• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sources: Checketts to drop Limbaugh



None taken, but it is quite easy to use Google. But if you want a lawyer (Right's still in school), there are actual practicing lawyers on the board.


And the law does work exactly as I said, which is why there aren't alot of libel slander cases against public figures. There sure are some, however.


If the law didn't work exactly as I said, the freedom of speech would be infringed by the burden of needed to verify the veracity of everything you say before you say it. Even false statements are protected, unless the plaintiff proves that the person who said it, or wrote it, knew it was true or was grossly negligent with regard to the truth.

I wonder why Page Six is able to stay in business, btw? They are often grossly negligent with regard to truth ....
 


Why, that Booker T. must have been a deeply racist person.....er...um...with a second. :shock:


j-mac
 


I think you misunderstand severely here. The lack of defamation cases is not due to the suspension of natural debate law which is what you are proposing here with your "prove the negative" meme. It is because many defamation suits fail to show how the defamatory statements have caused harm to the plaintiff. I already posted what goes into a defamation suit and it was pretty clear. Care to address that?


j-mac
 


Really? I am waiting for the support for the claim being made by several here that the burden of proof is on the defendant. It should be pretty easy to come up with. And, btw, defamation is not the same thing as libel, nor is it the same thing as slander. Just to clarify.
 


I am clear on the definitions, are you?

It's all right here, and it doesn't agree with your stance that the Plaintiff must prove the statements false.


www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/58250-sources-checketts-drop-limbaugh-14.html#post1058310558


j-mac
 

I'm not disagreeing with the notion its harder for public figures. This is absolutely true.

However the difference between Page Six and what happened with Rush is generally what's being said on Page Six, that happens to be untrue, doesn't generally have a legitimate chance of being shown damaged some sort of business venture.

Regardless of it all, it still basically rests on the notion that I still believe its patently obvious that if these sports reporters even gave two ****s about doing a good job rather than making a hit piece then Limbaugh would still be part of the user group. I find it disturbing, and rather pathetic, watching liberals here completely and utterly condoning the sinking of a persons private business ventures through the wide spread use of false information. I find it hillariously ironic its many of the same people who continually bitch about the birther buisness.
 


Perhaps you could read down the page of your own source, where it states the plaintiff must prove that all elements of a statement are false.:


 

As I understand it, Jackalope is pretty close to right on this(note, I am not a lawyer either, so take it for what it is worth). There are two reasons why public figures don't do alot of slander lawsuits, one being they create more problems than they solve, and because it is painfully hard to win since you have to prove intent.
 



You may have a point with regard to harm or damages (although, that is open for debate), however, in order to win a suit, Rush must first prove that the statements are false, and that the person making/writing them knew them to be false, or was grossly negligent with regard to the truth.
 
Looking at it closer.

No, Rush Limbaugh does not have to "prove" that he didn't say the things they sayd he said.

However

As a public figure, for it to be libel/slander, you are correct in him having to prove that the person that published the information knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard to its truth.

Now, reckless disregard is up to interpritation. Some may find requoting a line posted in a biased blog story, that reposts it from a biased book, a reckless disregard. I am unsure on what could argument could be made in regards to this if its shown that after announcing it to be false there was no further investigation by the author and no retraction or correction attempt made. Additionally, if any person in print or TV media continued using these quotes AFTER Limbaugh stated them false...giving reasonable reason to not take these things as truth...then you could also potentially have a case.

So yes, from a definition stand point they most assuredly did libel and defame Limbaugh. From a law point, its a much more difficult case due to the way we treat public figures. However, unlike most cases of public figures, this one has a slightly more tangiable example of "harm" than simple "loss of reputation".

So no, Limbaugh does not have to "prove" that those comments are false, but would need to prove they were stated knowing they were false or recklessly.

Sorry, I searched google, and I've still yet to show anything that states that Limbaugh must "prove a negative" by "proving" that the statements are false. Nothing's came up with that so far from what I've seen. Only that he must prove damage and that it was done intentionally or recklessly.
 
Last edited:

Please feel free to show where I said anything beyond "I believe he is", and that was in another thread, and no one knows for sure if any one is racist or not since we cannot read minds. Stop trying to create stuff where it ain't.

The reason why I don't feel bad for Rush, and I have stated this, is he is politically divisive and makes a living saying outrageous things, which there is nothing wrong with. However, there will be repercussions from being outrageous and divisive, and crying about it won't do any good. There is nothing wrong with me saying "Rush is an asshole and I will laugh at any bad thing that happens to him", and compared to some things said against lefties(oh, the selective outrage of you again), it's pretty mild.
 

Not disagreeing that its harder on public figures. Partially due to it being harder to prove damage, partially because its hard to prove they did it knowingly.

