S.
citizens don't have the rights we used to have.

The current administration believes that the 14th amendment
gives businesses the right to lie in advertising, and also
gives them the right to offer false statements in contracts.
I'd be willing to bet that their view of negative public
statements about a companies products, no matter the truth,
would be that it is slander.

It will be interesting to see how much of these beliefs the
Supreme Court will formally codify.

DSK