My issue is with the notion that Limbaugh must "prove" that he DIDN'T say something, which nothing I've seen backs it up. This would be like accusing someone of murder and them the person that is accused must "prove" they didn't really murder the person and if they can't prove it they must have murdered him. The legal system doesn't work that way.
 

To prove that he is being misquoted, he pretty much has to prove what he did say.
 

So it really does boil down to "all my ethics and morals about lying go out the window because I just don't like Rush".

Noted.

And I am getting a bit fed up with your lying crap about how selective my outrage is. If it were anyone else, I would be stating the same thing. Piss off.
 
Redress said:
To prove that he is being misquoted, he pretty much has to prove what he did say.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that Limbaugh has to somehow account for every single positive thing he's ever said anywhere at all to somehow prove that he's telling the truth when he says "I never said that quote"?

That doesn't make any sense at all.

This isn't a case of someone saying "On July 14th 1991 you said the following...." and Limbaugh going "That's not true" where you can go check it.

This is a case of someone saying "Limbaugh said this...." and Limbaugh going "No, I did not....".

And you're saying that somehow the first person is automatically considered to be telling the truth unless Limbaugh can somehow "prove" that he never said something at any point during his entire life?

This would be like a major news writer saying:

"This quote from Barack Obama obviously shows that he's from Kenya

'I was born and raised in Kenya, not in Hawaii'

Obviously, we now have proof that Obama is from Kenya, from his own quote"

and that somehow, some way, that should be considered TRUTH unless Obama can somehow prove he never said those words?
 
I guess the bottom line is this folks all of the Main Stream Media keep saying he said this but when anyone ask them to show the actual quote and source they can't. I say let Rush sue there arse off and then maybe we can get this type of BS finally stopped.
 
Last edited:
i still haven't seen or heard exactly what sharpton or jackson said. never the less, rush's partner dropped him.

i have every doubt that roger g. would have wanted rush as an owner anyway. the nfl doesn't need his controversy OR his money.
 
Zyphlin said:
And you're saying that somehow the first person is automatically considered to be telling the truth unless Limbaugh can somehow "prove" that he never said something at any point during his entire life?
Click to expand...

Of course. Because to the degenerate liberal mindset being displayed here in this very thread, it has already been confessed that it doesn't matter if it's true or not. Just stick it to Limbaugh any way you can because he's a "big mean bad bad man and we don't like him". Which is just translation for "he's a republican". Go figure.
 
liblady said:
i still haven't seen or heard exactly what sharpton or jackson said. never the less, rush's partner dropped him.

i have every doubt that roger g. would have wanted rush as an owner anyway. the nfl doesn't need his controversy OR his money.
Click to expand...

Really I guess you don't know much about the NFL first off they would love to have his money and so would the city of St.Lo, second as far as the Image thing please don't even go their.

I suggest all of you including Roger take a look in his own backyard first.

Enjoy reading this website.

NFL Crimes NewsBlog
 

No, that is not it at all. You so want to be outraged you are down to making crap up again. It's right back to you saying Letterman made a rape joke when the whole world knew he didn't, but you had to have the exaggeration so you could be outraged. You do have a real problem with selective outrage.

Part of what Limbaugh does to make a living is piss people off. He can't then turn around and complain that people act pissed off.
 


Since the media are sourcing a book, I'd imagine he'd have to prove the book made stuff up; probably in a he said - he said situation such as that, credibility of each of the parties, and notes, tapes, or any kind of sourcing that the author had would be relevant. It's an interesting case. However, as far as webpages sourcing the book, or media reporting it and sourcing it, Rush would have no case, I'd imagine.

I think the cases against the author, and the ones against media reporting what is published in the book, would be different. If he's gonna sue the media for reporting what's in the book, I'd bet he has to prove it's a fabrication, that they published with malice intending to harm his reputation, and did so knowing the information was false (or the reckless disregard thing).


And to bring it full circle, a poster posting such a link, sourcing a book, is well within the scope of acceptable sourcing. Particularly since the quotes in question are now in the media. I hear Rush is threatening to sue CNN and MSNBC over this. I hope he does. Could be interesting to watch.
 
Last edited:

It's "innocent until proven guilty". Since Limbaugh would be making the charge in court, he would have to prove that what is said about him is both inaccurate, and known to be inaccurate.

Again though, we might want to shelve this until a lawyer shows up, since I would bet we are both wrong in some ways, and RightInNYC can clear it up clearly.
 
jallman said:
Actually, it is exactly it and until you can learn to stop lying, I'm not interested in a goddamned thing you have to say.
Click to expand...

Good idea there. When you got nothing, feign even more outrage so you are not speaking to me, so you don't actually have to defend your foolishness. Very clever of you, in a vile sort of way.
 


Here's an examiner article from last night on whether or not Rush has a case. Interesting read:

Rush Limbaugh accuses CNN and MSNBC of repeating libelous lies
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…